NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUDGET MANAGEMENT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: 

BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

67-193 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

MARCH 4, 1993 

Serial No. 103-9 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

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

ISBN 0-16-040859-8 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califm;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EV ANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

DANIEL P. BEARD, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawa_ii JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

AMY HOLLEY, Professional.._ Staff Member 

TONYA MITCHEM, Staff Assistant 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Clerk 

STEPHEN HODAPP, Republican Consultant on National Parks 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: March 4, 1993 .... ... ...... ... .... ........ .... ........ ... ...... ... .... ...... .... ....... ... ... .. . 1 

Statements: Opening statement of Chairman Vento .......................................................... 1 

Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah .......................... .. .... ...................................................... ..................... 2 

Hon. Craig Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wyoming. .......... ............................................................................................. 3 

Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 9 

Herbert S. Cables, Jr., Acting Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller; 

John H. Davis, Associate Director for Operations; and Denis P. Galvin, Associate Director for Planning and Development ....... .. ..... .... 9 

Hon. Robert F. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon . .. . . .. ... .... .... .... ... . . .. . . .... .... ... ... . ... . .. . . .. . .... .... .... ... . . .... ......... .. . . .. . . .. . . . ... 52 

APPENDIX 

MARCH 4, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: Chart entitled "NPS Appropriations Requested and Enacted Since FY 

1982 ($000's)," dated January 29, 1993 ............. .. .. ..... ................. .... .. ....... .. 63 

Letter dated March 8, 1993, from Chairman Vento to Herbert Cables, 

National Park Service, requesting information on NPS budget issues .... 65 

Letter dated April 9, 1993, from John H. Davis, Associate Director of 

Operations, Department of the Interior, responding to Chairman 

Vento's letter of March 8, 1993 ........................... .. ..... .......... ........................ 68 

(III) 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND FINANCIAL MANAGE-

:MENT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will be in order. 

We are meeting today to hear from representatives from the National Park Service regarding the National Park Service budget. 

Specifically, this is an oversight hearing on how the National Park 

Service budget is developed, prioritized and implemented, and how 

the expenditure of funds is accounted for. 

In November and December of 1992-actually, the National Park 

Service signaled that select programs and services in many national park units would be reduced or eliminated, and although I 

requested through our staff details of what was being proposed to 

be cut or the new benchmarks for the 1993 revisions, to date we 

have received only generalized information and descriptions. 

If the Park Service doesn't know what it is doing with its budget 

and can't explain this dramatic shift in this Noveml;>er/December 

1992, then the new Clinton administration may be on a very uncertain budget path in proposing supplemental appropriations in the 

pending stimulus package. 

I appreciate the good faith efforts of the new administration, especially Secretary Babbitt, to respond to what they believe is a legitimate budget shortfall. But I question the National Park Service 

posturing and communication by press release that was utilized as 

a messenger. Frankly, it raises serious credibility questions in my 

mind's eye as to the reliability and validity of such alleged shortfalls. 

Despite the fact that the National Park Service's operations 

budget has almost doubled in the last 10 fiscal years, aii operating 

budget shortfall was cited as the reason for the announced-budget 

cuts. 

(1) 
2 

Admittedly, maintaining appropriate funding levels in light of increasing public demands on the parks and National Park Service 

programs has been and will continue to be difficult. However, the 

National Park Service has not suffered the severe cutbacks other 

government agencies have experienced. In fact, Congress has approved more than requested for the National Park Service operations in all but two of the last 12 years, and the National Park 

Service funding has grown at a significantly greater rate than the 

rate of inflation. The economic stimulus package submitted by the President contains an additional $250 million in funding for National Park Service projects and programs, and Secretary of the Interior Babbitt 

has signaled strong support for parks and public lands. However, 

despite the cash infusion and the welcome comments of Secretary 

Babbitt, our Federal budget deficit will require a careful examination of all expenditures. Secretary Babbitt on several occasions recently has quoted a $6 billion backlog of construction and maintenance projects for the National Park Service. I don't know the basis 

for that figure. Hopefully, today's hearing will shed some light on 

that question. What I do know is that regardless of what the exact 

figure may be the National Park Service will have to firmly establish priorities, develop leaner budgets and demonstrate clear accountability for their position of Federal expenditures. The administration's Fiscal Year 1994 budget will not be submitted until early in April. I believe that before we begin the 1994 

budget process, and before we get too far into the legislative calendar, we should take time to carefully examine the current Park 

Service budget with particular focus on the extent, the basis and 

causes of the estimated fund shortfalls the development of the National Park Service budget, that we should examine it, the National Park Service budget accountability, and the National Park 

Service priorities. Representatives of the National Park Service are appearing 

today and will try to respond to my request and that of members. 

Your statements will be made part of the record in their entirety, 

without objection. The members' statements will be made part of 

the record in their entirety. And hearing no objection, so ordered. Do other members have opening statements? Mr. Hansen? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased you have 

called this hearing today as a matter of serious importance to both 

this committee and to the future of our national park system, 

mainly the issue of funding. The record reflects a substantial commitment by both the Congress-' on a bipartisan basis and by the 

past administration to funding of the national park system. There 

is no other agency within the Interior Department, I would venture 

to guess few other discretionary spending programs, where funding 

has grown by over 50 percent in the past 5 years than it has for 

the National Park Service. Yet, despite these funding increases we are hearing about park 

facilities closures and funding shortfalls around the country. This 

raises two questions: First, how are the funds being spent? And 
3 

second, why isn't it enough? Those of us on this side of the aisle 

have been concerned about funding accountability for some time. 

We have advocated in our annual budget views that there be greater accountability at parks for the nearly one billion that Congress 

allocates annually. 

It makes little sense to me for Congress to debate funding in 

great detail while park superintendents are provided total autonomy on expenditures. As the administration testimony points out, 

this committee must begin to show some restraint in the creation 

of new areas and expansion of existing parks. We all know of the 

magnitude of the backlog in park operations, construction and land 

acquisition. But despite the efforts of past Secretaries, the agency 

is unable to address this backlog because we, we the Congress, are 

creating new responsibilities faster than they can pay for them. 

Last Congress the Natural Resource Committee passed out $2.4 

billion in new parks and public lands spending. We cannot continue 

to expand the park system, often with sites of questionable merit, 

and at the same time -we are trying to adequately maintain and 

protect Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Zion, and other national treasures. In my 13 years on this we have created a number of parks. 

I have heard a number of those superintendents say, Why? People 

come one time and that is all they come. I may use the illustration 

of Great Basin., I have had more calls, more letters that say what did you make 

a park out of this for, there is nothing to see compared to Yellowstone and those other areas. I was looking at this list, "National 

Park Servicewide Priority Listing." Go to the back and look at the 

amount. It is unbelievable. It staggers the imagination-$2.2 billion is what they want. Then I went to my own parks, and we have 

got plenty of them in my State, and it doesn't even include many 

of the things they want. So, if you wrote them a check for this 

amount today, they could turn around and ask for the same 

amount tomorrow, and we still haven't taken care of it. It is unbelievable to me. I hope that all in this room will be able to resist this temptation 

to continually expand the park system simply because it would be 

a nice thing to do, and rededicate ourselves to taking care of the 

parks we have. We have got some beautiful, awesome parks 

around, and it just seems a shame to me that we don't take care 

of these crown jewels of America and keep creating every 15th 

piece of sagebrush out in the middle of Utah as a park because you 

folks from the East haven't seen a piece of sagebrush yet. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Are there other opening statements? 

Mr. Thomas? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not really. I am very 

much interested, however. I think this is an agency that does have 

a special need to bring forward their budget and with justification 

for it. As my colleague just pointed out, you know, this committee 

is basically more interested in looking at new parks than they are 

in the maintenance of those that we have. So I think it indicates 
4 

that there has to be a very strong position taken by your agency 

as to where you think those parks are, and in order to keep all of 

them at a level that we would like to see. 

I think it takes a strong statement on your behalf, and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, without objection, I have an "Office of National Park Service Appropriations for National Park Units Established Since 1980" by fiscal year budget, and this deals with the 

operation and maintenance, not the construction aspects of those, 

and it indicates-I haven't been able to add up for 1993, but out 

of a nearly $1 billion budget it indicates that about $15 million has 

been spent on new units that have been established, and operation 

and maintenance, since 1980. Fifteen million out of nearly one billion. 

So I will submit that for the record, and I would suggest my colleagues ought to look at it because this does indicate the point that 

you were making about the establishment of new units and a concern that the Park Service has credited so much of the operation 

and maintenance problems with these new units. I haven't been 

able to add this up completely, but I will get one of the staff members to do it here so we would know. / 

And I might say that even some of these units that they claim 

are new units, like Leeman Caves, was converted into Great Basin, 

so we are just absorbing all of the credit for that. But I want to 

point it out because I want to-while it is valid to some extent that 

that is correct. Without objection, that will be placed in the record. But it does indicate, for instance, San Francisco Maritime National 

Historic Park was an expanded unit which expended a lot of 

money. 

So, are there any objections? 

[No response] 

Mr. VENTO. That will go in the record. 

[The document follows:] 
ONPS APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIONAL PARK UNITS ESTABL

Qn thouSands ol dollars) 

Cal. Yr. 

~ ~ fY 1183 fY 1- fY 1- fY 1- fY 1187 fY 1

No Putc Unltt ENb'ltMd In Ule1 or 1882 

HARRY S TRUMAN NHS 1993 

General Management Plant - eo 56 54 32 - 

Opottlione 184 2$1 344 343 

- 379 

NATCHEZ TRACE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL 1993 

0.-al Management Plant - 70 - - - - 

Operdont - - - - - - 

POTOMAC HERITAGE NATIONAL SCENIC 1993 

TRAIL 

GREAT BASIN NP (INCLUDES LEHMAN 1-

CAVES NM) 

o.ti•raJ Management Plane - - - - 56 120 

Operation• 

- 'OT 251 252 270 1,028 

JIMMY CARTER NHS 1987 

O-,ieraJ MaMgement Plant - - - - - - 

Operatfon• - - - - - 28 

11187, 

El MALPAIS NM, ZUNI CIBOLA NHP 1-

0.neraJ Manegement Plane - - - - 20 40 

Oporldlono - - - - - 150 

TIMUCUAH ECOI.OOICAL • HISTORIC 11188 

RESERVE - - - - - - 

-~Plant - - - - - - 

Oporationo 

SAN FRANCISCO MARmME NHP 1-

Oen.,.al Management PSane - - - - - - 

Operatiom - - - - - - 
CelYf. 

f!!!!5..l!!!!I b!e!, D'..!!!' n 1- .D'...!!!f n 1- "-1.!!! rLl!!

CHAA1.ES P1NCICNEY NHS 1-

Gonoral----!'1... - - - - - - 

Operation< - - - - - - 

NATCHEZNHP 1-

Gen.,.al Manegement Plane - - - - - 9 

~ation• - - - - - - 

BOSTON AFRICAN-AMERICAN NHS 1-· 

0.ne,al M- P!... - - - - - - 

Operatlono - 5 110 107 114 115 

GAULEY R1VE11 NRA, 11.UESTONE NSR 1-

OeneralM-P!... - - - - - - 

Oporationo - - - - - - 

STEAMTOWN NHS 1-

General ManagerMnt Pl.,,. - - - - 1,000 - 

Operations - - - - - - 

POVERTY POINT NM 1-

Oener•I Man~ Plane - - - - - - 

~,_.one - - - - - - 

NATIONAL PARK Of AMERICAN SAMOA 1988 

General Management Ptant 

Opt,rationt - - - - - - 

CITY OF ROCKS NATIONAL RESERVE 1988 

OaneraJ M_.,, Plana - - - 19 - - 

Ope, ....... - - - - - - 

HAGERMAN FOSSIL BEDS NM 1988 

o.n.,aJ ~ "'- - - - - - - 

()per ....... - - - - - - 
Cal. Yr, 

f!!!!U!.!!II l!!!!!!. 

MISSISSIPPI NR • RA 1-

0-aJMon_P1_ 

Operadona 

ULYSSES S GRANT NHS 1989 

Genctral~Plana 

Operationt 

PETROGLYPH NM 1890 

General ~•o•m•nt Plane 

Operations 

WEIR FARM NHS 1990 

General Management Plant 

Operation• 

NIOBRARA/MISSOURI NR 1991 

General Management Plana 

Operation, 

MARY MCLEOD BETHUNE COUNCIL 

HOUSE NHS 1991 

General Management Plana 

Operation, 

SALT RIVER BAY NHP la 

ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE 1992 

MANZA.NA.A NHS 1992 

General Management Plan• 

Operation• 

MARSH,BIWNOS NHP 1992 

General Managt,ment Plana 

Operations 

DAYTON AVIATION NHP 1992 

LITTLE RIVER CANYON NATIONAL PRESERVE1992 

BROWN V. IIOARD OF EDUCATION NHS 1992 

General Management ~• 

Operation, 

rI..1!H rum W!!I W!!! !l'...l!!! fl.!!!

30 
PARK UNIT 

KEWEENAW NHP 

General Management Plane 

Ope,ations 

GREAT EGO HARBOR - • SR 

cal. Yr. 

~ fl!!!! ,v ,-ru.m rv 1- "-1!!! !!..!.

11182 

11182 

• YHr d .. lgnated H • untt of the National Parll System tlftef being Ntabllehed In an Mrtief yMr. 
9 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a very 

brief opening comment? 

Mr. VENTO. Oh. Okay. Mr. Duncan? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mr. DUNCAN. I don't have a formal opening statement but I do 

want to say that I agree with everything that Mr. Hansen has just 

said. If I was a Baptist, I would have said, "Amen." 

I want to say that I am pleased that the chairman has called 

these hearings. He talked about the very large increases in funding 

for the National Park Service. There is greater concern in the country today about the deficits and the national debt than I have ever 

seen before. It is the number one topic out in the country. There 

are many, many people wondering now whether the Federal Government can do anything in an efficient, economical way, and the 

burden of proof is going to be on all agencies to justify their spending in a much deeper and more serious way than they have ever 

done, I believe, in the past. And so I am glad that we are holding these hearings and I look 

forward to the testimony of the witnesses. Thank you very much. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman. Anyone else have an opening 

statement? 

Mr. Underwood, I note, is present. We appreciate his participation. 

Mr. Doolittle? Others? 

[No response] 

Mr. VENTO. If not, let me then tum-we have a number of individuals, the Acting Director, Mr. Cables, is here from the National 

Park Service. We welcome him. He is accompanied by Bruce 

Sheaffer, the Comptroller, Mr. Jack Davis, formerly the superintendent at Grand Canyon-had the privilege of meeting him in 

that particular venue on a visit, and he is now the Associate Director for Operations; and Mr. Denis Galvin is present, the Associate 

Director for Planning and Development. Your statement I have received and looked over, Mr. Cables. It 

has been made part of the record by a previous request. You can 

read the relevant portions thereof or summarize. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HERBERT S. CABLES, JR., ACTING DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER; JOHN 

H. DAVIS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS; AND 

DENIS P. GALVIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before you and your subcommittee today. Much has been reported in the media about the financial shortfall confronting our 

national parks. In addition to the material we sent you earlier I am 

pleased to be here to further explain some of the pressures confronting the National Park System. Let me first note with great pleasure the President's decision to 

include the National Park Service as a major component in his 
10 

stimulus package announced on February 17th. The President's action will allow us to address many of the issues I wish to discuss 

here today with my colleagues. 

The pressure we must confront daily includes new units have 

been added without adequate funding. For the past three years, the 

Service has had to absorb portions of pay raises from its operating 

budget. Increases in base funding have not kept pace with inflationary expenses. Parks that were historically seasonal in nature 

are having their seasons extended to the point that many of them 

are now year-round parks, and no new funding has been available 

for the extended season. Maintenance of facilities is costing more 

because of the deferred nature of the work. What should have been 

routine upkeep becomes major rehabilitation because work is deferred until it becomes critical. Visitation continues to increase. All 

of these demands have seriously affected our ability to maintain 

the high standards that the public has come to expect from the National Park Service. 

It is true that the National Park Service budget has increased, 

but not sufficiently to offset the new demands on our operational 

programs. 

Mr. Chairman, many of the construction projects funded by Congress have merit. However, with the shrinking of our operating 

budget, we are having great difficulty operating and maintaining 

these new facilities and our maintenance backlog continues to 

grow. However, I am pleased to note, Mr. Chairman, that the administration's fiscal 1993 economic stimulus supplemental includes 

a total of $254 million for the National Park Service, including $30 

million for additional seasonal operations. If these funds are appropriated by Congress, they will be used by parks nationwide to ensure that visitor services are provided this summer, thus preventing the closing of campgrounds and other facilities that you may 

have read about in the paper. 

Until we are able to maintain our present operating levels, we 

cannot afford program expansion. If program expansion is essential 

at the cost of inflationary increases, then we must all, the legislative branch and executive branch, make conscious reductions in our 

existing programs of resource protection and visitor service. We 

cannot be expected to continue to maintain the National Park Service base program when the only increases granted are for system 

expansion or new initiatives. Increased costs and inflationary operating expenses erode base funding required to maintain the status 

quo in standard park programs. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, you have expressed some concern relative to 

budget accountability and fiscal controls within the National Park 

Service. We, over the last week, have provided the subcommittee 

with a number of documents related to our budget formulation and 

budget execution process. We do our utmost to abide by and follow 

the will and intent of Congress in the expenditure of resources. We 

are continuing to improve our fiscal management to ensure that 

our budgets are executed as formulated by the administration and 

appropriated by Congress. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statements, and I and 

my colleagues will be happy to respond to any questions you or the 

committee would have. 
11 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Cables, for your statement. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cables follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HERBERT S . CABLES, JR., ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE NATIONAL 

PARK SYSTEM. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you and your subcommittee today. 

Much has been reported in the media about the financial shortfall confronting our national parks. In addition to the material we sent you earlier, I am pleased to be 

here to further explain some of the pressures confronting the National Park System. Let me first note with great pleasure the President's decision to include the National Park Service as a major component in his stimulus package announced on February 17. The President's action will allow us to address many of the issues I 

wish to discuss here today. The pressures we must confront daily include: New units have been added without adequate funding. 

For the past 3 years the Service has had to absorb portions of pay raises from 

its operating budget. 

Increases in base funding have not kept pace with inflationary expenses. Parks that were historically seasonal in nature are having their seasons extended 

to the point that many of them are now year-round parks, and no new funding has 

been available for the extended season. New requirements have been imposed legislatively or administratively such as hazardous waste clean-up and environmental protection dealing with lead paint and 

fluorocarbons. Maintenance of facilities is costing more because of the deferred nature of the 

work. What should have been routine up-keep becomes major rehabilitation because 

work is deferred until it becomes critical. 

Visitation continues to increase. All of these demands on our parks have seriously affected our ability to maintain 

the high standards that the public has come to expect from the National Park Service. 

It is true that the National Park Service budget has increased, but not sufficiently 

to offset the new demands on our operational programs. It should also be noted that 

significant portions of these increases have been for specific initiatives such as our drug program, the housing initiative and the hazardous waste program. In addition our total FY 93 operating budget request was reduced by $34 million, and $92 million was added to our construction budget for projects which we did not request. Mr. Chairman, many of the construction projects, funded by the Congress, have 

merit. However, with the shrinking of our operating budgets, we are having great 

difficulty operating and maintaining these new facilities and our maintenance backlog continues to grow. However, I am pleased to note, Mr. Chairman, that the Administration's FY 1993 

Economic Stimulus Supplemental includes a total of $254 million for the National 

Park Service, including $30 million for additional seasonal operations. If these funds are appropriated by the Congress, they will be used by parks nationwide to ensure that visitor services are provided this summer, thus preventing the closing of campgrounds and other facilities that you may have read about in the paper. In addition 

to alleviating our operating budget pressures, these funds will result in additional 

temporary employment opportunities. Until we are able to maintain our present operating levels, we cannot afford program expansion. If program expansion is essential at the cost of inflationary increases, then we must all, the legislative branch and executive branch, make con- scious reductions in our existing programs of resource protection and visitor service. We cannot be expected to continue to maintain the National Park Service base program when the only increases granted are for system expansion or new initiatives. Pay increase costs and inflationary operating expenses erode base funding required 

to maintain the status quo in standard park programs. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, you have expressed some concern relative to budget accountability and financial controls within the National Park Service. We, over the last 

week, have provided the subcommittee with a number of documents related to our budget formulation and budget execution process. We do our utmost to abide _by and 

follow, the will and intent of the Congress in the expenditure of resources. We are continuing to improve our financial management to ensure that our budgets are exe- cuted as formulated by the Administration and appropriated by the Congress. 
12 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and I will be happy to re- spond to any questions the subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. The new unit issue that I raised and which has been 

raised by my colleagues, who have sharply questioned the addition 

of new units, I looked at the 1993 budget and based on that, of 

course, even assuming the entire San Francisco Maritime National 

Historic Park expenditure in the Great Basin, which also included 

Leeman Caves, I came to the conclusion after about $15 million in 

operation and maintenance dollars there. Is that an accurate figure, Mr. Cables, $15 million out of $984 million in operation appropriation that is projected for this year? 

