CONCESSIONER SOUGHT TO RUN PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CAMPGROUND RESERVATION SYSTEM Director Ronald H. Walker of the National Park Service today announced publication of a prospectus seeking bidders interested in operating a proposed National Park Service computerized campsite reservation system for the 1974 visitor season. Walker noted that a pilot campground reservation system operated during 1973 at six national parks was highly successful. "American Express Reserva 36-622-74-10 tions, Inc., which operated the pilot project, has, however, decided not to seek a renewal of its contract due to a restructuring of its business. The current contract expires on March 31, 1974," he said. The success of the pilot project has led to expansion of the new proposal from campgrounds in six parks to those in 24 areas of the National Park System encompassing more than 11,000 individual campsites. The prospectus does not limit the duration of the contract under the new proposal, leaving its term open to negotiation. Walker said the campsite reservation system greatly improved the operation of the campgrounds which used it last year, and was popular with users who, for the first time in National Park Service history, were able to reserve campsites in advance through a nationwide computerized system. "The traditional long waiting lines to enter park campgrounds were virtually eliminated and visitors were able to plan their trips with real assurance that space would be available for their overnight stays in the parks," he said. "The greatest difficulty faced by the reservation system occurred when new legislation was enacted on August 1, 1973, which effectively prohibited the National Park Service from charging fees for campsite use," he added. “In fairness to new bidders for the reservation system," Walker said, "we will not reinstitute a reservation system unless pending legislation to restore the traditional camping fees is enacted by Congress. As long as the public has to pay to reserve free campsites the system will seem unfair," he said. Potential bidders can obtain a copy of the prospectus by writing to the Assistant Director, Concessions Management, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. The deadline for applications for this concession is March 25, 1974. Mr. CLAUSEN. It is my understanding that when you make reference to the pilot project, you are talking only about two projects: Yosemite and Shenandoah? Mr. DICKENSON. That is correct, Sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Before you embark on a major national effort you want to gain experience from that program first? Mr. DICKENSON. That is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Hulett, I want to ask you some questions because of a situation that is involved in my own Congressional District in a Bureau of Reclamation project. Is there anything in the bill which would preclude or interfere with a contractual arrangement or arrangements between the Federal Agency and a State or local governmental unit to provide recreational facilities or to participate in? Say, if the Federal Government were to provide for the facility themselves and yet there was a requirement for the operation and maintenance of the facilities which the Federal Government does not handle, now could the State or local government charge user fees to recover some of these operation and maintenance charges? Mr. HULETT. Yes, Mr. Clausen, there is specific provision in this legislation that would allow a non-Federal Governmental agency to charge fees and for those fees to stay with that nongovernmental Federal Agency rather than be recovered into the special fund. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, using as an example that there is a possibility that the State of California would be willing to enter into an agreement and operate and maintain some of the recreational facilities if they were provided under, shall we say, a State recreation area wherein it does not meet the criteria for a national recreation area, would there be anything in this legislation that would restrict them from being able to enter into an agreement with the Federal Government under this legislation? Mr. HULETT. No sir, nothing that would prohibit and they would be able to keep whatever funds were collected in order to operate and maintain the area. By they, I mean the State. Mr. CLAUSEN. And this would apply to the State and/or a political subdivision? Mr. HULETT. Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. And what if they were to decide to contract, say the State or the local political subdivision, they want to contract with established concessionaires, now could they do that? Mr. HULETT. Yes, sir, they certainly could. Mr. CLAUSEN. They could? OK, all right. Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Mr. TAYLOR. I would just say to the gentleman from California, I am glad that you asked Mr. Hulett some questions because I didn't want him to get by without having to answer some questions. Mr. HULETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Dickenson, a letter was written to you recently concerning a consession operated campground and in the absence of objection a copy of that letter and of the response received will be placed in the record at this point. [The letters referred to follow:] Mr. RUSSELL E. DICKENSON, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Interior Building, Washington, D.C. MARCH 8, 1974. DEAR MR. DICKENSON: I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and the other National Park Service representatives last week to discuss the pilot project for contract operation of National Park campgrounds. One area that I believe will be closely watched is that of the contract for such an operation. If your staff has prepared a draft contract for the Yosemite area, I would be interested in receiving a copy for review. Also, some explanation of the "cost plus profit" arrangement would be useful. In particular, what specific controls would be used to monitor the charges of the concessioner? Where concessioner employees or equipment are utilized in both the campground and other operations, how would you determine an actual cost to the concessioner for the campground only? I have had the impression that campgrounds in some Parks have been kept open for longer seasons in recent years. Would you expect to continue to make these facilities available in other than peak use seasons under the concessioner operation arrangement? Some statistical background would also be useful. How many potential fee campsites are in the National Park areas, and what annual expansion has there been over the past five years? How many employees have been involved directly with campground operations? What are the present personnel ceilings and how have they changed during the last few years? Do these ceilings apply to all employees, both in public contact and in maintenance, working in campgrounds? If the concessioner operation arrangement is implemented, what will be the minimum number of personnel reassigned to other duties and what specific functions would you expect them to perform? Perhaps some