Mr. CABLES. Let me ask the Comptroller to answer. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Sheaffer, do you understand the question? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I think what I understand that you have done 

there is total up the operating budgets of the parks that were 

added in the course of the Eighties. Is that correct? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Mr. SHEAFFER. If so, that I believe is about the right number. 

Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Cables, who makes the determinations as to the 

available and extended season of the units of the National Park 

System in terms of their length of operation. Is that legislated? Is 

that in appropriations or in authorizing legislation? 

Mr. CABLES. No, it isn't. That comes about as a result of visitor 

demand on the facilities of the park. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, who makes the decision? 

Mr. CABLES. The superintendent. Mr. VENTO. The superintendent of the park? 

Mr. CABLES. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Is that approved then by the Director and/or the regional office? 

Mr. CABLES. I would imagine that that is approved by the regional office in consultation. 

Mr. VENTO. In other words, either it is or it isn't. It is or it isn't, 

or you don't know the answer? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, I think that in some instances given the size 

of the park and the management responsibility inherent in that 

particular park, as, for instance, a Yellowstone, that the superintendent would have discussions with his regional office relative 

to any increased program responsibilities that were being asked. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Cables, this hearing is specifically to look at the 

operation and maintenance budget of the Park Service. Is that 

clear to you? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. VENTO. I note in your testimony you refer to the merit or demerits of various construction projects either proposed by the Park 

Service, encouraged by Park Service or encouraged by individual 

members that are signed into law. You know I have obviously 

taken issue with many of those, and I would just relate that I have 

been one of the stronger advocates, I might say, for fighting some 

of those projects, sometimes alone. 

And furthermore, that with regards to operation and maintenance I have always placed that number one on the committee's re-
13 

quest and advice to the Budget Committee and to the Appropriations Committee. But I am concerned about what has occurred in 

the 1993 budget. 

Is there a written order or policy change to the regions or the 

units to review cuts in line with the 1993 appropriation enacted in 

early October that was given to or ordered to the units or the regions in November or earlier? Where is the written order that prescribed or redesigned or reframed that particular provision? I 

would like to see the written order. Mr. CABLES. There is no written order; Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. If there is no written order, then how is this-who 

is responsible for communicating this, and what was the magnitude 

of it, the dimensions of it? 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, the original shortfall was first noticed 

by the park areas themselves in response to the fact that the increases that they were seeking were not a part of the allocation 

that they received in 1993, and each individual park then began to 

look at what adjustments they felt were necessary in their park 

programs to live within the budget that they had been given. 

After a couple of the units indicated that there were some closures that were going to be necessary, we then called nationally for 

a report on what closures would be envisioned. Now, when I talk 

about closures I am not talking about closing the entire park, but 

rather major reductions in season, closing the specific facilities, but 

not general adjustments in program level. And, as a result of that, 

then we structured an approved program, which is in writing, in 

which we approved the cutbacks that had been recommended by 

superintendents after consultation with their regional directors. 

Mr. VENTO. So there is no written order. This was initiated in 

response to the allocation for individual park units at the park unit 

level, not at the regional level, if I understand your answer, Mr. Davis. Mr. DAVIS. Well, the allocation is to the regional office and subsequently to each park. Mr. VENTO. Well, I think I am a little bit behind. I am earlier 

in the period of history here. You say it was initiated by the individual park units in terms of their allocation? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. And that subsequently as informatioμ began to 

occur, I guess, and be available that the Director then decided that 

he was going to direct the parks and try to coordinate this. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, was there an order sent out with regards to it 

at that point in the sequence? Was there a written order or is there 

written documentation or letters communicating this, or was this 

all done over the telephone, orally? 

Mr. DAVIS. Basically, the request went out orally to report any 

closures. 

Mr. VENTO. To whom? 

Mr. DAVIS. To the Regional Directors and they to their parks. 

67-193 O - 93 - 2 
14 

Mr. VENTO. And so there is no written record of what you are 

asking the regions to do or what the regions are asking the parks 

to do; is that correct? 

Mr. DAVIS. There may well be a very brief written instruction. I don't recall or have it with me. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I have a note here of December 16, 1992, it 

says adjustments for Fiscal Year 1993. Of course, this is well after 

the process is underway. I haven't had a chance to read it, but I 

see that there was some written instruction given here. I would ask unanimous consent to place this in the record. 

[The information follows:] 
• L""lULYIDlllO. 

15 

United States Department of the Interior 

:-.IATIONAL PARK SERVICE , .0 ... ,11:n 

w...iw.s- D.C. :!OOIS-TI:17 

DEC 16 S9Z 

Memorand\111 

To: 

From: 

Regional 

Director 

Di~ 

• 

Subject: Adjustments for the Fiscal Year 1993 Operations Budget 

Thank you for your prompt response to my call to analyze the 

operating budget shortfalls for the parks. Given the situation as presented to me, I felt we had to take immediate action or we could not expect to ·realize the savings that are going to be 

necessary. 

Attached is a list of the more significant savings measures you 

have submitted to me. I approve these measures in concept with 

the understanding that these adjustments may need to be modified as we move further into the fiscal year. These decisions are best made at the park level but I want each major decision to be 

approved at the regional level. I leave it to your judgement on any decisions that should come to the Washington 'l~vel for 

review. ' 

As you know, in addition to what you are doing in the parks, I 

have frozen hiring at the Washington and regional levels. I 

would call my action a "flexible freeze• in that I know there are positions that must be filled in order for operations to 

continue. 

You may take action to curtail hiring, defer maintenance and 

delay equipment purchases at the park level if you believe it 

necessary to stay within budget. The protection of our park resources and the health and safety of our visitors must take 

first priority. 

If you have major additions or deletions to your present plans, 

contact Jack Davis before making the change so we can coordinate 

with appropriate Washington Office personnel and the committees 

of Congress. 

Make sure you or your Superintendents communicate your plans as broadly as possible. The congressional delegations should be 

alerted as well as State and local interest groups. our public 
16 

information offices are going to need to stay right on top of 

this issue as individual• and professional travel planners fro• 

around the vorld need to know if ve are going to Jl&ke any changes 

that aight significantly altar their plans. 

Do not aiss this opportunity to learn so• ething positively or negatively about visitor use patterns during this ti• e. We aay 

find that so•• areas should routinely be closed on a seasonal 

basis. 

Thank• for your help. Lat'• closely monitor this situation a • the year progresses. 

AttachJDent 
17 

FY 1993 SERVICEWIDE OPERATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS 

ALIIQ BJGJOJ( 

No park closures are proposed in the Alaska Region due to the 

budget shortfall. 

KID-ATLNfTIC gzqIQll 

Independence NHP will continue with their previously approved closures of nine buildings for various lengths of time. However, 

since their initial announcement of the closures on November 2,0, 

the regional office has co-itted $20,000 to the park. This will 

allow for the extended s~er hours of visitation for the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. 

Shenandoah NP's modified proposal includes the closing of Mathews 

Arm Campground for calendar year 1993, delaying the opening of 

the Big Meadows Campground from M~rch l until Kay 28, 1993, 

closing Camp Hoover for calendar year 1993 and a reduction in 

visitor center hours with consolidation of interpretive programs. 

Friendship Hill NHS will be closed 2 days a week for FY 1993. 

The Gallatin House has fully opened to the public only recently now that the restoration is virtually complete. 

Fort Necessity NB will close 2 days per week for FY 1993. 

MIDWEST REGION 

Apostle Islands - Close least-used campsites on outer islands in 

September rather than October. 

Close Little Bay Sand Contact Station 30 percent of the season. 

Pictured Rocks - Close Grand Sable Visitor center and Maritime 

KuseUD for 4 weeks. 

sleeping Bear Dunes - Will not open new amphitheater at Platte 

River Campground. 

Voyageurs - Close Ash River Visitor Center approximately 38 

percent-during the s~er months. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 

District of Columbia 

National Mall and downtown monuments and memorials. The tree 

removal and replacement program throughout in East and West 

Potomac Parks and the smaller downtown Federal parks will be 

curtailed. 
18 

Rock creek Park - Rock creek Nature Center will only be open Wednesday through Sunday instead of daily. 

Maryland 

c,o canal National Historical Park. Great Fall• to CUlllberland, 

Maryland. 

Historic restoration work will cease on the Four Locks School 

which was slated to become a heritage co-unity center. 

Glen Echo Park - repairs to a leaky roof and a new exterior paint job on the historic carrousel will be deferred. 

Oxon Hill Farm - all special seasonal events and weekend 

demonstrations such as sheep shearing, corn planting and the 

country music program have been canceled. 

Virginia 

Arlington House. the Home of Robert E. Lee - scheduled 

maintenance and repair work on the stucco exterior of the 

historic home will not be funded, nor will funds be available to 

marbleize the classic columns of the portico overlooking Arlington Cemetery. 

George Washington Memorial Parkway - maintenance of floral 

displays along the parkway will be reduced along with moving 

schedules. 

Bike patrols along the 18-mile long Mount Vernon bicyclepedestrian trail will be eliminated during winter and reduced to 

weekend only operation at other times of the year. 

The deteriorated seawall at Belle Haven Marina vill not be 

replaced. 

The visitor contact station at Turkey Run Park vill be eli.ainated 

and restrooms closed. 

Prince William Forest Park - the park visitor center may have to 

be closed 2 days per week for a portion of the year. 

Major preservation work on all the historic cabin and mess balls, 

which are grouped into five Cabin Camp sites for group use, will 

have to be deferred. 

The park's environmental education program for about 5,000 area school children will be delayed for at least 1 year. 
19 

West Virginia 

Harpers Ferry NHP - several historic building• in the old town area and the adainistration building will not 9et new roots•• 

planned. 

IQRTB ATLNQ'IC RIQIQII 

Springfield Armory National Historic site will close museW1 on Mondays between January 4 and Memorial Day. 

PACIPIC NORTBWEST REGIQI 

Craters of the Moon NM visitor center will be closed on Martin 

Luther King Day and President's Day. 

Mount Rainier NP will not groom and staff the •snow Play" area at 

Paradise. 

Horth Cascades NP - Colonial Creek Campground (190 sites) and 

Hozomeen Campground (140 sites) will only operate between 

Memorial Day and Labor Day. 

The Stehekin Shuttle Bus service will be cut by reducing the 

number of vans rented from GSA and a number of interpreters and 

drivers hired. 

Rocgy MOUNTAIN REGION 

Bighorn Canyon NRA (parkvide) - 50 percent reduction in number 

of seasonal law enforcement rangers hired and 50 percent 

reduction in number ot seasonal interpretive rangers hired. 

North Unit - no lifeguards at Ok-A-Beh and Fort Smith Visitor 

Center closed weekdays during winter and early spring. 

Black canyon of the Gunnison NM - limiting snowplow effort on South Ria and seasonal closure of small Gunnison Point Visitor 

Center. 

Bryce Canyon NP - cease snowplowing on roads to Bryce and 

rnspiration Points. 

curec·anti NRA - 21 percent of seasonal staff will be cut. 

Devils Toyer NM - visitor center will open 1 month later. 

Glacier NP - reduce seasonal bear management and eliminate fall 

maintenance work. 

Glen Canyon NRA - close three campgrounds (Wahveap, Bullfrog, 

Halls Crossing from December 15 - March 15), close Bullfrog Visitor Center and ground the "Goose"--amphibious aircraft. 
20 

Mesa Verde NP - operate Wetherill Mesa from Memorial Day to Labor 

Day only and Far View Visitor Center would be cut 4 weeks in the 

spring and 1-1/2 weeks in the fall. 

Rocky Mountain NP - reduced hours of operation for park facilities including entrance stations and visitor centers and 

the opening of Fall River Road to be deferred. 

Timpanogos Caye NM - reduce operating season at the cave. 

SOUTHEAST REGION 

In some parks it will be necessary to shorten camping seasons, 

cancel interpretive programs or close visitor centers earlier in 

the day . Will consider closing lesser-used parks on certain 

holidays. 

Alabama 

Horseshore Bend NMP, Russell Cave NM and Tuskegee Institute NHS 

will meet budget reductions by trimming seasonal jobs and cutting 

back on interpretive talks and programs. 

Florida 

Canaveral NS and Fort Matanzas NM will reduce operating hours. 

Gulf Islands NS will eliminate some summer lifeguard jobs. Other 

parks such as Castillo de San Marcos NM. Dry Tortugas NP. De Soto 

and Fort Caroline National Memorials and Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic Preserve will reduce interpretive programs. Three parks 

in south Florida -- Eyerglades NP. Biscayne NP and Big Cypress NP 

already are operating at reduced visitor levels due to damages 

fro• Hurricane Andrew. 

Georgia 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga NMP, also in Tennessee, will limit 

weekend interpretive programs in the off season. Fort Pulaski NM 

will cut back summer operating hours of it• visitor center. 

Kennesaw Mountain NBP will cancel anniversary programs and reduce summer operating hours for the visitor center. 

Kentucky 

Mammoth Caye NP will close two campgrounds from December through 

February. Cumberland Gap NHP will delay opening of seasonal 

picnic areas and reduce visitor shuttle service to Hensley 

Settlement. 

Mississippi 

Reduced roadside mowing, litter pickup and cutbacks in other 

maintenance services are planned at Natchez Trace Parkway. which 

also extends i nto Alabama and Tennessee. 
21 

North Carolina 

cape Hatteras NS • ight be forced to close salvo campground. The 

park also may eli• inate s\lllllller lifeguard jobs at three beach••• 

No closings are planned for the Blue Ridge Parkway in North 

carolina and Virginia, but seasonal employment will be reduced or curtailed. 

Tennessee 

Great smoky Mountains NP, also in North Carolina, will terminate 

its exotic wild hog reduction program. Fort Donelson NB may close the historic Dover Hotel to visitors. 

Puerto Rico 

Seasonal maintenace jobs will be eliminated at San Juan NHS. 

Virgin Islands 

Would cut back on seasonal workers and leave permanent positions 

unfilled at Virgin Islands NP. Christiansted NHS and Buck Island 

Reef NM. 

SOUTHWEST REGION 

Capulin Volcano NM - close road to crater rim from January 1, 

1993 through March 15, 1993. 

carlsbad Caverns NP - close Slaughter canyon cave to visitor use from December 15, 1992 through March 15, 1993. 

Chickasaw NRA - close Central and Guy Sandy campgrounds all year, close the last loop of Rock Creek Campground all year and close 

Point Campground April 5 through September JO. 

DSTEJUI REGION 

Coronado NM - close visitor center for seven holidays. 

Death Valley NM - extending the normal seasonal closures of the 

Texas Spring, Sunset, Stovepipe Wells and Emigrant Campgrounds. 

Lassen Volcanic NP - Butte Lake Campground water system will 

remain closed throughout FY 1993. 

Lava Beds NM - close visitor center J days-a-week and close 

campground Monday through Thursday. 

Petrified Forest NP - reduce hours at Painted Desert vc, Rainbow 

Forest Museum. 

Point Reyes NS - Bear Valley Visitor Center will be closed 2 days 

per week, May - September. 
22 

Santa Monica Mountains RA - close Happy Hollow Caapground fro• 

January - April. Visitor center will remain closed on holidays 

and SUndays. 

Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP - reduce hours at visitor centers and 

seasonal closure of soae campgrounds. 

Tonto NM - curtail guided weekend tours to the upper and lower 

ruins. 

Whiskeytown NRA - close group reservation areas, reduce hours at 

visitor information center and increase closure of one swim beach area. 

Yosemite NP - depending on weather conditions, defer opening of 

Tioga Road in the spring, reduce visitor center hours, decrease 

coverage of information stations and seasonally close some campgrounds in outlaying areas. 
23 

Mr. VENTO. The process, of course, is that the Appropriation 

Committee appropriates and they place an allocation for each park 

in their record, and that then is what is followed, is that correct, 

in terms of the allocation of dollars for park units? 

Mr. DAVIS. Basically that is correct, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. In terms of the finalized version, that is to say you 

presented upon our request the Fiscal Year 1993 Servicewide Operati6nal Adjustments for the various regions, Mr. Davis. Is that the 

document that you suggest formalizes the nature of the changes in 

the various regions? 

Mr. DAVIS. The attachments to the December 16 memorandum. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. We asked for the number of dollars of savings that 

would occur there. There are no dollar savings attached to that. 

Why? 

Mr. DAVIS. We do have information available on that we can provide, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding in the request for 

the information. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, there are no dollars attached. What is the savings that is attained or achieved through these various actions. For 

instance, you suggest-let's take the Pacific Northwest Region. You 

know, there are a number of closures here: the Craters of the Moon 

to Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Mr. Keegan shuttle bus 

service. What are the savings in the Pacific Northwest Region? 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to provide the exact dollar amounts for that, but I do not have it with me today. Mr. VENTO. Well, I mean this goes through the entire basis. Why 

is it that in some regions there is very little change? I think I know 

the answer to this. But they say you are not supposed to ask questions if you don't know the answer. But why are there some significant cuts in some areas and other areas have less of a cut? Mr. Cables? 

Mr. CABLES. Mr. Chairman, I think at this point I would like to 

make the point to you and the members that the December 16 letter and the cuts that were proposed in service were judgments that 

were made by the regional office and the superintendent to allow 

for those services that they in a prioritized way felt were most important. So there is no real savings in a true sense other than a 

determination that those things that were most important in terms 

of the operation of that park were going to be benefiting by the cuts 

that were being proposed. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, you know, you say that there are not dollars 

and cents savings, but I think when we read in the paper, back in 

the newspaper articles, I might say, that appeared in January it 

looked like there were dollar savings there to me. It says the parks' 

operating budget and it goes through. The Park Service says it has 

a $34 million shortfall in its operation budget. It suggests that 

there are actual dollar savings. You are saying there are no dollar 

savings? 

Mr. CABLES. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that there was 

a $34 million shortfall. 

Mr. VENTO. Million. Million. 

Mr. CABLES. Million, that is what I said. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 
24 

Mr. CABLES. I am sorry. I thought I said $34 million. And that 

the park superintendents were requested to take a look at those 

services that they were going to have to cut on the basis of shortfalls in their budget. 

Mr. VENTO. But then in terms of doing that, how much dollars 

are expected to be saved by the various regions? You know, the 

point is we have got this sort of oral request of the regions, an oral 

request apparently which was followed up by this December 16th 

memo. Then you come back with all of these changes but you can't 

attach dollar amounts to the changes coming back, and you have 

requested no dollar amounts for the changes going out. You know, obviously, it seems to me to be a less than precise way 

to accomplish a goal of achieving or attaining that. 

Mr. CABLES. What you are doing, in essence, is you are stuck 

with a position of having less than you need to maintain the system, and therefore you are in a position of having to take a look 

at those things that you might curtail for a period of time in order 

to save money, and that is expected to give you a sufficient amount 

equal to the amount that you are short of, and that is what the 

parks have done. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I would just suggest that it is not a very precise means in terms of budgeting, if somebody is asking me for additional dollars in terms of saying we don't have enough and then 

we have sort of this material come back. Mr. Davis has suggested 

that he can put dollar figures to each of these particular items; in 

fact, that he has dollar figures for them. You suggest, Mr. Cables, 

that we don't have dollar figures. Am I misunderstanding something? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes. I don't think I said that we don't have dollar 

figures. What I thought tha~r what I was attempting to say to 

you is that the cuts that were being made were the dollars that 

were needed to support those activities in the park that we deemed 

to be essential. So there are dollars to be saved taken from other 

operations within the park and the region. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, you know, it does seem to me to be quite a mixture of things. In some cases, though-obviously, we pointed out in 

the Pacific Region where there were closures of the parks; in other 

words, that is seen to be a common method of doing it. But other 

areas, it looks like there has been a postponement or different 

modifications that have occurred here. Maybe it is mostly closures, 

but it seemed to me that there were other types of activities that 

were put off that were costs. For instance, in Maryland at Glen Echo Park the repairs to a 

leaky roof and a new exterior paint job on the historic carousel 

would be deferred. Historic restoration work will cease on Four 

Locks School. I don't know what this means. The C&O Canal National Historic Park, Great Falls to Cumberland, Maryland. It 

doesn't say anything there. That is a statement that is not clear 

to me what savings would occur by virtue of that statement. So 

there is a seasonal closing at Ox Hill. In other words, it seems in some cases there is maintenance and 

other things that are deferred, you know, in terms of these-it isn't 

just a seasonal closure, so I don't understand what the priorities 
25 

are in terms of how. For instance, the Maryland area of the Capital 

Region seems to have interpreted that completely different. 

In Virginia the Robert E. Lee maintenance and repair work on 

stucco exterior at a historic house will not be funded, nor the 

marbelization of the columns. The maintenance of floral displays 

and George Washington. So some of these appear not to be seasonal closings. 

So how would you differentiate these-this list of priorities, how 

were they considered? Did you give them the list of priorities, Mr. 

Cables? Or did the Park Service? 

Mr. CABLES. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think it is important to recognize that this all happened very quickly, and park superintendents, again, were given 

their appropriate allotment of money and then were asked to make 

judgments on how they would best use that money in meeting the 

obligations of that park, that specific park, whether it be resource 

preservation or visitor services. And they took the least offensive 

choice that they could and articulated those things they would not 

be able to do. There was no money withdrawn from them in this 

sense, nor were they given additional funding. They were just saying with the money that has been appropriated to me, these are 

the steps that I am going to have to take with respect to operation 

of facilities. You will find that some parks did not close any facilities and 

therefore did not report to us. But they may have adjusted the 

number of employees in a given facility or perhaps adjusted the 

hours on a facility, and we would not have had that information 

totally coming back to us. 

But it was basically the individual park strategy and living within the budget allocation that was developed, approved in the regional office, and in some cases adjusted, and that submitted to the 

Washington office where we reviewed, made some adjustment, and 

then this was accepted in the Director's communication of December 16 in which many of the park dollar amounts are identified. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Davis, I would just comment that, obviously, I didn't expect to see 340 units laid out before me in terms 

of adjustments made. But it just occurs to me that without a listing 

offriorities, and you have replied that some of them were personne curtailment in terms of hours or lay-offs, but, you know, some 

parks didn't choose to report back to you. I mean this, obviously, 

is a very incomplete picture then with the regions. I mean the regions have to come up with savirigs; $30 million is a lot of savings, 

and I don't know that without any priorities in some cases it is seasonal or closing of facilities or not opening of facilities or not plowing roads in some areas, in other areas it is dealing with deferred 

maintenance. We know that that simply results in more costs down 

the road, by and large. There may be some instances where it is 

more cosmetic, I guess, with floral displays along the parkway. We 

will probably be able to live without that. But in any case-and 

then some are personnel. 

So it just seems to me that this process to say the least is not 

very coherent to me at this particular point, although probably the 

explanation is just lacking with regards to what I think would be 
26 

a sound basis. After all, the appropriations process sometimes 

yields more dollars more often. Ten out of the last 12 years. more 

dollars than requested, and two of those years, I guess, less. And 

that these adjustments and this process seems unwieldy in terms 

of how you are then making the corrections. Because clearly this 

was known in early October when the appropriations bill was 

passed, and there probably were signals even before that. 

Hopefully, there is some reconciliation between the administration and the Appropriations or other committees that are working 

that would not necessitate this type of seat-of-the-pants type of 

modifications to budgets. All that comes to me is the reason that 

I didn't get answers apparently when I have asked for them, and 

that the answers today to me seem to be less specific than they 

could or should be, is that you don't have in place a coherent process to deal with this. I think it is a concern to me. 

But let me give up the floor here to my colleague from Utah, Mr. 

Hansen, who formerly wanted to have Great Basin Park in Utah, 

but I think now that he is-I think with his statements today he 

has given it wholly to Nevada, or back to Nevada. 

Mr. HANSEN. The scriptures are of no private interpretation, Mr. 

Chairman. [Laughter.] 

And I can't recall ever being for the Great Basin Park, but I 

surely would like to show you the stack of letters saying what do 

they go there for. 

But the point that I brought up in my opening comment and 

which I would like to make is I honestly feel, and no disrespect to 

anyone here, I have been a part of this committee for the last 13 

years. I think I am looking inward on those comments and not 

looking outward at you folks. I am saying, in effect, that when we 

have $2.4 billion go through this committee and we give you a billion dollars to operate on, I mean you have got to be a pretty darn 

good CPA to figure that one out. 

And, in comments, if I may, Mr. Chairman, regarding the 15-

what was it, $15 million that you said on new ones, I mean let's 

be honest about it. These folks, the superintendents have required 

tens of millions of dollars. There is only so much you can squeeze 

into the budget. I have talked to some of these new superintendents. You folks have got a billion dollar budget, and we put all 

these new ones on, you still got to do something with the Yellowstones and the Great Smokies and the Yosemites along the line. There is just not the money there. 

If we want to be totally honest, if Congress wants all of these 

new parks, wants all of these wonderful things, they better pay for 

it. Yet we are saying we want them. We are passing them out by 

legislation, but in candor, we are not funding them. And so I don't 

blame these park superintendents, who you folks seem to give an 

awful lot of latitude to. The $15 million figure is probably right. But now let's ask all the superintendents of all these new parks 

how much they really wanted. That amount, that is rather substantially different. Am I wrong there? Or are these reports they 

sent me wrong? 

Mr. CABLES. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is basically correct, isn't it? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes, sir. 
27 

Mr. HANSEN. I mean if you put in some little "podunk" place 

where someone-Congress decides there is going to be a new park, 

and you ask for all they are requesting, you folks don't give it to 

them. There is just not the money there. 

Mr. CABLES. That is correct. Mr. HANSEN. So they have to kind of nickel and dime it as they 

go. They put up a trailer to start with, and they put up some kind 

of john, and then they put up a trail, and then they do something 

else. And eventually they finally have a park that maybe is somewhat acceptable. But the American public, they think it ought to 

be goldplated to start with like some of the old ones and to keep 

those up in a beautiful condition. 

So I am not taking issue with the chairman too much, but it is 

pretty obvious to me why there is only $15 million in this. 

Let me ask you this. I remember the days of Phil Burton on this 

committee when he used to say a park a month, and if you look 

at the chart, we really put a lot of parks on the books in those particular days. Have the superintendents or the group ever sat down 

and said, "Is there some parks we should close so that we could 

take care of the Y ellowstones and the Zions of the world that people really like to see?" Has that ever been done. I know that is kind 

of spitting on the flag around here. But I just wonder if anyone has 

ever done that. Mr. CABLES. I think there are a number of superintendents and 

others associated with the National Park Service who would feel 

more comfortable with some of the parks not within the system. Mr. HANSEN. You know, I have this thing in front of me in alphabetical order showing the parks and what they have requested. I 

mention it in my opening comments. It just absolutely amazes me. 

The amount of money is $2.299 billion dollars. I mean $2 billion, 

almost $3 billion. 

Now I don't know if this is correct, Mr. Davis, but this is talking 

about the things that they want to do-replacing housing, a light- house, roads, quarters, all that kind of thing. Is this correct? 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hansen, that is our construction budget, not our 

operating budget. Mr. HANSEN. Okay. But the construction budget, how much is 

that? 

Mr. GALVIN. I believe what you are referring to is our 

Servicewide Priority Listing, and it is basically all of the work that 

has been prioritized, and that does add up to $2.3 billion. It includes both roadwork. It is principally rehabilitation, not new construction. But it does include new construction. It includes both 

roads, buildings and utilities, and housing rehabilitation. 

I can assure you that that is just what has been prioritized. The 

sum is greater than that. We stopped at priority 195, and that hap- pens to add up to about $2.3 billion. But we could have put another 

hundred on the list if we would have liked to. 

Mr. HANSEN. Okay. That is just what has been prioritized. 

Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. Mr. HANSEN. And you have stopped doing that. Now, I noticed 

in one of our parks in Utah-Zion is there. It says Zion National 

Park, it is the last one. It says, "Reconstruct bridges and minor 

tunnels." Then it says over here, "Completed." Yet, from the very 
28 

fine superintendent we have there, Don Falvey, who just works his 

head off down there, he has given us a list of $8,951,000 on top of 

that that you don't even have on this list. Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. That is correct. There is considerably more work that we simply didn't prioritize because this isat the current rate we are moving down the list, this is, you know, somewhere between 10 and 20 years of work. 

Mr. HANSEN. So, if this is the case, and Zion is an accurate example of things that-the visitation is just awesome down there 

now. They come in on July 4, it looks like the Superbowl. I have 

never seen so many people, and they want to have a little shuttle 

that takes people into the park. They have got a tunnel that they 

have to now take vans through with an escort. I mean the work 

that is there that these poor guys have to do is awesome. But if 

this is the case, then all these other parks probably have a similar 

situation that you haven't even put on this list. Is that right? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, there is a considerable amount of work that 

is not on this list. As an example, you won't find concessions facilities in Glacier on this list. Now, as it happens, the National Park 

Service does not own the concession facilities in Glacier, and yet I 

don't believe that a private company can afford to make the reinvestment that is required in the Glacier facilities to maintain those 

things that were built 60, 70, 80 years ago. You know I can walk 

through Glacier and assure you that there is $50 or $100 million 

worth of work that needs to be done on facilities that is not on this 

list. 

Mr. HANSEN. Then, in effect, you have chopped the list, as you 

have stated, and if we really had a realistic list of what everyone 

needs, this piece of close to $3 billion would be rather small. I 

would imagine you could double it. Mr. GALVIN. Yes, I think you could double it. I think that is fair 

to say. __ 

Mr. HANSEN. So Congress is asking you to do a whole bunch of 

things, new parks, this, that and the other, and just in construction 

you have probably got $6, $7, $10 billion staring you in the face . Mr. GALVIN. Well, I would go 4 to 6 before I would get timid. Mr. HANSEN. You would go to $6 billion? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is only money. I will yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield-we are on the construction budget here. Of course this is different than the operation 

and maintenance budget, and I tried to make that point. 

But, the Park Service through the 1980s has been making a request. The lowest request they have made for this 2 billion plus 

backlog-and I would point out to my colleagues that a lot of this 

backlog is in roads and bridges in the parks. In fact, over half of 

this prioritized backlog is in roads and bridges in the parks. Mr. GALVIN. About half. Mr. VENTO. About half? 

Mr. GALVIN. Um-hum. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, anyway the Park Service, one thing for certain 

is if the Park Service has all these problems, then you would think 

that they might request the money to solve those problems. And 

what I have here-in 1989 they hit a low here-the Park Service 
29 

requested $6.6 million to deal with its $2 billion construction backlog. Six million dollars. Six point six. Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. And in 1993 you requested $94 million to deal with 

this-well, I guess by then it had reached the $2.3 billion backlog. 

Congress has consistently appropriated more, but not always for 

the same projects that you had requested it. Of course, if we had 

a few more partnership parks, Mr. Galvin, we could probably even 

skew this worse than it has been skewed, those $150 million budgets proposed for those. But last year, Congress nearly doubled the 

amount for construction to $175.5 million. Admittedly, not all for 

the same projects that the Park Service had requested the money 

for, but nevertheless showing, I think, a real appetite for bricks 

and mortar and construction, all of which, of course, once constructed then needs to be maintained and then adds to a different 

problem again. 

So I would just submit this chart for the record which goes 

from-for the last 10 years. I think it would be useful. But I think 

if you don't ask for money you are not going to get it. When you 

do ask for it, sometimes you don't get it. If you don't ask for it, I 

think it is a pretty safe bet you won't get it. 

[The chart follows:] 

67-193 0 - 93 - 3 
30 

FIGURE 2: 

NPS LINE-ITEM CONSTRUCTION FUNDING 

$ REQUESTED VS. APPROPRIATED 

2so,ooo~------------------,-------,---,----, 

200,000 · ···· •· 

150,000 

100,000 

78,384 

77,626 

50,000 

· ·•·:········•:••···· · 

·······,········,···· ···:-•s:sss: 

215:529 

;_ ....... ; ... .... :-.. .. ... ~ .... . 

172,522 

94,036 

O-t----t---1---+---+----t----1--+-'---,---t---1---+----1 

FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 92 FY93 

- Requested - Appropriated 

SJJH/CH/OSC173A 
31 

Mr. HANSEN. Why don't you shock Congress and ask for the 

whole shooting match? Maybe that will make a few people realize 

the importance of the issue we are facing here today. Mr. GALVIN. We are actually hoping to have a healthier construction request in future years. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that 

the chart you are referring to does not include monies available to 

the Park Service for roads and bridges. That is an additional $83 

million available from the Federal Lands Highway Program that is 

not included in this chart. This chart does, however, represent line 

item construction requests by the National Park Service. Mr. VENTO. Well, it does. And, obviously, we have worked hard 

to get some of the gas tax money of the early Eighties shifted so 

it went to the parks, and there is a continuing effort to do that, 

recognizing those problems. But, even at the rate of $83 million a 

year, we are probably losing ground on the construction budget 

side. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, one more question. 

Mr. VENTO. Certainly. It is the gentleman's time. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. 

But what about entrance fees? Who gets the money? Is that earmarked for anybody? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That money is appropriated back to the National 

Park Service, Mr. Hansen, in the year following the collection. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, what about-has anyone ever toyed with the 

idea of the National Park Service allowing certain parks, those that 

people go to, using a percentage of it for the construction that they 

have? 

Mr. VENTO. It is the law. If the gentleman would yield to methat is the law. It is a very sore point with the chairman because 

it is a 50-40-10 breakdown. I might add that the Park Service thinks so highly of this particular idea that they have ceased reporting back the amount of receipts from the individual parks, and have sort of homogenized it 

into the entire budget process once again, and are not following 

what we asked them to do with these dollars, and weaken their position with the Appropriations Committees even more. You know, 

this is a long, sorry tale. We will see if we can straighten it out 

a little bit this year. 

Mr. HANSEN. I got to quit. I will have one more question and I 

will run. I have got to go to another committee. Just let me say this, I know I am taking on some of the committee here, but I can't understand why when you go to the drive-to 

parks-you know, not these walk-ins that they have got back East 

here, but folks have to drive a long way-why you allow senior citizens a free ride. I know that is a congressional thing, but this is 

what bothers me on it. 

Mr. VENTO. I have got a conflict of interest. Mr. HANSEN. I know you do. That is why I brought it up, is to 

gouge you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Anyway, it goes this way. You get down to our 

parks in the West. These guys come in, they are in a Winnebago 

or something. They are pulling an Audi. They come in there and 

they get a free ride. Some poor kid in law school, he comes in, he 

has got his wife in a Volkswagen, and 2 kids and a little pop-up 
32 

tent, and he pays. And for some reason the equity of that really 

bothers me. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for letting me hit you on that. Mr. VENTO. Those are the same senior citizens complaining about 

the government, you know. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I realize that they are big voters. Anyway, 

that has always bothered me a little bit because the parks that I 

represent, they drive to them and they just come in and they camp. 

You can't get them out. They stay there as long as they possibly 

can. Our poor kid's got to be in law school next Monday morning, 

so he is there just for a short time and he pays through the nose. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman from Utah feels so strongly about 

it-he offered this amendment on the floor, which we were, of 

course, delighted to have offered. 

Mr. HANSEN. And the chairman creamed me on it, if I may say 

so. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the patience of our colleagues as they 

have watched the Hansen-Vento act up here. Ms. English has been 

very patient. 

Karan? 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A follow-up question on 

an earlier comment, I can't remember who made it, but could you 

just respond. In your opinion, Mr. Cables, are units of marginal 

value being added to the park system that dilute your ability to 

take care of the real gems? 

Mr. CABLES. I feel personally, and probably professionally, that 

there are some units that have been added to the National Park 

Service that are not sufficiently warranting of inclusion, and that 

those particular units have affected our ability to maintain at the 

level that we would like the significant units of the Service. Yes. 

I think that comes about from the economic condition of this 

country. I think there are some units that have been added that 

have provided economic stimulus to communities, and that they, 

perhaps, were more State and local units rather than nationally 

significant units, and those units for the most part have cost us a 

tremendous amount of money. Ms. ENGLISH. What is your plan, then, to deal with this? To either transfer these back to other levels of government, or are you 

going to be taking an aggressive stance to deal with this? 

Mr. CABLES. Unfortunately, once you acquire these sites the 

deauthorizing of them is impossible, really. I would hope that the 

professional judgment of our planners and the studies that we do 

would enable us to forestall, if you will, the continued existence of 

some units that are marginal in their particular inclusion, I guess 

is what I want to say. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Not having seen this process before, I don't know 

whether you even have the capability of recommending that a parcel not, or unit, not become a park. In the hearings is that done? 

Mr. CABLES. Oh, yes. There are a number of opportunities and 

times when we have made recommendations for not including units 

within the system. Ms. ENGLISH. And when those units are included in spite of your 

recommendation is the revenue there to support that unit or are 
33 

they just giving you the unit and saying work it out, without giving 

you the appropriate revenue to do it? 

Mr. CABLES. I can speak firsthand of one situation like that, having been the superintendent of Gateway National Recreation Area 

up in New York City. That is a park that has been in the system 

for some 22 years, and until the last 2 or 3 years that park was 

without any development funds. So there are parks that come into 

this system that struggle for a very long time without development 

funds and operating funds commensurate with what it was that 

the folks who proposed them thought and the people who were 

going to access those parks felt they were getting. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Okay. I have another line of questioning here and 

it has to deal with a park in my district. It is my understanding 

that the Petrified Forest National Park near Holbrook is being considered for a decrease in hours, and I know that there are very 

poor housing conditions in that area. It is also my understanding 

that a radar station in Holbrook owned by the Air Force will be 

closing. What is the possibility of-actually, there are two questions here-the Park Service and the Department of Defense working together and using very badly needed housing by one agency 

and available housing by the other agency, working together and 

come up with a solution which would, of course, be a cost savings? 

Do you guys work on programs like that? 

Mr. CABLES. Oh, sure. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Is there potential here? 

Mr. CABLES. We would be pleased to explore an alternative of 

that sort. Clearly, we have a need in many, many units of the system for housing, and if there was a housing within reasonable 

proximity that was available to us in some sort of an arrangement, 

we would certainly look into it. We would explore that. 

Ms. ENGLISH. I don't know if you have ever been in Holbrook, but 

reasonable proximity is within a couple of blocks. I mean Holbrook 

is a very small community. There is one other point. When the Park Service is looking at 

shortening the hours of the season, do they take into consideration 

the uniqueness of that park? For instance, a lot of people come to 

this particular park in the evening because of the sunsets. Would 

the park then be closed in the evenings or could it be-could the 

hours be tailored so that the park is most frequently used in the 

evenings? Can it remain open in the evening hours? Do you go that 

close into tailoring the hours adjustments. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is why it is so terribly important for each park 

superintendent to make their own analysis of how they are going 

to handle closures are reductions in hours, so that they can take 

into consideration the vagaries of visitation in the different parks. Now, I do know that at Petrified Forest they are reducing 

evening hours in the operation of the visitor center. It still will not 

prohibit people from seeing the sunset, but it does-and this decision was based upon that period of time in which their visitor statistic show the most people in the park. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Okay. 

Mr. CABLES. Bruce, you might make mention--

Mr. SHEAFFER. I might point out on a more positive side, the economic stimulus program that the President is proposing would, in 
34 

fact, provide sufficient operating dollars for Petrified Forest to restore the hours of operations that they now intend to curtail. 

Ms. ENGLISH. That is very good news. I hope that is successful. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentlewoman would yield-some of the questions, I attempted not to editorialize on them, but I think what Mr. 

Cables-I think what we could agree on in terms of the Park Service units is there has been, really, a changed mission, where the 

Park Service in 1960 with largely what we would call natural 

parks, although there always were the Springs in Arkansas and 

some military reservations that came in that had some natural features that probably didn't really compare to Yosemites and ')Yellowstones. But later this evolved into cultural resource types ,of parks 

and finally even the recreational areas, which became a mission of 

the Park Service. And I don't know that I am missing anything, but I think that 

in looking at that and then the urban areas close to-areas like 

Gateway. So I think that there really has been a changed focus or 

a changed mission, something that has gone on. There has been a 

lot of debate, and I wouldn't want to just leave it on the basis of 

the answers where they were going, because I think that that does 

represent a significant change. Furthermore, I would say that in looking at the parks that were 

designated in the last 10 years it really has been modest, the 

growth of the park system from 1980 or-it has been very limited. In fact, the Park Service has had in those 12 years no legislative 

program. No legislative program. 

So we basically-the alternatives that they have come to us with, 

and see these things then come back, because it really doesn't put professionals like Mr. Cables in a very strong position. They come 

in with no preferred alternative in the field. They go out and they 

are given a study to study Dayton Aviation, a park that we designated in Dayton, Ohio-Tony Hall's legislation-and they had a 

number of, four or five alternatives with no preferred alternatives. 

And so Congressman Hall and others, Senator Glenn, come before 

the Congress seeking designation of that area, and the Park Service comes in, at this point the Washington area, and really has 

wishy-washy statements in terms of what they propose and what 

they don't. · And the upshot of it is that we try to fashion as best we can in 

the committee, trying to use the professional judgment of those in 

the Park Service and the criteria that are available to come up 

with a designation that makes sense and is workable from an administrative and resource type of standpoint, whether it is natural, 

cultural or recreational. To be candid, that is what we are doing. We would like some guidance in development, but it is hard to 

take on Senator Byrd alone. I have tried to do it. It is hard to take 

on Joe McDade alone. You know guys have been trying to do it. I 

need the help that you are not offering, you are not permitted to 

offer through the political or policy arms of the Park Service. And so we have, I think, in candor, without a program, without 

recommendations, and then to look at what has not been studiedthe only unit that we have designated in the years that I have 

served as the chairman in this jurisdiction is the Niobrara. It is the 
35 

only unit that has been not identified by the Park Service as nationally significant. And believe me, I will put that Niobrara River 

designation up against any other river in the country in terms of 

its characteristics. And that is simply because the Park Service 

hadn't done the study, hadn't concluded it. And so I would just 

point out to my colleague that we have tried to-I have, at least, 

tried to be very careful. 