figures using Yosemite as a specific example would be helpful in weighing the effects of this change. The pilot program and its evaluation will obviously be a crucial part of your decision to expand this arrangement throughout the Park System. What specific plans are you making to determine the effectiveness of the concession operation? Would you foresee some sampling of public response from the visitors who use the facility? At one point in our meeting with you, Clay Peters raised the specific concern that a fair test might be difficult if you provide some services, such as trash collection, for the concessioner during the trial period. If the Yosemite area could be used again as an example, could you break down the parts of the campground operation which would be the responsibility of the concessioner and those which would remain a Park Service responsibility? This matter of ensuring an objective and comprehensive review of the pilot operation is a point that I believe will be looked at intently. You also mentioned that the concessioner would have the right of "first refusal" in taking this contract. Since this would not be a concession operation in the usual sense, but instead would involve a "management contract" with a guaranteed profit, why would the concessioner be entitled to this priority treatment? Perhaps the solicitor's office could provide some clarification of this point for us. Would you expect that concession employees in the campground might also be involved in concessioner business operations as distinguished from management responsibilities, such as firewood sales or a camp store operation. I would be interested in your approach to the handling of federal receipts by concession employees. Are there any restrictions applicable to such an arrangement? What monitoring and audit function would you plan to perform? Would it also be possible to make some estimate of the amount of continued direct involvement of Park Service personnel in monitoring and supervising the campground operation? What level of commitment would you see being made to continue to provide uniformed staff in the campground area for services such as first aid, interpretation, resource protection, and law enforcement? Finally, would it be possible to detail the financial impact of this change on other activities in a given Park operation? My understanding is that no additional funding will be requested to implement this program. If you employ the same number of personnel under this plan, diverting those people formerly involved in campground operations to other activities, the payment made to the concessioner for campground management would be an additional expense to your area budget. What other specific areas would then receive a lower level of funding within the existing budget as a result of this change? I realize this is a diverse group of concerns, but I think that this matter merits careful consideration before any action is taken. With the information I've requested, I should be able to accurately and fully present this matter to the Chairman for his consideration of the merits of your proposal. Sincerely, LEE MCELVAIN, Mr. LEE MCELVAIN, General Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MOELVAIN: Thank you for your letter regarding the pilot project for contract operations of national park campgrounds. We apologize for this late response. As you know by now, we have decided to delay the start of this pilot project. We thought that it would be advisable to compile the necessary data and statistics on the National Park Service's operation of campgrounds prior to attempting a contract operation. At this point we are surveying the possible parks, trying to determine the necessary information, and devising an accurate reporting system. We will keep you advised of our progress and will report our conclusions before taking any further action. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance on this project. Sincerely yours, RUSSELL E. DICKENSON, Deputy Director. Mr. TAYLOR. Now this concludes the hearing. Mr. STEELMAN. May I ask some questions on this matter of concessionaires? Mr. TAYLOR. Go ahead. Mr. STEELMAN. Mr. Dickenson, the Department has, I know, suggested concessionaires as an alternative to park personnel. The Department has a Youth Conservation Corps, I believe, and there is also a Volunteers in the Parks program. I would like to ask this question getting to the broader question as to what extent students are used in the summertime? The idea being to try and harness a lot of the concern now of the young people for ecology, parks and wilderness. Also, to what extent is the Department utilizing students or young people of this sort and how about this as an alternative to concessionaire operation? It would seem to me this would be a cheaper way to do it. Mr. DICKENSON. The YCC is a very exciting program from the standpoint of the National Park Service, Mr. Steelman. We have a number of groups in various parts of the National Park System each summer in the Nation's capital and other parts of the system, but today's type A campground in the National Park Service is a very large and complex and sophisticated type of operation. The provision of sanitary facilities, the provision of public services, the collection of fees, is a type of operation that is just beyond the skills and the capability of the youngsters that we are dealing with in the YCC type of program. So there is just no way that you can blend these two concepts. Mr. STEELMAN. Are these college students? Mr. DICKENSON. The YCC tends to be in my experience mostly in the high school type of category. They mostly have not graduated. They are very fine people and we have had some great programs and projects oriented toward conservation, toward the repair of back country facilities. They are project oriented by and large. It is great for the kids and it is great for the agency. Mr. CAMP. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? Mr. STEELMAN. Yes. Mr. CAMP. Are they volunteer? Mr. DICKENSON. The YCC program is a volunteer program. Mr. CAMP. Do you have any student programs that will be affected under the minimum wage? Mr. DICKENSON. I don't believe so, Mr. Camp. I don't know of any. Mr. HULETT. If I may add, Mr. Steelman, to Mr. Dickenson's comments on the volunteers in the park program? Mr. STEELMAN. Yes. Mr. HULETT. There is specific provision in the law which authorizes that program, which indicated that no one who worked under that program could do maintenance type work. This was an agreement with the unions at the time of passage of the act, and therefore the people under the volunteers' program in the parks are specifically precluded from going into maintenance type activities in the parks. That would include campgrounds. Mr. STEELMAN. Have you given any thought to this as an alternative? It would seem that a certain level of learning. and ability would exist among college-age people and, I would think, also highschool-age kids, and that with some minimal level of training by the ranger, that these young people would be able to perform these tasks. In other words, during the high use period of the summer in |