Now, there are some things that circumvent this process that I 

can't do anything about, and there are a lot of dollars that are 

spent and designations that have gone on before, but I got a few 

of them that I could put on a list real quick in terms of where we 

could save some money, starting right around this Washington 

area. Right around this Washington area in terms of saving some 

money. 

Mr. Thomas? 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might say that I have 

been in a number of these hearings where the Park Service has 

recommended against things that have gone forward, of course, and 

that is part of the history. 

Let me ask a couple of questions, if I may, please, more for understanding. You indicate that pay raises go into the operating 

budget. Where else would they go? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, regardless of the funding source, every employee, every Federal employee, every employee of the National 

Park Service receives the pay raise, so those funded from the construction account also get a pay raise, and those funded from the . land acquisition account also get the pay raise. But substantially 

it goes into the operating budget. 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, you mean the pay raise for those in the construction work comes out of the operating budget? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. No, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. I guess I am puzzled why you would list that. I 

would assume pay raises come out of the operating budget. Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes. That is correct. 

Mr. THOMAS. So that is not all right. Mr. SHEAFFER. They come out of whatever account the individual 

is funded from. 

Mr. THOMAS. Okay. What does base fundi.ng mean? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Base funding as the term is used in the Park 

Service-is the operating money that is effectively sustained from 

one year to the next to do the basic operation of the visitor center, 

the routine maintenance, interpretation and the like. Mr. THOMAS. So that does not include the last year's expenditures plus inflation? Is that what you call base funding? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. If that inflationary funding was provided 

it would become part of the base funding; yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. No. No. What do you call base funding? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. As I described, it would be the money that is allocated to the individual park area to do--

Mr. THOMAS. In the previous year. This year you have a base 

funding of $900 million. What is next year's base funding? Do you 

call that this year's expenditures, or do you call it this year plus 

inflation? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It would be this year's plus inflation. 
36 

Mr. THOMAS. Why do you say it hasn't kept up with inflationary 

expenses? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, base funding actually refers to an individual park as opposed to the operation of the fund-let me draw a 

distinction, if I may. The park base funds for doing the routine 

things that I mentioned are distinct from monies that are maintained at the regional level to do non-recurring kinds of items, like 

cyclic maintenance or repair and rehabilitation and the like. Those 

are not part of the park's operating base, if you will. 

They often-the monies available to the parks for basic operations are an outcome of an appropriation and negotiated formulation process that sometimes keep up with inflation and sometimes 

does not, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. I understand. 

You mention also, I guess it would be in this supplemental stimulus package, $254 million. It has been talked about, at least. What would that be for, construction generally? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. No, sir. Substantial parts of it are for operations. 

As I mentioned a minute ago, there is-for example, $30 million of 

that would go directly to the parks for enhanced seasonal operations. 

Mr. THOMAS. And that would stimulate the economy? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, it creates a jobs; yes, sir. It is to hireMr. THOMAS. Have you laid off any employees? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. THOMAS. You laid off employees then as a result of this? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. No. It is more that we have failed to bring on the 

number of seasonal hires that we would have had our base been 

higher, had our increases been greater. 

Mr. THOMAS. $254 million is less than Yellowstone Park says it 

needs for highways; right? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. In total, that is correct. 

Mr. THOMAS. Was it the Park Service or the Forest Service that 

had sort of a powwow and internally laid some plans for the future? Have you done that in your agency? 

Mr. CABLES. I think you are referencing the Vail agenda? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

Mr. CABLES. Yes. We are working on various aspects of the Vail 

agenda in terms of recommendations, and I am pleased to announce that the Secretary has wholeheartedly supported that. 

Mr. THOMAS. I presume that in your agenda you assumed that 

funding was not going to change a great deal. Did you? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, those things--

Mr. THOMAS. Let me pose a better question than that. Mr. CABLES. Okay. 

Mr. THOMAS. Assuming that funding stays at somewhat the same 

level what do you propose to do to solve your problem, or do you 

just wait and hope that there is more money? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, I would hope on the basis of the support that 

the National Park Service has from the American public and all 

that has been written about the problems of the Park Service and 

the Vail agenda that there would be increased funding for the 

units. 
37 

Mr. THOMAS. I hope so too. And I am for that. You know, I have 

got two major parks in my State. No one is for Parks more. But 

everyone is hoping there is more for Head Start and more for 

school lunch and more for everything. So I guess I am asking you, 

assuming that that doesn't change very much, do you have a strategy? How do you make it more efficient? How do you do more with 

the same? I mean that you wouldn't be the first group that ever 

asked that question, you know. 

Mr. CABLES. That is a fair question. We would be in the position 

that we discussed earlier in this hearing, and that is that we would 

have to take a look at the services that we are presently providing 

and prioritize those things that are most enjoyed by the general 

public and defer other things as we have over the last 10 years. 

Mr. THOMAS. That is not a bad idea really, is it? I mean wethe Congress and people-ought to have to make that decision 

based on a cost-benefit ratio, hadn't they? If we want this kind of 

service, then this is what you have to pay. Absent that here is the 

service you get. That is really a pretty good way to govern, isn't it? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, Mr. Thomas, I couldn't support that simply because I have a responsibility at this point in time to prosper the 

National Park Service. Mr. THOMAS. I know. But I think-and the chairman was saying 

this-if you are going to have that much money as opposed to this 

much, what are you going to-what is the cost to us? What is the 

cost to the public? Or are you just going to wait and take the 

money and then decide what the costs are? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, I guess the answer to that question would be 

that the American public has entrusted all of us within the National Park Service to maintr;.in the properties that we have, and 

we would not be maintaining that trust if we would allow them to 

deteriorate to the point that they are now absent the funding. 

Mr. THOMAS. I am not making myself very clear, I guess. If you 

could get $100 million in Yellowstone or $80 million, then somebody ought to be able to tell us what happens if you get 80 as opposed to 100. That is my question. 

Mr. CABLES. Okay. We would, as I indicated earlier, prioritize 

how we would spend the $80 million. Mr. THOMAS. Then you communicate that to us. Mr. CABLES. And we would communicate that to the committee. Mr. THOMAS. That is a good idea. Do you have any idea how 

much we have spent looking at introducing wolves in to Yellowstone Park? 

Mr. CABLES. No, I don't. 

Mr. THOMAS. Maybe we ought to check. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe that they have had a program, an active 

program in the range of $350,000 a year now for the last 4 years, 

I suppose. It has been split between Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Park Service, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. THOMAS. Probably spent a million bucks total on it. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. Or better. 

Mr. THOMAS. All right. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Underwood had arrived after Ms. English. Mr. 

Underwood? 
38 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions. One pertains to the land acquisition budget, and I am 

just wondering out of curiosity whether-a couple of related items. One is what the total estimate would be of funds needed in order 

to purchase all the land that is in a sense earmarked for National 

Parks? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Mr. Underwood, we estimate that the authorized 

but unappropriated land within the boundaries of the Park Service-now, this is not market value, mind you, this is just the difference between that which has been authorized and that which 

has been appropriated on these parks. It is about $435 million. The 

actual market value, of course, is not something we have that has 

been looked at carefully. By that, I mean it is not based on any appraisals, but we estimate the number to acquire would be in excess 

of a billion dollars. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So does the Park Service periodically update 

the market value or make some estimates about that, or does it 

just wait until the money is authorized? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. We do not begin appraisal work, it is 

very costly, until the money has been appropriated to acquire the 

land. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay. And in terms of like there must be-this 

goes back to a question about asking your professional assessment 

about what, perhaps, properties-you know, you might have a rank 

ordering of what properties would be immediately-should be immediately purchased versus what properties might not be, might be 

of a lower order priority? Is there some thinking in the Park Service along those lines? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Very definitely there is. Within each park unit 

there is an acquisition plan that does exactly as you describe, sets 

priorities out very clearly. Priorities are subject to change, of 

course, based on current events. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But what about relative to each park? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Not only relative to each park, but also relative 

to acquisition programs within the Department of Interior as a 

whole, there is a Departmentwide criteria ranking system that annually in preparation of the budget, ranks by a vast array of criterion involving a threat to the resource and the like. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay. Could you provide me then with information about where the War in the Pacific Park on Guam ranks 

relative to those criteria? Because there is a continuing problem 

with land acquisition, and particularly for the past 10 years the 

properties have dramatic-the value of the property has increased 

dramatically, and there are a number of people who are kind of in 

limbo relative to that particular park. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. Be glad to provide it. 

[The information follows:] 

The Service's budget request for fiscal year 1993 included $1,000,000 for acquisi- tion at War in the Pacific National Historical Park. However, the requested funds were not appropriated. For fiscal year 1994, the Service has compiled a listing of 

funds needed for 46 areas ranked highest in acquisition priority. War in the Pacific 

National Historical Park is not among the area included on the list. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The other item also pertains specifically to the 

War in the Pacific Park and Guam. As you probably know, next 
39 

year is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Guam, and so the 

War in the Pacific Park is kind of expected to, in a sense, be in 

the lead or participate fully in the celebration of that 50th anniversary. A particular item caught my attention because I had had a 

number of discussions with some park people out there, and I was 

kind of disappointed with their response to an issue that I raised. 

One is on the Guam the War in the Pacific Park spends a great 

deal of time thematically responding to honoring U.S. servicemen 

who participated in the battle on Guam and in other surrounding 

battles in the Pacific, and then there are other monuments on 

Guam that in a sense honor Japanese involvement. But I raised 

the issue that this particular national park should spend some time 

honoring the participation of the people of Guam themselves, and 

commemorate their suffering during not only the battle for Guam, 

but the Japanese occupation. This was again brought to my mind, 

and I will give you an example of this. 

This is a war dog cemetery on Guam, which is maintained by the 

Department of Defense. And, in terms of how the people of Guam 

perceive this is that the Federal Government has spent some 

money to commemorate U.S. servicemen participation. At the same 

time the Federal Government spends some money to commemorate 

war dogs, dogs that died during World War II, and I will read to 

you: 

'"Here rests United States Marine Corps war dogs that gave 

their lives as scouts exploring caves and as sentries,' states a 

monument unveiled Saturday at War Dogs Cemetery. But, as of 

this date, yet the national park on Guam has not ,spent any time 

commemorating the experience of the people of Guam themselves." 

So I am a little concerned about that, and I want to encourage 

you to give some attention to that particular issue as the park on 

Guam starts to develop their plans for the 50th anniversary. 

Mr. CABLES. Mr. Underwood, I will certainly get with the regional director from the Western Region and will get back to your 

office with much more information. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. All right. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman just would observe that many times 

the monuments and memorials such as this are privately funded, 

and that may be the case here. I don't know. 

Mr. Doolittle had been back and forth and indicated he was going 

to be back, so he is recognized before my colleague Mr. Smith. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman I appreciate you holding this hearing. 

A question to Mr. Cables. You indicated in your statement that 

amongst the pressures which you daily confront are increases in 

base funding that have not kept pace with inflationary expenses. 

The chairman indicated and these figures on operation of the park 

system suggest you had a 100 percent increase in funding in the 

last decade. I was just wondering, in trying to reconcile your statement, what do you believe inflation to have been during those 10 

years. 

Mr. CABLES. Well, we are-there are a number of them. A number of the seasonal workers have been converted to permanents. GS-4 and GS-5 generalists have been upgraded, often to resource 

management positions. A portion of the pay increase, of course, 
40 

have been absorbed by park budgets. We have roughly the same 

number of seasonals spread over more areas because of the creation of new areas. 

The first costs to the agencies are higher than . the civil service 

allotment. The utility costs have gone up. Health care costs have 

gone up. All of these things have raised havoc with our budgets, 

and therefore the parks find themselves in the position that we are 

reporting to you this morning. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Well, despite a 100 percent increase in the funding, you are telling me that these inflationary pressures have outstripped that? I mean I find that incredible. 

Mr. CABLES. Well, I think that theMr. DOOLI'ITLE. Or not believable. 

Mr. CABLES. I think we can even be even more specific, and I 

would ask the comptroller to be more explicit. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. I want to hear from him. Let me just observe 

that you are using the definition of inflation that-I understand 

what you are talking about now, but it is not what I understood 

from the statement. I mean inflation as economists use it. And that 

as I understand it, we averaged about 4 percent per year for the 

decade of the 1980s continuing into the 1990s to the point where 

we are now. So inflation, as I understand it, and as economists 

would use the term would have been about 40 percent, I think. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Actually, the figures we use, I think, over the last 

10 years average-the total is about 60 percent for that period. But 

you are in the range; yes, sir. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. Sixty percent for inflation? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe for the years 1982 through 1992, the 

years we use from 0MB, would have it deflated at a rate of about 

60 percent. 

Mr. DoOLI'ITLE. Okay. I am not going to quibble with you. I 

would simply observe that is higher than I would have thought. Well, that is right. That is the peculiar way the Federal Government handles its budgeting. Okay. Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, something that may be of help in understanding what has happened to the Park Service budget over the 

last 10 years, and I would be happy to provide these numbers, if 

you like, are these charts. If I may, using the 1980 appropriation 

as the base, because that is what I happen to have on this chart 

right here, through 1993, enacted, we have increased almost $600 

million in that period of time. Now, I am talking strictly about the 

operating appropriation of the Park Service. I am excluding construction and the capital programs and the like. Mr. DooLI'ITLE. And you are going back to which year? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I am going back to 1980, sir. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. Okay. Well, that goes beyond my chart here. But 

okay. You are saying you have increased $600 million since? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Okay. Mr. SHEAFFER. From about $390 million to about $990 million, 

in that range. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Okay. Now, we have broken down in some categorical terms the monies that have been provided over that period 

of time. For example, pay cost increases granted by the Federal 
41 

Government alone account for almost $200 million of that $600 

million increase. Other fixed costs, Federal telecommunications system, GSA space rental, postage and the like which we maintain at 

a central level account for about $50 million. 

There have been what we call simply account transfers which 

buy you nothing that account for about another $20 million or so. 

The interesting thing is that we have initiated a number of programs in the course of the 1980s that don't really do anything for 

the park base. They did not become part of the park operating 

base. 

Principally in the area of resource management in which we 

began an air quality program we initiated a mining and minerals 

management program, a collection management program, part of a 

global change effort, a natural resource preservation program, a 

number of initiatives that were begun that, again, did not become 

part of a park base but were meeting new program requirements 

and the like. The bottom line, is that the park areas that were in 

existence back then, of that $600 million actually increased only 

about $140 million, or roughly 24 percent. That is, in fact, below 

the inflation rate that occurred during that time. 

Now, you cannot apply the same logic to all national park areas, 

because some have benefited more than others, and we have detailed sheets that deflate dollars by park area where some have 

done very well in that period of time. But you have to look at a 

great number of things, of inputs, to really analyze any given park 

operating budget. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. Well, I would just say to you gentlemen, I mean 

we are here for kind of the bigger picture, but I don't know why 

we should listen to all your exceptions and excuses as to why you 

are different. I mean you are a unit of government. You have had 

over 100 percent increase in funding, and you aren't performing 

some of the things that need to be done. I mean, frankly, one could 

argue there has been mismanagement in the Park Service. I find 

it absolutely remarkable that you are here today. You have given 

us a list of things, and I would like to go to this now. 

Ms. English spoke about her district. I represent a portion of Yosemite Park. You have recommended, or you have allowed those 

superintendents to recommend-apparently you rubber-stamped 

their recommendations-that you are going to defer the opening of 

the Tioga Road. That is one of the main highways through my district. As long as that road stays closed, the community hurts. The 

revenues of that community increase about fourfold when the road 

is open. 

I find it absolutely remarkable. I called the park superintendent 

the other day and asked about this, and he cried the blues about, 

"Gee, they don't have any funding." You tell that to the American 

people. A hundred percent increase in your budget and you are now 

going to punish the taxpayer to convince them that you need more 

funding for the Park Service. I will tell you, as one member of this 

committee, Mr. Chairman, I intend to stay on this issue and be involved. I think this is outrageous. 

And you could look at some of the other things on these lists. I 

mean people-Yosemite National Park, for heavens sakes, must be 

one of the most utilized parks in the whole country, and to propose 
42 

keeping the road closed even longer because they don't want to 

have to hire some additional seasonal personnel to deal with the 

effects of it being open-I mean this is a park. People are supposed 

to use this park. This is not a wilderness area or some more restrictive categorization, and hearing the testimony today concerns 

me a little bit. 

Let me go to one other aspect of that park. There was a fire in 

Yosemite about a year and a half ago. A lot of burned timber. You 

know, if revenues are so tight, we could have salvaged a lot of that 

timber. But there again, when appeals were made into the-not a 

formal appeal, but inquiries were made to the authorities there, 

they really don't see harvesting timber as part of their job. Well, 

obviously, timber harvesting doesn't normally occur in national 

parks, but here you have got significant amounts of burned timber. 

It does have a value if you get it out in time. After about, I don't 

know, a year or two it is worthless. But I had constituents that wanted to go in and take that out 

and were denied from doing it. If the Park Service is hurting so 

much for money, wouldn't that have been a possible source of revenue? And wouldn't it have cleaned up the park in the process? 

Mr. DAVIS. Any revenue that we would have received, sir, from 

the sale of that timber would have come to the Treasury of the 

United States. It would not have remained in Yosemite. 

And I think it is almost important to note, and you may have an 

argument with this, but the national parks are managed for their 

natural processes, and fire is one of those natural processes that 

affects the ecosystem of the park, and our decision is to let those 

processes work their will and to leave the timber basically to fall 

apart-to fall down and re-enter the earth in the park and to provide habitat for a certain type of animal and plant life that will 

move in and out during the natural regeneration of that forest. Mr. D00LI'ITLE. That is why so much of Yellowstone was burned. 

I believe that was a very controversial policy. I would have someI mean there must be some limits to that policy, aren't there? 

Mr. DAVIS. There are, indeed, limits to that policy and we tried 

very hard to stop the fire in Yellowstone, and we were controlling 

the fire also in Yosemite. Mr. D00LI'ITLE. Okay. If I may, you have added a number of new 

units over the years, and that has been talked about. What was the 

position of the Park Service when those units were proposed? Did 

you oppose any of these units? 

Mr. DAVIS. A number of them. 

Mr. D00LI'ITLE. And did you support any of these units? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, we did. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. I would suspect from what I know you supported 

it by a ratio of about 2 to 1, those who support to opposed, didn't 

you? 

Mr. DA VIS. I am not sure that I would agree to that percentage, 

but we did support a number. 

Mr. D00LI'ITLE. Would you say you supported a majority of 

them? 

Mr. DAVIS. I would think so; yes. 

Mr. D00LI'ITLE. Okay. I think that is safe, and maybe you can 

supply for the record the number. But I find it remarkable, having 
43 

supported a majority of the new units that are created, you come 

in here and now complain that they are not being properly funded. 

I mean that is a little like the boy who murders his parents and 

then gripes that he is an orphan. I mean I just think-I mean 

these are just basic facts. I don't mean to be argumentative, but 

I find this remarkable, the sorts of testimony we are hearing today. 

And I appreciate the chairman giving us the chance to ask some 

of these questions. 

Those that you oppose, did you request a veto from the administration? 

Mr. CABLES. On some of them we did, yes. Mr. DooLITILE. Did you ever get one? 

Mr. CABLES. I am told by Mr. Galvin that we got a veto on Linden-Revere. Mr. DOOLITILE. Okay. Now, one note here. This I find interesting, Mr. Chairman. I haven't really seen this in government before. I was looking at your chart here. You know, you look at the 

amounts that were requested by the Park Service, and then every 

year except this one, and this one is not finished yet, they had enacted into law more money than was requested every single year. 

I mean am I reading that wrong. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, if the gentleman would yield. Some years the 

Reagan administration requested less than they got the previous 

year. Or not necessarily with the most recent administration, they 

were a little more reasonable. So I think that some of that would 

have to be looked at in that perspective. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. All right. I guess I have asked questions that I 

intended to, but I do hope, Mr. Cables, that this issue of the Tioga 

Pass is very important to my district, and we are going to be looking closely and hoping that your people will cooperate. 

I would suggest maybe you exercise a little more management in 

the Park Service, and not give so much autonomy to these superintendents. 

I thank you for the chance--

Mr. VENTO. Sounds like that is one snow job better get done. 

I would also point out with new units that often those new units, 

at least in a couple of instances here, were carved out of the Park 

Service or BLM areas, so the government was managing them differently as parks than as BLM or Forest Service. That doesn't take 

from the concerns about new units and funding. But nevertheless, 

it wasn't exactly-they are not always an entirely new expenditure, 

although a different mission and emphasis. 

Mr. Abercrombie has been very patient. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased the gentleman is here. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. Mr. Cables, aloha. Good morning 

to you. 

Mr. CABLES. Good morning. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Cables, I refer you to page 3 of your testimony. Some of this has been touched on before, Mr. Chairman, and 

may even have been answered in a manner of speaking, but I 

would like to focus in on it just a little bit because I believe that 

the so-called stimulus program is still on the drawing boards with 

respect to the Congress. 
44 

In your second paragraph there where you refer to the stimulus 

supplemental includes a total of $254 million for the National Park 

Service including $30 million for additional seasonal operations. 

Did I understand you correctly that the majority of the $254 million was operational in nature as opposed to capital expenditures? 

I am differentiating an operational budget and a maintenance 

budget from a capital expenditure budget, an infrastructure-type 

budget. 

Mr. CABLES. Right. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So is the majority of it that, or is it all that? 

Mr. CABLES. The largest percentage of it is that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. And the chairman indicated and I believed Mr. Davis confirmed or made more specific that of the approximately $2 billion plus in backlog for construction or capital expenditures with respect to all national parks that roughly half, or 

approximately half of that expenditure is what could be termed 

roads and bridges, without misstating the case. 

Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. Yes, that is based on preliminary 

surveys done by the Federal Highway Administration and Park 

Service technical people. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. 

Mr. GALVIN. But to fix up the existing roads. This is not to build 

new roads. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. 

Mr. GALVIN. It is to fix up the existing. 

Mr. VENTO. Let the record show that it is Mr. Galvin that was 

responding. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Mr. Galvin. Yes. 

Mr. GALVIN. It is about $1.3-$1.4 billion. Most of that work is 

included on this $2.3 billion list. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Right. Maybe I missed something because I 

was unable to be here at the beginning. 

Have you and Secretary-have you, Mr. Cables, and your people 

here discussed with Secretary Babbitt the idea of proposing to the 

President and/or to the Congress that they make part of the stimulus construction budget full funding for this element of the backlog? 

If it is an $18 billion package, let's say, why shouldn't we make 1.3 

billion of it an across-the-board funding for your roads and bridges 

projects, infrastructure projects? 

Mr. GALVIN. Actually, as part of the economic stimulus package 

we have included about-we have included $50 million worth of 

roadwork. About $30 million of it is major rehabilitation. That is 

about the limit of what we are capable of expending in the short 

run. We literally could not spend $1.3 billion in one year on national park roads because of the technical requirements and also 

the fact thatMr. ABERCROMBIE. Time out, Mr. Galvin. When you say because 

of the technical requirements, my impression is that these roads 

and bridges projects have been on the books for sometime and that 

you know what it is you want to do, that the specifications are relatively well-known, et cetera. 

Mr. GALVIN. No. Up to the last statement, correct. That is, we 

have a good idea of the order of magnitude of the work, but with 

respect to individual specifications on specific sections of roads or 
45 

bridges we only have on hand what we expect to expend in a given 

year, which is right now about $83 million a year. 

Furthermore, beyond technical requirements it is important to 

note that in a park like Yellowstone, which has a substantial 

amount of this background, several hundreds of millions of dollars, 

you would not fix all the roads in Yellowstone simply because of 

public access. In other words, you don't want Yellowstone closed, 

I don't think-Mr. Thomas isn't here, but I am fairly sure he would 

agree with the idea that you don't close all of Yellowstone to fix 

roads. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No. No. I understand that part. 

Mr. GALVIN. And I think, if I must might continueMr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. 

Mr. GALVIN. The problem represented by the $2.3, or the $1.4 billion backlog is more correctly, I think, classified as an infrastructure problem, and the administration is indeed beginning to talk 

with us about a more-a longer term solution to this problem. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, Mr. Galvin, I appreciate that because, 

Mr. Chairman, I think that there are many of us in the Congress 

who want to see a short-term stimulus-I am going to make a differentiation here-the short-term stimulus, long-term investment. I 

am not trying to be cute with words. I am trying to make a practical distinction to really illuminate the problem rather than obscure it. 

I understand that you might not have on the books right in front 

of you, or maybe the more appropriate term is this on-the-shelf 

road construction project, bridge construction or a similar activity 

beyond say-would you say $80 million? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, we get $83 million a year. I think the economic stimulus package is a good example. We get $83 million. 

That is largely executed through the National Park Service and the 

Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration does most of the engineering. When the economic stimulus 

package was being formulated, we asked the Federal Highway Administration and our Denver Service Center how much more roadwork they could putMr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Mr. GALVIN [continuing]. Into this year's package, and the answer was $30 million. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. For the country? 

Mr. GALVIN. For the national park system, yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. For the national park system for the Nation? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. So it is about a 40 percent increase in what we 

could do annually. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. 

Mr. GALVIN. Now, if somebody told us that 3 years down the line 

we were going to do $200 million worth of work we could probably 

gear up and do that. We can't do it in a month. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is fine. Because, Mr. Chairman, that is 

the next step I wanted to go to. Mr. Galvin, if we could push then for that and say, Look. If the 

park system is capable of doing this, and we know that there is a 

national interest in this, so that somebody couldn't get off into the 

classic demagoguery about pork or you are favoring one person 
46 

over another because they har,pen to be on the Subcommittee on 

Parks and Natural Resources,' for example. You know, they could 

say that, and they probably do, mean-spirited, cold-hearted people 

who don't understand how it works and the true blue spirit of this 

subcommittee chairman. Mr. VENTO. You had to be on the Appropriations Committee, too. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Right. They say those things. We pay no attention here. But I am quite serious about this. When you propose-if you 

would propose to Secretary Babbitt, and it could be accepted by the 

Congress and by the President, a truly national program with respect to this $1.3 billion section of the budget-this is legitimate. The hearings have been held, observations have been made, conclusions have been reached, et cetera. This is not something you have 

to invent. You are not running out to look for $1.3 billion, right. That is all sitting there. 

So what I am suggesting is is that part of long-term investment 

to come off of the initial stimulus program I would like to see you 

as professionals recommend to the Secretary, and hopefully the 

Secretary would accept it, that we get into a year-by-year-I mean, we are proposing, after all, deficit reduction, et cetera, out through 

1997 that we come up with a long-term program to deal with this 

roads and bridges part of it, and I think that that would have a 

very felicitous affect on travel and tourism. I think it would-which 

I am particularly interested in, obviously, even though my district 

obviously is several thousand miles from the mainland. 

Nonetheless, I think as an economic stimulus there is no question that National Park Service in my view provides one of the key 

elements in all of this. And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the President in all of his remarks, and I have been paying very close attention to the speeches, has not adequately taken into account publicly the role of travel and tourism in stimulating the economy, creation 

of jobs, et cetera, in general, and in particular, the role of the National Park Service in being a crucial element in travel and tourism 

throughout this Nation and a tremendous job generator. 

I am not talking, Mr. Cables, and gentlemen about the Park 

Service hirings themselves in terms of jobs, although that is important. But I am saying that the Park Service is one of the key gen- erators or the key elements, the key driving wheels within the 

overall economic engine of employment throughout the Nation. I 

can cite to you, and will for the record, that tourism ranks as the 

one, two, or third largest employer in 37 states, that it is the number one employer in 13 states, and I would submit, and I expect 

that you would agree, that the National Park Service is a crucial 

element in travel and tourism in all of these areas. Not necessarily 

the sole one. Obviously, it is easy to talk about Yellowstone because 

it is such a high profile big element. But you could go to various 

caves and historical monuments-Chickamauga, I mean I could 

cite a whole lot of things to you, right, that is part and parcel of 

this. 

So the burden of my little sermonette here is that I think you 

would find strong support from members on this subcommittee who 

are familiar with it, and I think a, perhaps, welcome support after 

many years of wandering in the wilderness, the economic wilder-
47 

ness or the budget wilderness yourself, if you made a vigorous proposal to the Secretary that we move forward with a long-term stimulus or long-term investment on moving forward with this bridge--

I am going to use the word infrastructure-backlog in the National 

Park Service. 

Mr. GALVIN. Those conversations have begun, as I say. We did 

earlier on, before the economic stimulus package, put together an 

infrastructure program that included roads, bridges and our rehabilitation backlog, and those conversations continue with the new 

administration. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Cables, is there a timetable on this? 

Mr. CABLES. In terms of? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Because I intend to pursue this very vigorously, I can assure you, and I am sure you can hear by the tenor 

of my remarks that I want to be supportive of this. Is there a timetable on speaking with the Secretary about this so that Mr. Vento 

could have some idea of whether something like this will be forthcoming, or at least a-either a recommendation or an observation 

to Mr. Vento and this committee about what you would like to do 

in this area? 

Mr. CABLES. I think we could pursue that. There is a window of 

opportunity within the 1994 budget to do just that. 

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. I am finished, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. I am certain that the maintenance and-I am sorry, 

the construction budget which we are into talking about again at 

this point, although I want to differentiate that, but I think that 

most of those judgments are probably sound. They are initially 

done by GAO and updated, as I recall, by the Park Service. I believe that that is correct, isn't it, Mr. Galvin? Isn't that initially a 

GAO document? 

Mr. GALVIN. No. Actually, initially we did do a Federal highway 

study and the GAO document confirmed the order of magnitude. Mr. VENTO. Okay. All I would suggest to the gentleman is that 

we might want to look-obviously, there is no-I mean what this 

is is sort of a revisiting whether or not the existing roads and 

bridges are sufficient, are appropriate in terms of the transportation system, in terms of facilitating visitation and utilization of 

the resources. And I think that before were to buy this and just 

replicate it we might want to look at the overall transportation system, along those lines. I am not talking about an inordinate delay. 

But if we are going to have a major effort in terms of road construction in this I think that that would be appropriate. And, also, 

as indicated by Mr. Galvin, this does not include any new roads. 

So you might want to look at in terms of that transportation system so we could rationalize a system that would not simply be paving over decisions that were 1930s era decisions. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand completely and I agree with you. 

Mr. VENTO. So that is the first caution. Secondly, I would justand I think that that would serve the gentleman's purpose and the 

Park Service service. The second point I would suggest is that I 

think that the Park Service has been reticent to, and the committee has generally followed their professional lead in terms of not 

attempting to designate or to identify the parks wholly on, and jus-
48 

tify on the basis of tourism. Although we know they are enormously important for that, we have guarded against that, and that 

is why when Mr. Cables used the word that some units had been 

put in place as economic development tools, for economic development reasons, I think that we really on the committee and I think 

that the professionals in the Park Service tried to guard against 

that. Not that there are not important tourist activities. In fact, on 

an international basis I think the parks, our national parks, rank 

as one of the major attractions to international visitation within 

the continental and certainly within your area of representation, in 

Hawaii and Alaska. So I would just with thoseMr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Mr. VENTO. While I am enthusiastic about them serving that 

purpose, I think that our designation, our work and the work of the 

Park Service has been oriented maybe in a little different direction. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, excuse me. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No. No. I very carefully, and I hope that it 

was recognized by Mr. Cables and crew there, I very carefully did 

not state that I wanted to do this in order to generate travel and 

tourism. I understand your premise. 

I said-I hoped I said, and I will say for the record, my purpose 

in bringing this forward is that this is already existing. I am pretty 

familiar with the kinds of visitation and the activities that go on 

already. What I am saying is is that we need to he prepared for 

this regardless. That travel and tourism, I believe, is going to be 

one as the economy comes back, and I certainly hope that it will, 

and I want to participate in that, that as a result of that travel and 

tourism will take off, and you are going to be hit with it regardless. That is what I am talking about. You don't want to be ill-prepared. You don't want to have to close down as I see here more interpretive programs and all the rest of it. I believe that one of the things that moves this country forward 

as a Nation and get people to think of ourselves as brothers and 

sisters around the Nation is to be able to have an experience, espe- cially in our parks, in which you learn something about this country and what it is all about, and you expand your horizons. And 

I believe the National Park Service does that. I know it does in Hawaii. I know that people have experiences there they never thought 

they were going to have and impressions are made upon them that 

they carry with them I think their whole lives long, in great measure because of the professionalism exhibited by National Park 

Service employees there. 

So my purpose is not so much to say to you, Would you please 

be a lead dog on the tourism sled, but rather saying, You are al- ready in existence, this is already underway, you are already well 

behind the curve on what you want to provide in terms of infrastructure, and so let's get that proposal on the board as part of a 

long-term investment in the context of that which is already estab- lished by the Park Service. Mr. VENTO. And I think at the end of the line when we get all 

of these roads and everything lined up we get back to the operations and maintenance budget, and if they, coincidently, were sue-
49 

cessful with facilitating folks visiting, what is going to happen 

when they get there? It may, in fact, increase the operation and 

maintenance budget and be a justification for Mr. Sheaffer to give 

a different series of answers to our colleague Mr. Doolittle concerning this particular matter. 

And, of course, you know I think, Mr. Cables, in your statement 

the increased visitation is something that you ought to emphasize 

in terms of operation and maintenance, which I note in your statement but nobody picked up on it. But I think your answer, that 

was good. 

Mr. Smith had been waiting and you had been in and out, so we 

will go with Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

I want to just review the overall picture. First, welcome, Mr. Cables, and gentlemen. 

I want to review the overall financial picture once again so we 

all have it, hopefully, in mind. My numbers indicate that the backlog for operation and maintenance of the National Park Service is 

$400 million, that the backlog for land acquisition is some $2-$5 

billion, and that the backlog for construction of only the top 200 

priorities is $2 billion in arrears. Does those numbers jibe with 

yours, roughly? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. They all do, sir, with the exception of the land acquisition, and that number is, as I said earlier, pretty much anyone's guess. It depends. We don't have an accurate estimate. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. But yes, sir, otherwise they are very close. Mr. SMITH. All right. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir, they are good. 

Mr. SMITH. Somewhere between $2 billion and $5 billion would 

be a rough estimate? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. In the last Congress this committee passed 

measures totaling $2.3 billion in park and public expenditures. Of 

the 24 measures last year increasing costs to almost $300 million, 

last year only, 24 new units is what we are talking about, you folks 

supported 24 of them and opposed 4. My question is simply in the 

light of these terrific backlogs, how is it possible for the parks people to support any new units anywhere until we begin to repair 

what has been obviously brought out in this hearing and others, inadequacies and terrific needs around the country in existing parks? 

How is it possible that we can advocate new starts when we have 

not caught up, and are woefully behind, and will never catch up 

likely in this period of austerity with this new administration's emphasis, and thank goodness, on deficit reduction? How do we ever 

catch up with what we have in place, let alone advocating new 

units? 

Mr. CABLES. I think that, as was earlier said by the chairman, 

we are in a position where in some instances we support the addition of new units and in others we oppose them. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, 4 out of 24-Mr. Cables, please-4 out of 24 of 

you were opposed last year. 

Mr. CABLES. I am getting to that point. 
50 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. CABLES. I guess what I would say to you, if I can paraphrase 

what I thought I heard the chairman say, it gets down to a matter 

of what we are permitted to oppose as professionals, so that the 

point I make to you is that if we, the National Park Service professionals, were in the position to have absolute authority in terms of 

what we submitted we, perhaps, would have opposed fewer than 

the four. We would have opposed a larger number. 

And, as a result-and also I think we have to accept some of the 

responsibility and blame simply because we don't have and haven't 

had over the last 12 years or so a legislative package which would 

have put us in the forefront of what it was that you and this committee would make judgments and decisions on. So I guess that is 

the position and the responsibility that we accept. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I hear you saying that there are others who direct the policy, and you as professionals are sometimes muted. We 

all understand that situation. Yet, this is a new budget period, and 

we have a new Secretary of Interior, and you as park professionals 

it seems to me are obligated to counsel him about your current situation and to try to find a way which I hope we could all concur 

that maybe we better step back, take care of the established parks 

that we have already, although we will catch up likely under these 

budget restrictions, and counsel him that new starts are merely 

adding to the problem that you already have. Your priorities are 

stretched limitless, and you don't have the funding, nor will you 

have, in this budget to take care of the essential needs as you as 

professionals understand them. 

One of them, for instance, and you heard about the road in Yosemite-everybody has a problem, I am sure-Crater Lake National Park, the only park in Oregon, the clarity of the water is diminishing. Maybe we should shut it down. We are not sure why. 

There is a need for scientists to come in and determine what is the 

problem at Crater Lake National Park. Yet it is not in this budget. 

Tell me how-I have introduced legislation to create a study of 

that problem. Yet I don't anticipate it being a high priority simply 

because there are many others. But how do we arrange funding in 

an overstretched budget for essential kinds of programs that I have 

outlined at Crater Lake, and the road at Yosemite? And, my goodness, there must be millions of those. How do we do that with with 

you folks? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, you do it on a priority basis, and certainly if 

in fact there is a problem with the water, which is significant and 

important, I would have to think that that would be bumped up to 

a point where we could address it. By the action that is taking 

place to my left here, I am of the opinion, and understanding what 

I hear, that we have been involved and are studying that problem. 

Jack? 

Mr. SMITH. That study has been completed. 

Mr. CABLES. Oh. Mr. SMITH. The problem is we still have a water clarity, you may 

know about it, ongoing, and we don't know what-if there are pollutants. We don't know. There are 500,000 people come to that spot 

every year. So it is one of those very difficult kinds of things. 
51 

But in light, again, and I just go back to the horrible piling on 

that this committee has done to you, with your acquiescence, by the 

way-you are culpable as well because you supported 20 of these 

out of the 24, and you are stretching out funds that aren't available. So somewhere we have got to get the whole picture back in 

perspective, it seems to me. 

Mr. CABLES. What I guess that suggests is that we come together 

and address the issue that all of us are accepting. I would hope 

that the stimulus package would be approved. We are certainly encouraged by budget submission, the 1994 budget. I think that we 

have to take a look at the system and we need to make decisions 

as to how we manage some of these facilities as opposed to others, 

and that we need to become as forthright in terms of our needs and 

to make those particular presentations to this body and others in 

a way that supports the needs of a system that is recognized as the 

best in the world. And we will do that with the encouragement of 

hearings such as this and the support of this and other committees. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, while you are putting together the stimulus 

package, I hope that you would be a little more sincere than I understand we are at Crater Lake where part of the stimulus package 

includes bear-proofing garbage cans. That sounds like a joke. It is 

not. But we have some other dire needs at Crater Lake and bearproofing garbage cans. 

Mr. CABLES. Mr. Smith, I had the opportunity earlier this week 

to be briefed on the development at Crater Lake, and I should tell 

you, and I guess maybe the superintendent and the regional director were up and briefed you as they did us. 

Pardon? Have they been up? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, we met with them. 

Mr. CABLES. Okay. So I am encouraged to the point that we are 

moving forward in addressing the needs of that particular park, 

and we will be doing everything possible to see that in some 

prioritized incremental way that that happens. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just say, Mr. Cables, in your last comments 

about coming together to try to do things, I think that really what 

we need is not this sort of-we need clearer answers on many of 

these types of operations and budget issues. And I feel that this example of this $30 million, or $34 million shortfall did not show a 

lot of direction from the top, in fact, in terms of how this was to 

be dealt with and the way that it was announced. 

I think that everyone-instead of having some direction and 

someone taking responsibility for it, you have got every member 

complaining about their own district and area. I don't have, you 

know, a park problem in my area. But you know, the point was 

when you ask you would like to get back an answer and be able 

to ha~e something coherent that you can respond to in terms of 

what is going on. And, if that means the Director and the Secretary 

taking the heat, then they ought to take it. Obviously, I understand the necessity of working with superintendents and giving them some opportunity to respond and to adjust to the changes, but, you know, it is not clear how that process 

has worked-in this instance, just simply reading about it in the 

paper-and this is the type of reaction you are going to get. Obvi-
52 

ously, you have got some other agendas going on as well, which, 

I might say, your statement encourages. But, in any case, let me recognize my colleague Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RoBERT F . (BOB) SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, MARCH 4, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. Like many 

Members on this side of the aisle, I want to find out why, in spite of a 50% increase over the past five years in operational funding, we are hearing horror stories about 

major cuts facing units of the National Park System 

We also need to address the issue of perpetual expansions of the park system. 

Last Congress, this Committee passed measures totaling $2.3 billion in park and 

public expenditures. This is totally irresponsible. In fact, Crater Lake National Park 

in my district cannot get money for a study to find out why the water quality in 

the lake is disintegrating. I've had to introduce legislation to address this problem 

because ifwe don't have a pristine lake we won't have a need for the National Park 

at Crater Lake. The fact of the matter is, the National Park Service cannot catch up with the 

backlog in funding needs for our existing parks as long as we keep creating additional units. We have all heard the numbers-a $400 million backlog for Operation 

and Maintenance, a $2-$5 billion backlog for land acquisition, and a $2 billion backlog for construction on only the top 200 priorities. With these numbers in mind, I hope this Committee will spend this Congress pro- ·i;ecting our existing resources instead of creating new units of the Park System. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of the witness before us today. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Right. I would further point out, Mr. Duncan, that 

we are not done with the process. It isn't just this particular adjustment to an appropriation bill. We have got this problem with 

the concessions and how that functions and the accounting for that 

money. Then on top of all of this the Park Service through the regional offices goes through an assessment process. Last year, it was 

something like-in the vicinity of $12-$14 million of assessments 

that were made on individual parks, again which ends up being a 

rather curious way, which I am going to bring up in questioning. 

I just want members to be aware of it. It, obviously, lacks clarity. 

It lacks coherence. It lacks leadership in terms of what has happened at the directorship level, in my view. And I just think it may 

have been what was acceptable in the 1940s and 1950s, 1960s, 

1970s and 1980s, but it is not going to work. It is not working now. I don't believe it is a desirable way to go. I don't think anyone 

would suggest that it is a model. 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, it seems 

that almost every government department or agency wants to expand and grow and assume more power and take over more territory or become bigger, et cetera. Yet today we have a national debt 

of over $4 trillion, and there is so much concern out there in the 

country about that today it is almost unbelievable. Even liberals 

are concerned about it now, and almost everyone agrees that it is 

the major economic problem, the main thing we have holding this 

country back. We could probably be booming if this-if we didn't 

have it. 

Yet, from service on this committee and on other committees I 

have been in, it seems that while people come up and play lip serv-
53 

ice to the debt problem, everybody wants somebody else to do something about it. Everybody wants it to be somebody else's problem. In light of the questions that Mr. Smith was asking, I am wondering have you made a study of other areas across the country? Are there other potential park sites across the country that you 

want to come into the National Park Service? 

Mr. Smith mentioned that you had recommended 20 out of 24 or 

24 out of 28, something like that. Last year, I guess. Are there 

other areas that you are recommending at this time or that you 

soon will be recommending? And if so, how many? 

Mr. CABLES. I would have Mr. Galvin answer that relative to the 

studies that are ongoing. 

Mr. GALVIN. We have recently in the last-actually, in last year's 

budget is the first time in over 10 years that the Park Service listed seven areas that we believed should be studied. That is not to 

say that the results of the study would result in a recommendation 

that they should be added to the park system. In fact, the historical 

record is, of the areas we study, about 70 percent of them are not 

recommended for additions to the system. That particular list that 

was in the 1993 budget was developed from a set of criteria and 

submissions from each regional office in response to the question, 

What out there do you think needs to be studied? 

Currently, we have a list of, roughly, 20 areas nationwide that 

we believe should be studied. But I would again hasten to add that 

does not mean the study will wind up recommending that they be 

added to the park system. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Cables, earlier you mentioned a figure that had 

been recommended, I believe, for the budget for fiscal year 1994 for 

the Park Service. What was that figure that you mentioned-the 

total budget for the National Park Service? 

Mr. CABLES. For 1994? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. The figure for 1994 has not been settled. I don't 

believe we mentioned that here. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, was it a 1993 figure, then, that you mentioned? 

Mr. CABLES. The 1993 figure is one billion three hundred--

Mr. VENTO. This is for operation and maintenance that you are 

asking for? 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. What is the total budget for the National Park 

Service? 

Mr. CABLES. $1.4 billion. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And then in his opening statement the chairman 

had mentioned something about the budget for the Park Service 

had doubled, or more than doubled, I think he said, in the past 10 

years. Is that correct? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes, that is accurate. 

Mr. DUNCAN. What was the budget for the National Park Service 

10 years ago? 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield to me? I was talking 

about the operation and maintenance budget, and you are talking 

about the total budget. One point four is the answer they gave you, 

and I fear that, you know-my statement was talking about operation and maintenance having doubled. 
54 

The other portions of the budget are the land acquisition funds 

through LWCF, and there are some independent appropriations for 

things like the JFK-the Kennedy Theater for the Performing Acts, 

and there are some other categories that are outside that. Construction is the other major category, I believe. Mr. CABLES. The NPS budget in 1980 was 391,148. The ONPS 

budget in 1990 was 767,804. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So, in 1980 it was 391 million? 

Mr. CABLES. That is correct. Seven hundred and sixty-seven, 

eight-oh-four. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Now, are you talking about the total budget was 

391? ~ 

Mr. CABLES. No. I am just talking about the ONPS budget-the 

Operation, National Park Service System. There are other--

Mr. DUNCAN. What was the total? What was the total budget? 

Mr. CABLES. Total? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. The 1980 budget for all appropriations was 

$1,173,000,000. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You can't tell us what you are requesting for 1994; 

is that right? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct. It has not been finalized. 

Mr. CABLES. Now, a substantial amount of that budget in 1980? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes. 

Mr. CABLES. Was Land and Water Fund. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct. Including grant programs and all 

monies made available to us. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Can you tell us this? Are you asking for an increase from 1994 to 1993-from 1993 to 1994? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. DUNCAN. Are you making any efforts whatsoever to reduce 

or hold down costs? Private businesses have had to do that all over 

the country in the last 2 or 3 years and I am just wondering. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I can say this much. The Administration is interested in reducing administrative costs, and they are interested in 

reducing the number of Federal employees, and I think you will see 

in the Park Service budget some share of those reductions. But on 

the whole, you are going to see increases in the National Park 

Service budget. Mr. DUNCAN. Last year the public television got in some controversy, the funding, and so the heads of public television in this 

country said that if they got cut they would have to cut out showing of Big Bird and-they picked out their most popular programs. 

Instead of trying to find areas that they could cut, they did a public 

relations campaign and picked out their most popular program. 

And I remember 3 or 4 years ago there was an effort to cut or 

save some money in the Commerce Department, so they said that 

what they would have to do would be to cut out the weather stations that they had across the country, which was one of their most 

popular programs. And most people around the country today have 

the impression that anytime any governmental agency is threatened with a cut that they automatically go to their most popular 

program, instead of to their least popular or least needed program, 

so that they can start this campaign and keep from being cut. 
55 

And what I am wondering about, with the Park Service, if you 

have to-you are not going to reduce costs, but if you have to hold 

down costs are we going to see that you are going to close, you are 

going to threaten to close the most popular national parks, or 

would you be willing to look at the least popular, least visited areas 

or areas outside of the national parks that you could reduce some, 

say with administrative costs here in Washington and areas like 

that? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, some years ago when we were faced with a 

similar situation I think we were talking about closing the Washington Monument, and, of course, that is very popular. But specific 

to your question, I think that the managers and the superintendents within the system would take a look at those aspects of their 

operation that would least curtail the opportunity- for visitation and 

would attempt to curtail and cut back on those particular services. 

Mr. DUNCAN. In light of the questions that Mr. Smith asked, and 

I might say first that I appreciate your answer on that last question. In light of the questions that he was asking-that Mr. Smith 

was asking, about the shortfall in funds and the fact that we can't 

even take care of what we have now. Secretary Babbitt was here 

a few days ago and mentioned the $6 billion figure that I think the 

chairman mentioned earlier. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield? The chairman has not 

mentioned the $6 billion. This is entirely Secretary Babbitt and the 

Park Service's figure. I profess to not understand that figure. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay, Secretary Babbitt then. I have been told that 

Secretary Babbitt has now endorsed a plan to create a national 

park in the California Desert. Do you know whether that is true, 

or whether that is accurate or inaccurate? 

Mr. CABLES. I believe that the the Secretary is being briefed on 

that and will within the next 10 days to 2 weeks be meeting with 

representatives relative to that particular unit. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, whether he has endorsed it or not, how much 

will it cost to create a national park in the California Desert? 

Mr. CABLES. I have not been intimately involved with that particular park, and therefore would have to provide for the record the 

answer to your question. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have been told that it would be the most expensive addition ever made to the national park system, and that it 

would cost in the hundreds of millions-potentially even in the billions. Is that anywhere close to being accurate? 

Mr. CABLES. Mr. Galvin might be able to provide some insight. 

Mr. GALVIN. Actually, in the previous hearings on the bill before 

Congress the administration position has always been that BLM 

should retain management of that portion that is proposed as a national park called the East Mojave National Park. In those hearings, figures related to-it is difficult to answer your question precisely because it depends on some assumptions. But having participated in those hearings, figures of up to $3 billion to extinguish 

mining claims were mentioned. Land acquisition, depending again 

on how a boundary could be drawn, could run in the $200 million 

range. 

But again, since there was no specific park proposal, nor was 

there-nor did the administration, in fact, support a park proposal 
56 

in the East Mojave, it is difficult to say how those costs would actually work out with a park-I mean if there were a park passed that 

said you are not going to buy any mining, it would have a substantial impact on costs. Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Mr. GALVIN. But the numbers that have been mentioned in previous hearings are high. There is no question about it. Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just suggest that much of that land is managed by the BLM, and so some of these costs and depending on how 

you drew the boundaries would obviously have an impact. 

In the process of the request that we made, as I pointed out, we 

had asked for and raised the question of assessments. This is a 

major, another major readjustment that the Park Service apparently has instituted within the system to meet some funding needs, 

whatever they may be. And so what we asked for and what we 

have received back were some documents, with no standard format, 

I might add, from the various regions suggesting what the assessments have been for the last 4 or 5 years, I believe-1989, 1990, 

1991, 1992. I note on this no assessments for 1993. Are there going to be assessments, Mr. Cables, planned in 1993? 

Mr. CABLES. I would hope that there would be no assessments 

necessary in 1993 on the basis of our being the recipients of the 

stimulus package. Mr. VENTO. Well, whatever that is. I mean it sounded to me like 

you are projecting that-in the stimulus package there is $30 million for operation and maintenance; is that correct? 

Mr. CABLES. And there would be, I neglected to mention, and 

there is a reprogramming that is proposed. And, Bruce, you might wish toMr. VENTO. You want to explain that, Mr. Sheaffer? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, yes. Mr. Chairman, we do have a significant 

reprogramming that is still under consideration within the admin- istration that has not yet reached the committees for 1993. Mr. VENTO. The point is that there are no assessments planned 

or expected for 1993 right now? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, there are, and they will be included in this 

reprogramming that we are going to be sending forward. Mr. VENTO. There will be assessments? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. VENTO. What is the genesis of this assessment process? Can 

you give us a history of it, Mr. Sheaffer, so that the members and 

the record may better reflect this process? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. Upon appropriation and subsequent allocation, the regions areMr. VENTO. This is only applicable to operation and maintenance? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. Yes, it is. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. It is not applicable to other construction; it is not applicable to land and water; it is not applicable to units that are not 

within this segment of the budget? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct. Because we simply can't mix 

funds in that fashion. It is to cover expenses that were unknown 

at the time of the budget or adjustments that need to be made. 
57 

Mr. VENTO. For the appropriation, you mean? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. At the time of formulation-we have, as 

you know, in excess of 600 programs, projects and activities. Our 

budget, of course, is filled with numbers, by park and by function 

and by regional office or servicewide program and the like. And, 

quite frankly, the budgets are formulated some 16 to 18 months 

prior to the time that monies actually become appropriated in a 

normal course. And circumstances change, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the appropriation itself can ultimately alter the assumptions that were made at 

the time the budget was put together. So, when dollars are finally 

appropriated and allocated down to the park level, the managers 

at all levels must accommodate some of those items that were not 

known. 

For example, some of the recurring examples are our GSA bills 

that tend to go up at an unpredictable rate. We have never been 

able to get any quality predictions from GSA as to what those 

amounts might very well be. The same seems to be true of telephone rates, the central telephone bills and the like. And there are 

a number of those kinds of things which we try to but don't sue~ 

cessfully predict all the time. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have guidelines for this assessment process 

that are written guidelines? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. At the time that the allocations are made to theno, sir, there are no specific written guidelines, except that-if, any 

action of paying a central bill or of reallocating monies that exceed 

the reprogramming guidelines are in fact communicated to the Appropriations Subcommittees in accordance with our 

understanding--

Mr. VENTO. But there are no guidelines that set this in place. Do 

you believe this is a common practice, this assessment process, 

with the other, sister agencies within the BLM? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe so. Mr. VENTO. Pardon me? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. I believe so. 

Mr. VENTO. You think it is. Do you think it is a common practice 

in other agencies of the national government? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That I am not certain of. I know more about what 

goes on in Interior. 

Mr. VENTO. The process seems, you obviously point out some unusual circumstances which are not predictable, but it appears to 

me that the amount of information, Mr. Cables, that I received 

back is itself very unpredictable. Who makes the decision for these 

assessment processes? Is this made at the Director level? 

Mr. CABLES. There are two judgments made. There are regional 

and Washington judgments made. In the region they are made by 

the regional directors and in some instances the directorate within 

the respective regions along with, perhaps, a grouping of superintendents. 

Mr. VENTO. So there is a regional director decision in terms of 

assessment? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes. On the basis of the needs that are a part of 

the rationale for the assessments. 
58 

Mr. VENTO. Well, he is making the decisions. I am not asking 

whether-he has reasons for making the decision. But he makes 

that and he has no guidelines by which to make that? 

Mr. CABLES. No. There is no guideline from Washington on that. 

Mr. VENTO. No guidelines from Washington. 

Mr. CABLES. And the accounting system, then, in terms of that 

regional director making that decision, what are the accounting requirements, Mr. Sheaffer, for the Regional Director? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, let me-as far as the guidelines go, in the 

allocation, Mr. Chairman, in the annual allocation process there 

are guidelines that effectively give them latitude, but within the 

reprogramming guidelines, to make internal shifts of funds between projects-program, projects and activities. And they report 

back to us and our budget reflects, and subsequently our accounting system reflects those changes. 

Mr. VENTO. But there is no judgment made-you are dealing 

with the numbers and integrating. But there is no judgment actually made as to whether that was correct or incorrect, any value 

judgment made with regards to that? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. If they are within the reprogramming guidelines, 

then the decision is left at the regional level; yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Why is it that the record of this information that I 

requested is so erratic in terms of the information coming back to 

me, in terms of this request, Mr. Sheaffer? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I apologize and take responsibility for that, Mr. Chairman. We wanted to get it to you quickly as opposed to 

recasting it in a more uniform format. ' 

Mr. VENTO. Well, don't you have it in a uniform format? How do 

you keep track of this if it isn't in a uniform format? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, in answer to the specific question that was 

asked, we do not get the information back from the regions. We 

could have given you, for example, the outcomes by program, 

project and activity, but that I did not believe would answer your 

question. I thought you wanted to know the sourceMr. VENTO. Well, it appears to me the National Capital Region 

information is completely indecipherable. I can't tell what this 

means. Can you explain this information to me that I received, Mr. 

Sheaffer? Or can somebody at the table explain to me the National 

Capital Region information that was sent to me? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe that what they did, sir, is give you what, 

in essence, is the internal-the outcome of the internal process 

they went through to reallocate within the region to cover unknown 

expenses. 

Mr. VENTO. I can't tell whether this is in thousands or millions. For instance, I am looking at the page for fiscal year 1988. Do you 

have that information in front of you that you sent to me? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe I can--

Mr. VENTO. I can't tell whether this is in thousands. Mr. SHEAFFER. It is. I am sure it is in thousands, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. Well, that is what I presume that it is, butMr. SHEAFFER. I am sure of it. 1988 National Capital Regionyes, sir, those are thousands. I am sure. 
59 

Mr. VENTO. And none of these documents suggest that, I might 

add to you. This is completely in a different format than-well, obviously, we apparently requested a format that is not common to 

your usage. But others, such as the Pacific Northwest Region, the 

Rocky Mountain-I have it almost park by park, and Mid-Atlantic 

is a study in brevity. Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. I recognize that. Yes, sir. Mr. VENTO. Well, I mean I think that we need to have a little 

more. I think we want to fill this out in terms of some sort of a 

format. Alaska is, again, indecipherable. It sounds as though the 

whole process in terms of how the entire office is run. There is in 

some cases an individual appropriation that is divided up one third 

to the park and two thirds to the region. In more than one instance, Mr. Sheaffer, it is completely at odds. I might say that I note Cape Krusenstern, money to implement 

monitoring is listed here. I thought we collected that from the applicant, as I recall. I can check with my institutional memory and 

my staff to follow that up for you. 

But, in any case, the Southwest Region is another brief suggestion. There is no idea of who paid what or what it went for, obviously, where it came from. And, obviously, you have Washington 

information here as well. So~he Washington office, I guess, is an 

outcome where they have-'•there are repeated allocations. For instance, I note just on the National Capital Region that there is a 

negative $1.4 million in 1988 that went for the Washington office. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Those would be to cover the things principally 

that I mentioned to you, the unforeseen fixed cost bills that we pay 

centrally. I think the use of the word "assessment" is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't know what-I don't want to use, I didn't 

pick this particular nomenclature, Mr. Sheaffer. Mr. SHEAFFER. I understand. Mr. VENTO. This is a nomenclature that you are utilizing, and so 

I want to be-I mean I have got enough to confuse me without getting into a debate about it. 

I just want to point out, you know, to all of you that when there 

isn't an adequate understanding, when we are receiving things 

through the media in terms of these, then, obviously, we get very 

concerned. I just want someone to take responsibility for the system and be able to rationalize it, and I think that this informa- tion-I don't intend to get into micromanagement of every single 

park in terms of what it does, but I would like this assessment 

process brought up to date. 

I might also add that we have got outstanding requests in terms 

of a recordkeeping requirement for the concession contracts and 

recordkeeping for them, which was completely abysmal, in evaluating that. Mr. Davis, who had testified before the committee sometime ago, was supposedly trying to get that process in order. 

And so I want this done. I would like it done and I think the 

members of the committee need it done. I just think that we have 

got process where we have got money going back and forth. There 

may be some need for flexibility, but I think-I don't know of any 

system like this. I examine the budget in Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury, where I have responsibilities, and I 
60 

have not seen this. They have got their own problems, needless to 

say. 

But I just think when we are trying to deal with closings and we 

are dealing with information that not having an adequate database 

or having this come back in a way that is coherent is a real problem for this Member of Congress. 

Now, I have got a lot of questions here from the staff. All we 

have been dealing with is my questions so far. So I would submit 

these questions to you for the record and the fulfillment of the requirements and the earlier requests that we made such as putting 

dollar figures on these cuts that have been suggested here, which 

Mr. Davis subscribed to that. Those are available and there is some 

misunderstanding. 

Obviously, if you are in reprogramming I don't want you to 

reinvent the wheel. But I think it is only fair that if there are going 

to be assessments in the 1993 budget, an unfortunate word according to Mr. Sheaffer, that we would have that put before us. But I 

don't want you to go back and do it over. So at some point I would 

like all of this before me so I would have the idea of what is going 

on and what the true dollars might be. I think that it is useful. If you think it is useful to have it in 

an outcome format in addition to who is being assessed for what 

or what is being taken from the parks and the regions, that is fine. 

I would like that. But if you want the outcomes in terms of where 

it is going, that would be helpful to the committee. I expect that 

the Appropriations Committee would find that useful as well. We 

would like to have a forr.aat that would be useful to both rather 

than going through one that would be exclusive to me only and of 

no use or utility to anyone else. But I would like that in terms of 

this assessment process. 

And these cuts, I just think the process of servicewide adjustments needs to be better rationalized and directed by the Director. 

I suspect that a lot of this occurred simply because of slippage. In 

years past when we have had adjustments, I don't remember-and 

I think some of those adjustments might have been at least as severe as this. I don't remember seeing this sort of phenomena go on, 

which seems to be sort of an ad hoc basis. 

Mr. Davis, did you have a comment? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. I was just moving this. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I am here to be enlightened. You know, I have 

been an advocate. But it is hard to be an advocate when you 

don't-if you want to be in on the landing, the crash landing, you 

want to be in on the take-off. Obviously, we all knew that the 

budget didn't do what it was supposed to, but on the other hand, 

we could like to feel that what is going on is rationalized and understandable and predictable, you know. Like one of my colleagues 

said, I don't even like surprises on Christmas, much less from the 

AP or from the local reporters. Other comments, Mr. Davis? I have got to go vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one thing by 

way of example, which I hope will help understand, bring some understanding to our problem. We all recall the need in our concessions management area to upgrade our records and to improve our 

ability to do the financial analysis. 
61 

We identified in the budget process for 1992 that to achieve those 

objectives we would need $1.5 million. The budget as submitted to 

Congress turned out to be about a million dollars to improve our 

concession management program. It then was appropriated at a 

level of 750,000 or half of what we started with. Then to complicate 

that situation there was an assessment of 25 percent-pardon me. 

In 1992 there were total assessments including our own and a congressional assessment of 3 percent. Then in 1993 fiscal year our entire concession budget was denied any increase for pay. We didn't 

even get half in the concession area. This resulted in a further reduction of some 263,000. So the long and the short of what I am trying to explain is that 

an identified need on our part of 1.5 million is now effectively in 

the range of 300,000 to 350,000. And we have in the meantime 

built our program to try and do some of the things. Well, when this 

happens to us, then we must find funding. 

Mr. VENTO. I won't ask for another GAO study of it, but we 

might be able to-I would like to see it done. I, obviously, have to 

go vote. I appreciate the type of problem and I would hope that 

wouldn't be the subject of another assessment in terms of trying to 

raise the money back for this that has been lost by assessment and 

by reduced budgets by Congress. 

So I here what you are saying. I just want to note, and I have 

been patient, I think, with regards to this, but as we get into these 

subjects having this type of information base will be helpful to me, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Cables. So I just think it is necessary if we are 

going to rationalize the budget, and really in the end that is what 

we need to do. 

I have to vote, so we will continue this dialogue in an informal 

and formal manner. 

The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

0) 

~ 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE APPROPRIATIONS REOUES'll!D AND ENACTED SINCE l'Y 1982 (SOOO's) 01/

~ration of the Natnl l{ecreation John F. Kennedy _&!:ark System and Preservation Center ~Q_n_ID_uct

_ _lt_equcst . En;1ctc~-- .R!:!lu~t __ J]!'IIC~~~-. __ Req ue~t Enact~_d Request E

FY 1982a,b 492,990 521,528 13,3n 12,607 4,614 4,212 70,635 

FY 1983 548,722 605,279 7,155 10,055 4,136 4,336 132,721 

Rescission 0 0 0 0 0 0 (63,600) 

FY 1984 h 593,166 616,WO 9,226 10,377 4,342 4,542 78,275 

FY 19Kh 626,750 626,818 9,449 11,111 4,621 4,529 77,878 

FY 1986d 614,278 6!0,634 9,547 10,555 4,600 4,566 49,456 

FY 1987d 614,113 705,981 9,547 10,928 4,771 4,771 29,114 

FY 1988 711,91!0 730,799 10,249 12,935 4,904 4,904 30,798 

rv 1989 733,761! 769,835 10,204 14,608 5,193 5,181 15,00J 

FY 1990 767,240 767,804 10,204 15,923 15,193 9,118 44,112 

FY 1991 incl. AT0 830,804 876,688 10,125 18,301 8,150 21,039 99,766 

rv 1992 970,526 976,498 28,949 21,812 22,945 22,656 115,896 

FY 1993 to date 1,031,813 983,995 30,991 23,563 13,556 20,629 137,686 

Included arc regular and original requests and appropriations cn.u.:lcJ ;u,d any amendments. s,upplcmcntals, rcsdssions, ilnd sc4.1uc..-

Amounts are appropriations enacted not adjusted lor transfers. 

a Does not include an amendment 10!5/81 reducing the request hy 12%. Submi1ted1fler I louse and Senate reports were not addresse

conferees; however the regular appropriation act included a 4% gcrieral reduction provision. 

b FY 1982 and 1984 NR&P requests were included in ONPS in the Reagan budget, tut are shown NR&I' for mmparnhility. 

c Reflect small rescissions requested and enncted for nmnngement snving.,. 

d Does not reflect requested rescissions o[ add-ons cnat.:lcd~ such rc~issions reaUirm the amount requested rnthcr than r,cdut.:c ii; no

tbescl proposed rescissions were enacted. 

e FY 1988 appropriations included a rescission of UP&RF balances. 
NATIONAL PARK Sl!RVICI! APPROPRIATIONS Rl!OUl!S'll!D AND 

NPS Land Acquisition Stale Recreation llistoric Prcsc

and Administration Grants ~_Adminislrn vation Fund 

..l~cque~l. E~nctc!1 .. !tc11ucst Enacte_d Requcs.t Ena

l'V 1982a .J0,390 129,0!II 4,~1,4 4,3KI 4,700 2

fo"V 1983 59,776 121.~05 0 115,000 0 5

FY 1984 44,671 128,650 0 75,000 0 2

fo"V 1985 c 99,966 95,682 (18) n,482 0 2

FY 1986d 10,000 46,041 1,275 47r~6) 0 2

FY 1987d 13,000 75,160 2,270 34,970 0 2

FY l988e 12,538 40,763 3,419 19,762 0 2

FY 1989 12,396 52,609 3,383 20,000 0 3

FYl990 66,076 67,740 3,3!B 19,762 0 3

l:Y 1991 incl. ATB 76,853 103.~66 3,3CKl 33,225 33,665 3

FY 1992d 84,145 82,02.1 33,500 23,204 35,931 3

FY 1993 to date 84,404 89,686 60,(KKI 211,214 40,931 3

Included are regular and original requests and appropriations enacted and any ~ndmc

Amounts are appropriations enacted not adjusted for trnnsfcrs. 

a Does not include on amendment 10/5/81 reducing the request by 12%. Submitted ,her 

conrerees; however the regular appropriation act included a 4% general reduction pro

b FY 1982 and 1984 NR&P requests were included in ONPS in the Reagan budget, lut a

c Reflect small rescissions requested and enacted for management saving.,. 

d Docs not rclkcl rcqucstcJ rc:sci.Hiuns or aJJ-nns c:nactcJ; such rc~l"-,ions rc:n(firm th

thesel proposed rescissions were enacted. 

e FY 1988 appropriations included a rescission or UP&RF balances. 
65 

~~~~§ii::--

""""' "'"'0._N, .. 

11.6. •ouse of l\epre1entatibt1 

Committrr on :::'LL=-=~ 

IAIIGC.IOf.,_C-CTCllf' ._.u-.....uua-,11 

... JIC--.otl. - 111..CO 

~~ ... :::v:-:-~-....... 

Jlalural l\r•ourrr• • afbinirton, II( 2051H201 

Nit..,..._ IOVhl .,_.OTA 

:::"'-~~--::w.-. 

Uil.Wfll.lOOU'I' CAl.#OMIA UM.ct --~UO. PUIIITO MCO 

...... ---- MnwilNM,. ~-.. ·

OIOM "'""' ,.,_..._l,IIIOl~OUMI ~ .. ~-~ 

••mt-.MWU 

........... -.~ ~IV.,._llUGI 

n.c.AIJ.a.ull.OW .. Uirm.aT 

noGIMla...,..n.Wl~HI 

Mr. Herbert s. Cables 

Acting Director 

National Park Service 

Department of the Interior 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Mr. Cables: 

March 8, 1993 

-·-

nAnOINCTOII 

fll'

---- IIIMI. C<k.WML 

6-\¥AllllM 

l&NIUC.UitTAlf ..cTOI 

As announced during the hearing on Thursday, March 4, 1993, I am forwarding the following questions and requests for information. 

Your responses will be made part of the hearing record. 

Please provide the actual dollar amounts associated 

with the adjustments approved in December of 1992. 

Please provide a list of park units converted into 

year-round units in the 19B0's. 

How is the Denver Service Center funded? What was the 

total budget for the Center in the last five fiscal 

years? 

What portion of the allocated or appropriated funds 

expended by the Denver Service Center go into actual 

"bricks and aortar• for construction? 

What portion of the funds are used for contracted 

professional services? What portion is used for inhouse professional services? How does the Center 

decide which services will be provided internally and 

which will be contracted? 

What portion 

management? 

conducted in cost overrun Center? 

of the funds are spent on projects 

How does this compare to similar projects the private sector? What ia the average 

for projects managed by the Denver Service 

How much discretion does the Denver Service Center have 

in deciding which areas or themes to study? What 

portion of these studies are Congressionally mandated? 
66 

Page Two 

Please provide a list of studies, ongoing or completed, 

undertaken by the center in the last five years. 

Please provide the park by park allocation for fiscal 

year 1993, as well as the line-item appropriation for 

each regional office and the Washington office. 

It is my understanding that in the original stimulus 

package worked up in the National Park Service that 

funds were proposed for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) state grants program and the Urban Park and 

Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) but they were not included in the final package. Considering the 

effectiveness of these programs in creating jobs in 

depressed areas, the quick spendout rate, and the fact 

that matching funds were immediately available for some $350 million in state and local projects, why didn't 

these programs get funded? 

Why have you stopped providing the distribution of fee 

income per park in the budget justification? Do you 

have these figures? 

The following question was submitted for the record by 

Congressman Bill Richardson: 

Pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act a grant program has been established 

within the National Park service to assist Indian 

tribes, universities and museums in carrying out their 

responsibilities under the Act. This grant program has 

yet to be funded. Does the Administration plan to provide the resources needed to fund this i• portant 

component to i• plementation of the Act? 

The following questions were submitted by Congressman Larry 

LaRocco: 

Why has funding and staff for tourism been cut by the 

National Park Service at a time when our parks are in 

such trouble and when we should be focusing more energy on effective tourism promotion and management of our National Park Syste• ? 

Why have touris• technical assistance projects in rural areas been cut? 

Why are you no longer offering regional tourism 

training conferences as the National Park Service 

tourism office once did? 
67 

Page Three 

Why ha• the National Park Service refused to participate vith other land aanaging agencies in 

projects being developed aa a result of the agreement 

signed in Utah last September by the National Park 

Service, four other land aanaging agencies and the U.S. 

Travel and Tourisa Association? 

I would appreciate your prompt response to these inquiries. 

BFV/alh 

Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 

and Public Lands 
68 

WCI- • • 

United States Department of the Interior mfl.llEiE' 

IN REPLYRUI.Jt TO· 

C3823(680) 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

P.O. Box 37127 

Wu hington, D.C. 20013-7127 

APR 9 1993 

Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 

Dear Mr . Vento : 

Thank you for your March 15 , 1993, letter regarding the 

·- -. 

March 4 , 1993, oversight hea ring on National Park Service (NPS) 

budget acco untability and financial management and also your 

conversatio n on Marc h 8, 1993, with s e veral concessioners. 

Yo ur letter mentions that during the March 4, 1993, hearings you 

asked to recei ve information concerning the extent in which 

concessioners had been give n credit in lieu of franchise fees for 

expenditures they had made. We agreed to supply it for the 

record. We have enclosed a listing of those concession contracts 

having special account provisions. The amounts shown in the 

"Estimated Expenditures" column totaling $9.6 million were 

obtained from the concessioners 1991 annual financial statements. 

The listing does not include any detail showing how the $9 . 6 

million was spent. It would take a substantial amount of field 

time and effort to obtain such detail, however, should you wish 

that we provide it for you, please let us know. 

Your letter also mentions that in your meeting with members of 

the Conference of Concessioners, they provided you with a document that included a 1991 estimate of "Annual Improvement 

Additions" of $27 . 3 million. You asked if the document was 

prepared by NPS and if it was accurate. 

The docume nt which you enclosed was prepared by my s taff, 

however, the estimated amount of "Annual Improvement Additions" 

in the amount of $27 . 3 million has since been updated and now 

amounts to $39.9 million. The $39.9 million was taken directly 

from the 1991 financial statements (Schedule D, Depreciable Fixed 

Assets, Line 2, additions), submitted annually by concessioners. 

This amount includes not only possessory interest additions made 

to concessioner and Government-owned facilities and structures 

but als o other than possessory interest additions such as 

furniture, f i xtures, equipment and other improvements. 
69 

Also enclosed is a listing, by concessioner, which shows a concession by concession breakdown of the $39.9 million in 

capital additions made in 1991. It includes a column for 

possessory interest additions and a column for non-possessory 

interest additions. The amounts for possessory interest and 

other than possessory interest additions is the type of 

information which is ordinarily exempt from disclosure to the 

public under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

u.s.c. Section 552(b) (4) relating to confidential information. 

It is provided to you in your official capacity as Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. 

Because the courts have determined that public disclosure of such 

information could cause substantial competitive harm to the 

concessioner& from whom it was obtained, we request that it not be released to the public. 

Additionally, we have enclosed an updated copy of the National 

Park Service Concessions Statistics document which you received 

from the concessioners and included with your letter. Please note that the amount shown on the line labeled "Annual Special Account Fees" has been increased from $6 . 9 million to $9.1 

million and the amount shown on the line labeled "Annual 

Improvement Additions" have been increased from $27.3 million to $39.9 million. The $39.9 million of capitalized expenditures 

made by the concessioners in 1991 and labeled "Annual Improvement 

Additions" should not be confused with the estimated $9.1 million 

of non-capitalized expenditures made by the concessioners in 1991 

and labeled "Annual Special Account Fees." They are not one and 

the same. The concessioners obtained no possessory interest for 

the $9.1 million and these expenditures were expensed in 1 year 

rather than being capitalized. Also, while we include the Annual 

Improvement Additions made by concessioners in our total "Return to the Government" calculation, we consider it to be a "Return to the Government" only in the most general terms. 

We appreciate your continued interest in the National Park 

Service Concessions Program. If we can provide any additional 

information, please let us know. 

,Q~ "'"''· )} G L1⁄41⁄2N.~ 

Associate Director, Operations 

Enclosures 
70 

08-Apr- 93 

Special Accounts Estimated 

Concessioner Expenditures Concid # Special Account Terms 1991 APIS001 AposUe Island Cruise Service Fiat lee of $2,500 2,500 • BIBE002 National Park Concessions, Inc. 3.5% of Gross Receipts 115,046 BLRI003 Parkway inn, Inc. Flat lee of $5,400 5,400 • BLRI007 National Park Concessions, Inc. 3.5% ol Gross Receipts 58,127 BRCA002 Bryce/Zion Trai Rides 3.0% ol Gross Receipts 8,037 • BRCA003 TW Recreational Services, Inc. 3.0% of Gross Receipts 98,303 • DEVA002 Fred Harvey, Inc. 7.0% minus Gas Sales 143,129 GATE005 Beverly Parking Corporation 6.0% up to $150 ooo 9,000 Beverly Parking Corporation 82.0% from $150,000 to $275,000 102,500 GLAC002 Glacier Park Inc. 1.0% Capital Fund 77,716 • Glacier Park Inc. 6.0% Maintenance Fund 466,294 • GRCA001 Fred Harvey Company 15,00o Building Use Fee 15,000 Frad Harvey Company ·

5" Visitor Improvements 263,731 GRC.6.002 TW Recreational Services, Inc. 3-5% Maintenance Fund 182,677 • TW Recreational Services, Inc. 3.5% minus New Lodging Facil. 125,473 GRCA033 Grand Canyon Railway, Inc. $19,450 Building Use Fee 19,450 (» ISRO002 National Park Concessions, Inc. 3.5% of Gross Receipts 34,257 LAVO001 Calfomia Guest Services, Inc. $34,335 Building Use Fee 34,335 MACA002 National Park Concessions, Inc. 3.5% of Gross Receipts 85,732 MEVE001 ARA Mesa Verde Company 15.0% of Campground Receipts 42,695 • MORU001 Mount Rushmore Mountain Co. 5. 75% of Gross Receipts 388,307 • OLYM003 National Park Concessions, Inc. 3.5% of Gross Receipts 51,172 

SEOU004 Guest Services, Inc. $275,346 Building Use Fee 275,346 

SHEN001 ARA Virginia Skyline, Co. 3,908 Building Use Fee 3,908 ARA Virginia Skyline, Co. 2.0% of Gross Receipts 179,571 THRO001 Peaceful Valley Trai Rides, Inc. 3.0% of Gross Receipts 2,129 YELL002 Hamilton Stores, Inc. 0.5% of Gross Receipts 90,960 • YELL077 TW Recreational Services, Inc. 10.0% of Gross Receipts 3,221,946 • TW Recreational Services, Inc. 50% of YPSS Profit-50,000 153,591 TW Recreational Services, Inc. 10.0% of Gross Receipts 3,221,946 • ZION001 Bryce/Zion Tra~ Rides 3.0% of Gross Receipts 4,205 • ZION003 TW Recreational Services, Inc. 3.0% of Gross Receipts 135,236 • Total :,; ••• e·e17·1111 ·<•·· 

• No special account setaside - concessioner submits annual repon to the park 

@ Financial statements required - reponed gross receipts of zero 

Possessory Interest Write-Off 

Concid # Concessioner 

SHEN001 ARA Virninia Skuline Co. 

Estimated 

1991 Value 

179 571 

Source - The amounts shown in the Estimated Expenditures column came from the concessioner's 1991 

financial statements or were computed from the 1991 financial statements. 

_ The special account provisions shown in the Special Account Terms column were provided 

by the regional ottices. 
71 

PARK ALPHA CODES 

ABLI ABRAHA" LIRCOLI BIRTHPUCE NHS CACL CASTLE CLIITOII NATIONAL BONUmT 

ACAD ACADIA NATIORAL PAR[ CACO CAPE COD IATIOIAL SEASHORE 

ADM ADA"S NATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE CAGR CASA GRAIDE IATIOIAL l!ONU"EIIT 

AGFO AGATE FOSSIL BEDS RATIONAL ftONUftEIIT CAHA CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE 

ALFL ALIBATES nINT QUARRIES Ill! cm CAPE KRUSERSTERN NATIONAL NORUNEMT 

ALPO ALLEGHENY PORTAGE RAILROAD NHS CALO CAPE LOO[OUT IATI ONAL SEASHORE 

ANER ANERJCAJI RE!IORIAL PARt cm CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE 

ARIS mmo RECREATION AREA CANY CANYOIIUNDS NATIONAL Pm 

ANCH ALASU PUBLIC UIDS IRFO CTR • AICHORAGE . CARE CAPITOL REEF HTIOIAL Pm 

ANOE ARDERSOIIVILLE IATIONAL HISTORIC SITE CARL CARL SANDBURG HONE NHS 

ARIA AIJUCHll IATIONAL l!OIUftEIIT CASA CASTILLO DE SU MARCOS RATIONAL l!ONUftENT 

ARIA AIIA[CRJ[ IATIOIAL PRESERVE CATO CATOCTII IIOUITAII Pm 

AIIJO AIDREV JORISOI IATIOHL HISTORIC SITE CAYO CAPULIN VOLCAIO RATIONAL "OIU"ENT 

ANTC ANTIETAM IATIOIAL CEMETERY CEBR CEDAR BREALS NATIONAL "ONU"ENT 

ANTI ANTIETAI IATIOIAL BATTLEFIELD CHA" CHA"1ZAL IATIOIAL ftE!IORIAL 

APCO AP~ATTOX COURT HOUSE NHP CHAT CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATL REC AREA 

APIS APOSTLE ISUNDS NATIONAL LA[ESHORE CHCH CH!CUftAUGA & CHATTANOOGA NftP 

ARCH ARCHES RATIONAL PAR[ CHCU CHACO CULTURE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PAR[ 

ARHO ARLIRGTOR HOUSE, THE ROBERT E, LEE BE" CHIC CHIC[ASAV NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

ARO ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE CHIR CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL "ONU"ENT 

ARPO ARKANSAS POST RATIONAL m,omL CHIS CHANNEL ISUNDS NATIONAL PAR[ 

ASIS ASSATEAGUE ISLAND NAT IONAL SEASHORE CHOH CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

mu AZTEC RU !IS NATIONAL "OlmNT CHP I CHARLES ?INCUET NATIORAL HISTORIC SITE 

BADL BADLANDS RATIONAL PAR[ CHPO CHICAGO PORTAGE NATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE 

BAND BANDELIEI RATIONAL "ORU~ CHRf CHRISTIAIISTED RATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

BATT BAmEGROUND NATIONAL CEMETERY CHRO CHIMNEY ROCK •.ITIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

!!CLO BIG CYPRESS UID ACOUISITION OFFICE CcBA CLARA BARTOi IATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

BEFR BENJAMIN nmm RATIONAL ftENORIAL CODA COULEE DAI NATIONAL RECREATIOR AREA 

BELA BERING UID BR IDGE RATIONAL PRESERVE co~ COLOUOO HTIOIAL "OIU"EIT 

BEOL BENT'S OLD FORT RATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE COLO COLONIAL NATIOIAL HISTORICAL PAR[ 

BIBE BIG BEND HTIOIAL Pm CORO CORONADO HTIOIAL l!EIIORIAL 

BICA BIGHORR CARTOI RATIONAL RECREAT ION AREA cosv CONGAREE svm RATIONAL "ONUftEMT 

BICY BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE COVP COVPENS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

BIHO BIG HOLE RATIONAL BATTLEFIELD CRLA CRATER UKE NATIONAL PAR[ 

BISC BISCAYNE N!TIOIAL PAR[ CRftO CRATERS OF THE IIOON NAT!ONAL "ONU"EMT 

BISO BIG SOUTI! FORK NATIORAL RIV & RECR AREA CUGA CUftBERUND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PAR[ 

BITH BIG THJC[ET RATIONAL PRESERVE CUIS CU"8ERLAID !SUND NATIONAL SEASHORE 

BLAC BLACKSTONE RIVEi VALLEY CURE CURECA"1! NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

SLCA BLACK CANTON OF THE GUNNISON I" CUS! CUSTER BATTLEFIELD NATIOIAL IIONUmT 

BLRI BLUE RI OGE PAinA T CU VA CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIOMAL RECREAT ION AREA 

BOAF BOSTON AFRICAN·A!IEIICAI NBS DELA DELAVARE UTIONAL SCENIC RIVER 

BOST BOSTON NAT IONAL HISTORICAL PAR[ om DENALI NATIONAL PAR[ 

BOVA BOOKER T, VASH IIIGTON NATIONAL "ONUftENT DENA DENALI NATIONAL PRESERVE 

BRCA BRYCE CANYON NATIONAL PAR[ DEPO DEV: LS POSTPILE NAT IONAL "ONU"ENT 

BRCR BR ICES CROSS ROADS NBS DESO OE SOTO MATIONAL ftENORIAL 

BTLO BIG THJC[ET LAND ACQU ISITION OFFICE DETO DEV I LS TO VER NATI OHL IIONUIIENT 

BUFF BUFFALO NATIORAL RIVER DEVA DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL ftONU"E!IT 

BUIS BUC[ ISLAID REEF NATIONAL ftONUftENT om DELAWARE VATER CAP NAT RECREATION AREA 

BULO BUFFALO RATIONAL RIVER LAND ACQ OFFICE DINO DINOSAUR NATIONAL "ONU"ENT 

cm CABRILLO NATI ONAL "ONUftENT DSC DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

CACI CARLSBAD CAVERIS NATI ONAL PAR[ EBU £BET'S LANDING NATL HIST RESERVE 

CACH CANYON DE CHELL! NAT IONAL ftONUm T EDAL EDGAR ALLAN PO E NATIONAL HISTORIC sm 
72 

EDIS EDISOI UTIOI.IL RISTOIIC SITE GEil GEORGE USHlllml llffiPLACE UT IOI 

EFAC £lSTEII FIELD ARCHEOLOGY CEJTEI GICL GILA CLIFF DIELLIIGS UTIOUL IIOIUIIEIT 

£FllO £FF I Gl 110111DS UTIOll1L IIOIUIIEIT GLAC GLlCIEI UTIOIIL PW 

£!SE EISEIIHOVD UTIOIIAL HISTORIC SITI GLII GLACIEI UT IATIOl&L PAI[ 

ELIIA EL NALPUS IATIOIAL IIOIIUIIEIT GW GLACIEI BAT UTIOl&L PRESEl9£ 

ELIIO EL IIOIIO IATIOIAL IIOIUIIEIT GLCI GLD CIITOII IATIOIIAL IECWTIOI AW 

ELIO ELEAIIOI IOOSEYELT IIATIORIL HIST SITE GLDE GLOIU DEi <OLD SWEDES> CIIUICII IRS 

EUOI EUGEIE O'NEILL IATIOWIL HISTOIIC SITE GOGA GOLDEJ GATE UTIOIAL IECIEATIOI AIEI 

Ml MIGLADES IIATIOIAL PW GOSP GOLDEJ SP![£ IITIOIIL HISTORIC SITE 

Flit ALASU PUBLIC WDS IIFO CTI • FIIWKS GIBA GREAT BASIi IIATIONAL PAI[ 

rw FATBEI IIAIQO£TTE UTIOIAL IIEIIOIIIAL GICA GIAJD CAJTOI UTIOIAL PW 

FER.I FEDEIAL BALL UTIOIAL IIEIIOIIIL GREE GIEEIBELT PAI[ 

ms FIRE ISWD HTIOIAL SWIIOIIE Gl[O GIUMOOS UJCB IITIOIAL BISTOIIC SITE 

FIRE Flit IIWGEIIEIT OFFICE GIPO GIAJD POITIGE UTIOIAL IIOIUIIEIT 

FLFO FLOIISSilT FOSSIL BEDS UTIOIAL IIOl1J1IEIT GISA GWT SUD DUl£S UTIOIAL IIOIUIIEIT 

FOIO FORT BOIIE IATIOIIL HISTOIIC SITE GISI! GIEIT SIIO[T IIOOITIIIS UTIOIAL PW 

roeu FOSSIL BUTTE UTIOIAL IIOIUIIEIT GITE GUID T£TOI HTIOIIL Pm 

FOCA FORT CUOLIIIE UTIOIAL NEl!ORIAL GUCO GUILFORD coomoost 111P 

FOCL FORT CLATSOP UTIOll1L NEIIOIIAL GUIS GULF ISWDS HTIOIAL SEASHORE 

FODA FORT DAVIS IATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE GOIIO GUADALUPE IIOUITAIIIS UTIOIAL PAI[ 

FODC FORT DOIEi.SOi IATIOIIAL CEIIETEIY GIICA GEORG£ IISHIIIGTOII CUVEI • 

FODO FORT DOWEi.SOi IATIOIIAL BATTLEFIELD GINP GEORGE IASHIIIGTOI IIEIIOIIAL PAl[Vl! 

ron FORT nEDEIICA IATIOIAL IIOIIUIIEIT HAFE WPEIS FWY HTIOHL HISTORICAL Pm 

FOJE FORT JEFFERSOI IATIONAL IIONUNEIT HAGI HANILTOI GIAJGE NATIOIIAL l!EIIORIAL 

FOLA FORT LAIANIE IATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE HALE HALEAULA IATIOIAL Pm 

FOLS FORT LARIED IATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE HANP HANPTOI lltIOIIAL HISTORIC SITE 

FON.I FORT IIATAIZAS IATIOll1L IIOIUNEIIT HAVO HAIAII VOLCIIOES IATIOI.IL Pm 

FONC FORT NCHEIIU IATL NOIIJllEIT , HIST SHIii£ HEIIO HERBEIT HOOVD IATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE 

FOIIE FORT NECESSITY IATIOUL BATTLEFIELD BFC BAIPEIS rnn CEITEI 

FOPO FORT POIIT HTIOIIIL HISTORIC SITE HFJC HARPERS FEIi? JOI CODS CIY COIIS CTI 

FOPO FORT PUUSU IATI OIIIL IIOIUIIEIT HOBE HORSESHOE 8EID IATIOIAL IIILIT.IIT PW 

FOil FORT IALEIGH IATIOIIAL HISTOIIC SITE aon HOii£ OF nmLII D IOOSEYELT IRS 

rose FORT SCOTT IATIOIIL HISTORIC SITE HOFO HOPMLL muct UTIOIAL IISTOIIC SITE 

FOSII FORT SIIITR IATIOIAL BISTOIIC SITE HOii£ HOIIESTEAD IATIOIIL IIOIUIIEIIT OF IJ!EIICA 

FOST FORT STIIVII IATIOIIAL IIOIU1IEIT HOSP HOT SPIIIGS IATIOIIL Pill 

FOSO FORT SUNTEI IATIOIAL IIOIUllEIT HOVE HOVEIIEEP UTIOIAL IIOIIJIIEIT 

FOU FORT °"1011 IATIOHL ll0IUIIEIT HSTR HARRY S. ROIi.ii IATIOIAL BISTOIIC SITE 

FOUS FORT OIIOI nADIIG POST IRS HUTI HUBBELL RADIIG POST IHS 

FOVA FOIT VAICOUYEI I.ITIOIAL HISTOIIC SITE JATR ICE AGE IATIOIIAL SCEJIC nm 

FOVA FORT VASHIIGTOII PAI[ ICAG ICE AGE IATIOIAL SCIEITIFIC IESDvt 

noo nEDEIICt D00GUSS BOIII IIJ!I ILLIIOIS , IIICBIGII CAJIL 

mo nEDERIC[SBIJIG IATIOll1L CEIIETEI! UDE INDEPEIDEIICE IATIOIIAL HISTORICAL PAU 

Fill! FIIEIDSBIP HILL UTIOIAL RISTOIIC SITE IIDU UDIAIA DUIES IATIOIIL WESROIE 

nu nEDEII C[ LAI OUISm IRS IITE IITEIHTIOIAL PEACE GAIDEI 

FISP nED£11C[S80RG , SPOTSTLVUIA 1111P !SRO ISLE IOTILE IATIOIAL PAil 

GUI GATES or TIE OOIC IATIOIAL PAU JAGA JANES A. GAIFIELD UTL HIST SITE 

GUI GATES OF TIE OOIC HTlOIAL PIESEIVE ~AN£ JANESTOH UTIOIAL HISTOIIC SITE 

GATE GATEVU IATIORAL IECIEATIOII AREA JECA JEVEL CAVE UTIOIAL IIOIUNEIT 

GEGI GEIEIAL GIAIT IATIOIIAL IIEIIOIIlL JEFF JEFFEISOII IATIOIIL EIPIISIOI 1!£11 IRS 

GEIO GEORGE ROGERS CUI[ IMP JEFN TNOIIAS JEFFEISOI IIEIIOIIAL 

GETC cmrSBUIG IATIOIAL CEIIETEIY JELA JEAJ LAFITTE IATL HIST PW ' PIES 

Gm GmYSBUIG IATIOIAL NILITAIY PAI[ JICA JIMY CAITEI IATIOIAL HIST SITE 
73 

JODA JOHN DA! FOSSIL BEDS NATIONAL ftONUKENT IIORA ftOONT RAINIER NAT IONAL Pm 

JOOR JOHN D ROCKEFELLER JUNIOR KEN PRU! NORR NORRISTOWN NATIONAL HISTOR ICAL Pm 

JOFl JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY NHS NORU ftOUNT RUSHNORE NATIONAL KENOR!AL 

JOH JOHN F KENNEDY CENTER NOVO ftU!R WOODS NATIONAL NONUNENT 

JOFL JOHNSTOWN FLOOD NATIONAL ftENOlllAL NVAC N!DVEST ARCHEOLOGICAL cmE!l 

JONU JOHN NU!R NATIONAL HlSTOlllC SITE mo ft!DVEST REGIONAL OFFICE 

JOTR JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL ftONUftENT NABR NATURAL BRIDGES NATIONAL NONUftEU 

UHO ULOlO·HONO(OHAU NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK NACC NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS-CENTRAL 

ULA KALAUPAPA NATIONAL HISTORIC Pm NACE NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS-EAST 

UTN mm NATIONAL PARK NAHP NORTH ATLANTIC HISTOR IC PRES CENTER 

rm mm RATIONAL PRESERVE Nm NATIONAL NALL 

UFJ KENAI FJORDS NATIONAL PAR[ NARO NORTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL OFFICE 

mo lEINESAV IIOUNTAIN NATL BATTLEFIELD PAU NATC IATCHEZ IAT!OMAL HISTORICAL PARK 

K!CA mes CANYOII NATI OIIAL Pm NAT!l NATCHEZ TiACE PAR[VAY 

UIIO mes IIOUITAII IATIOIAL IILITARY PAR[ NAVA NAVAJO IATIONAL IIONUftENT 

[LGO [LOND![E GOLD ROSH IHP NCR NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONAL OFFICE 

Kl.SE KLONDlfi GOLD RUSH NHP · SEATTLE UNIT NEPE NEZ PERCE RATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

URI KIIFE RIVER INDIAN VILLAGE NHS NERI NEV RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER 

[OVA KOBUK VALLEY NATIONAL PAI![ N!Sl RJNETY SIX NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

LABE LAVA BEDS NATIONAL ftONUftENT NOAA NORTHWEST ALASU AREAS 

LACH LAKE CHELAI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA NOAT NOATAK NATIONAL PRESERVE 

UCL LAKE CLAR[ NATIONAL PAR[ NOCA NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK 

LACL LUE CLARK NATIONAL PRESERVE NOCO NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL 

Lm LA(£ mo NATIONAL RECREATION AREA NPSA NATIONAL Pm OF SAftOA 

LAKR LAKE MEREDITH RECREATION AREA NRLO NEV RIVER GORGE LAND RESOURCES OFFICE 

LAYO LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK OBR! OBED V!LO & SCENIC RIVER 

LECL LEVIS & CLAR[ NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL OCNU OCftULGEE NAT!OIAL ftONUftEIT 

LIBO L!NC0LN BOYHOOD NATIONAL ftEllORIAL om OL!ftPIC NATIOIAL Pm 

LINO LINCOLN HONE NATIO!IAL HISTOlllC SITE ORCA OREGON CAVES IAT!OIAL IIONOftm 

LINC LINCOLN ftEllORUL OREG OREGON NATIOIAL HISTORIC TiAIL 

LONG LONGFELLOW NAT!OIAL HISTORIC SITE ORP! ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL IIOIUftEIIT 

LOSA LOVER ST CROIX NATIONAL scmc RIVERVAY OVVI OVERllOUITAII VICTOllY NATL HIST TRAIL 

LOVE LOVELL RATIONAL HISTOlllCAL Pm OUR OZA!l[ IATIO!IIL SCENIC RIVERVUS 

LYJO LYNDON 8 JOHNSON NHP PAAL PALO ALTO BATTLEFIELD IHS 

ftACA ftAftllOTH CAVE IATIO!IAL Pm PAAV PENN . Avt. IATL HIST SITE 

ftAJC GREAT om JOB CORPS CIV CONS CTR PUS PADRE ISLAID NATIOIAL SEASHORE 

ftALU NART!I LUTHER me JII IBS PECO PECOS NATIOIAL IIONUIEIT 

NALV NAGGIE L VAUEII IATIOIAL RISTOIIIC SITE PEFO PETIIIF!ED FOIIEST NATIONAL Pm 

NANA ftANASSAS IATIO!IAL BATTLEFIELD PW PERI PEA IIIDGE HTIOIAL "1LITAIIY Pm 

NAIIO ftID·ATLAr.TIC IIEGIONAL OFFICE PETE PETEiSBOIIG IATIOIAL BATTLEFIELD 

NASA l!ASAO TRAIL PEVI PERIi! 'S YICTOIIY & INTERIATL PEACE !Ell 

NASI NANHATTAJ SITES PINA HOHOUft PINA IATIOUL IIOIIUIEIT 

NAVA NARTIN YAN BDIIEI NATIO!IAL HlSTOlllC SITE PINN PINNACLES IATIOIIAL ftONUNENr 

NCHO NCLOUGHLII HOOSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PIPE PIPESTONE NATIONAL NONUNm 

NEVE NESA VERDE UTIOIAL Pm PIRO PICTURED ROC[S IATIOIIAL LA[ESHORE 

NIU mUTt ftAN IATIOIAL HISTORICAL Pm Pl SC PISCATAVAY PAR[ 

NISS ft!SSISS!PPI IATL RIVER & IIEC AJ!EA P!SP PIPE SPRIIIC IAT!ONAL ftONUNEIIT 

IIOCA IIONTEZUNA CASTLE NATIOIAL IIONUftENT PNRO PACIFIC IOIITHVEST REGIONAL OFFICE 

NOC! IIOUND CITY GROUP NATIOIAL IIONUftEIT POGR POPLAR GROVE UTIO!IAL CENETERY 

IIOCR NOORES CREE[ NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD POPO POVEllTY PO!IT IAT!ONAL llONUftEIT 

IIONO IIOIIOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PORE POINT REYES RATIONAL SEASHORE 

ftOPl ftORNON PIONEER NATIORAL HISTORIC TRAIL PRVI PRINCE V!LLIAN FOREST Pm 
74 

PUHE PUUrnHOLA HEIAU NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE THST THOl!AS STONE IATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE 

PUHO PU ' UHONUA O HONAUNAU NHP TICA mPAIIOGOS cm: JATIOIAL l!OIU"EIT 

RABR RAUBOV BRIDGE NAT IONAL AONU"ENT mu mucuu ECOLOGICAL ' HIST PRESERVE 

REOV REOVOOO NAT IONAL PAR[ TONT TONTO NATIOIAL l!ONmlff 

RICH RICHl!ONO NAT IOIAL BATTLEFIELD Pm TOSY TOURO SflAGOGUE IATL HIST SITE 

RIGR RIO GRANDE V!LD & SCENIC RIVER Tm TUS[EGEE IIISTIME NHS 

R"RO ROCU NOUNTAIN REGI OIAL OFFICE TU"A mACACORI IATIOIAL IIOIU"EIIT 

ROCA ROOSEVELT CANPOBELLO INTERNATIONAL Pm TUZI TUZIGOOT ,mom NONUNEIIT 

ROCR ROCK CREEK PAR[ UPOE UPPER onAVARE SCE!IIC ' REC ,RIVER 

ROLA ROSS Lm NAT IONAL RECREATION AREA um USS ARIZONA NEl!ORIAL 

ROltO ROC KY "OUNTA IN NATIONAL Pm YAFO ¥ALLEY FORGE IATIONAL HISTORICAL Pm 

ROVI ROGER VILLIANS NATI ONAL NENORIAL VARA VANDERBILT WSIOI NHS 

RUCA RUSSELL CAVE HTIONAL NONUN£1T YICC VIC[SBIJIG NATIOIAL CEIIETERJ 

SAAN SAN ANTONIO NISSIONS NATL HIST Pm VIC[ VICKSBIJIG IATIOIAL NILITARJ Pm 

SACN SAINT CROIX NATIONAL SCEIIIC RIVERVU VIIS VIRGIN ISLAIDS IATIOUL Pm 

SACR SA INT CROIX ISLAND INTNL HISTOilC SITE VOYA VOYAGEURS NATIOIAL PAR[ 

SAFE SANTA FE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL VACA VAUUT CAITOI HTIOIAL IIONOil!llT 

SAFR SAN FRANCISCO NARIT1"E IHP VAHA VAiREI G. RARDIJIG NDIOR!AL 

SAGA SAINT-GAUOENS IATIOIAL HISTORIC SITE VAPA VAR U THE PlCIFIC !IBP 

SAGU SAGUARO NAT IONAL NONUNEIIT WASH VASRIIIGTON l!OIUBEIT 

SAHi SAGANORE HILL NAT IONAL HISTORIC SITE VEAC WESTERN UCH , COIIS CEIITEI 

SAIR SAUGUS IRON vom NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE VHHI VHITNU NISSIOI UTIOIAL HISTORIC SITE 

SAJH SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL Pm VHIS msmron om 

SAJU SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE VHSA VHITE SANOS RATIONAL HONUNEiff 

SANA SALEN NARIT1"E NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE VICA mo CAYE IATIOIAL PW 

SANO SANTA NONICA MOUNTA INS NRA VICR VILSOl'S CREE[ IATIONAL BAmEFIELD 

SAPA SAINT PAUL'S CHURCH IHS mo VILLIAII HOVAiD Tin IHS 

SAPU SALINAS PUEBLO MISSIONS NATL HONUNENT VOil VOIIEl'S RIGHTS UTIOIAL HISTORICAL Pm 

SARA SARATOGA NATIOIAL HISTOilCAL PAR[ VOTR VOLf ruP Fill PW: 

SCBL SCOTTS BLUFF NATIONAL I!ONUNENT vm Vi!GHT BaOTHERS IATIOIAL IIEl!ORIAL 

SEAC SOUTHEAST ARCHEOLOGICAL CEITER VRO VESTERI IEGIOIAL OFFICE 

SEBE SEVALL-BEUIONT ROUSE INS VRST VRAIGELL·ST ELllS HTIOIAL Pllf 

SEQU SEQUOIA UTIOIAL Pm VRST VUJIGELL·ST ELilS UTIOIAL PIESERVE 

SERO SOUTHEAST REGIOIAL OFFICE VUPA VUPAn I IATIOIAL IIOIUNEIT 

SHEi SHENANDOAH NATIONAL Pm TELL TELLOVSTOIE UTIOIAL PAI( 

SHIC SHILOH NATIONAL CEIIETERJ YOHO YUCCA ROUSE IATIOIAL IIOIU!IEIIT 

SHIL SHILOH IATIOIAL BILITAIIY PAIi[ YOU YORKTOVII IATIOUL CEIIETEIIY 

sm SITU NATIONAL HISTOilClL PAil JOSE YOSEMITE IATIOIAL Pm 

SLBE SLEEPIJIG BEAR OUJIES IATIOIAL WESRORE JOCH JU[OMHARLEY RIYEIS IATIOIAL PRESERVE 

SOAR SOUTHERN AIIZOIA GROUP ZI OI ZION RATIOIIL PAI[ 

socu SOUTHVEST CULTUUI. RESOURCES CEffiJ ZUCI ZUII-CIBOLA UTIOIAL HISTORICAL Pm 

SPAR SPRI IGF I ELD AIIIOIY INS 

STEA STEAIITOVI NATIOIAL HISTOiIC SITE 

STLI STATUE OF LIBERTY IATIOIIAL IIOIIINERT 

STIC STONES RIVER IATIOIAL CEMETERY 

STRI STONES RIVER NATIOIAL BATTLEFIELD 

SUCR SUNSET CRATER IATIOUL IIOltlNEIT 

SVRO SOUTHWEST REGIOIIAL OFFICE 

THKO THADDEUS KOSCIUSZlO IATIOIIAL IIEIIORIAL 

THRB THEODORE ROOSEVELT BIITlIPLACE IHS 

THRI THEODORE ROOSEYnt IIAOGOiAL IRS 

THRO THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PAI[ 
75 

National Park Service Concessions Statistics 

Park with Concessioners 

Number of Concessioners - Contracts 

Permits 

Total 

Number of Commercial Use Licenses 

Peak Employment 

Annual Receipts 

Return to Government 

Annual Franchise Fee 

Annual Taxes 

Annual Special Account Fees 

NPCI - .3 million 

Yellowstone - 6.6 million 

Others - 2.2 million 

Annual Improvement Additions (Estimate) 

Rate Add-on (No Possessory Interest) 

Glen Canyon - 2.3 million 

Yosemite - 1 .0 million 

Return to Concessioner 

Net Income 

195 

465 

Prepared as of March 30, 1993 

0 

ISBN 0-16-040859-8 

9 780160 408595 

67-193 0 - 93 (80) 

90000 

132 

660 

1,781 

25,627 

$618 million 

18.1 million 

10.2 million 

9.1 million 

39.9 million 

3.3 mllllon 

$34.7 million (5 .6%)