Mr. YATES. Where in Hawaii?

Mrs. LACOVEY. At Hawaii Volcanos.

Mr. YATES. Has the philosophy changed as a result of the large concessionaires moving into these parks?

Mrs. LACOVEY. Expressing a personal view, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. YATES. You have to, obviously.

Mrs. LACOVEY. Right; definitely not. In many cases the conglomerates have brought in the national resources which are not otherwise available to small family-owned corporations or small corporations, and have brought about improvements. In other situations, this has not been the case. The money that in some cases has been put in, but the magnitude of the investment required is such that it is not readily discernible that any improvements come about. I am referring specifically to Yellowstone in this case that is usually used as an example of where we need to introduce improved facilities. General Host since they took over has invested some $6 million in Yellowstone, but I would defy you to find it when you go out there. It would take a massive amount of funds to bring facilities up to what we consider to be an acceptable level.

Mr. YATES. In doing what?

Mrs. LACOVEY. New facilities and rehab of existing facilities. Very little is discernible. I have been there and looked. There are some new units at Old Faithful, some new units at Lake.

Mr. YATES. How many units are there in Yellowstone?

Mrs. LACOVEY. I don't have that information offhand, I am sorry. Mr. YATES. More than any other park?

EXPERIENCE WITH CONGLOMERATES

Mrs. LACOVEY. Yes. There are more developed areas in Yellowstone than other parks, but so far as the conglomerates and our relationships, which is your original question-and here again let me put this in a proper context-our critics have been using the term "political influence" that allegedly is brought to bear by the conglomerates, and not having anyone define what they mean by "political," I have to say that whatever influence is brought from outside the Service is political. My experience with conglomerates has been that there is less of that than with the small operators, simply because the conglomerates have the expertise on their staffs to provide the kind of support and the kind of expert information that they need to support their position. Small operators don't have that readily available, and they are much more apt to seek other outside assistance. It has just been my experience over 20 years that there is less of the kind of thing that is being alleged is happening with conglomerates than has actually occurred.

We have problems with conglomerates. We have problems with others but I happen to think we get paid for handling problems. That doesn't happen to be a problem to me.

Mr. YATES. How would you answer the question that the companies have more power over the future of some parks than the Park Service? Mrs. LACOVEY. I just don't agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YATES. Are they expanding the facilities to the point where they impinge upon the enjoyment of the park?

63-434 0-76-4

Mrs. LACOVEY. No, sir. You mean expansion of facilities?
Mr. YATES. Yes.

EXPANSION OF FACILITIES

Mrs. LACOVEY. There has been very little expansion in concessionaire facilities in the last 6 to 8 years. In 1966 the expansion of concessionaire facilities peaked in the parks. Then there was a definite downtrend in this regard and it has continued ever since.

Mr. YATES. What then was the controversy with MCA in Yosemite? Mrs. LACOVEY. MCA wanted to phase out some 250 tent units that they had at Camp Curry and replace them with an equivalent number of pillows in more modern units on the theory-and I am not the planner here-but on the theory that these units were the last units that were reserved. On many occasions people who had requested more sophisticated or better units, when those better units were filled. up and they were offered these lower priced units as an alternative, they were not happy with them, and the usage of the lower priced units, the ratio of usage, was lower than on the other units in the park, and it was the concessionaire's opinion that the public would be better served and the park itself would be better served by replacing some of those old units. I am not a planner, but this was the basis for their proposal. There was no expansion proposed.

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. YATES. Mr. McDade.

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Director, we have just heard some statements, that in some of your operations the concessions are in pretty good shape while in others they aren't.

Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes, sir, it is.

CONCESSIONER MAINTENANCE

Mr. McDADE. Who is responsible for the care and the upkeep of the concessions within the Park Service? Is it your responsibility or is it the responsibility of the concession?

Mr. EVERHARDT. I think it is both, Mr. McDade. Some of those facilities are Park Service-owned facilities. Where that is the case, the upkeep of those facilities could very well be the responsibility of the National Park Service. If they are leased to the concessionaire for his use, he may have the day-to-day general maintenance responsibility. The heavy maintenance would be the responsibility of the Government.

In many cases he owns his own buildings, and in that situation he has the responsibility for the maintenance, the repair, the rehabilitation of those structures.

Mr. McDADE. In the cases where the concessioner operates, he pays the Park Service or he pays somebody an equivalent of rent, whatever we call it.

Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes.

FRANCHISE FEES

Mr. McDADE. What was the amount of rent or royalty that was received from all concessions in the last fiscal year?

Mrs. LACOVEY. $2.3 million.

Mr. McDADE. $2.3 million?

Mrs. LACOVEY. That was in calendar year 1974, $2.3 million. Mr. McDADE. What happens to that money? Is this money returned to you? What happens to the $2.3 million?

Mr. EVERHARDT. That goes into the general fund of the Treasury. Mr. McDADE. It is all unrestricted to the Treasury?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Right.

Mr. McDADE. Do your agreements permit you to require any set aside of that concessioner dollar for purposes of a maintenance program to upgrade facilities?

Mr. EVERHARDT. No, sir.

CONDITION OF PARK FACILITIES VERSUS CONCESSIONS FACILITIES

Mr. McDADE. Not at all. Let me ask you this question then. You said that some of the facilities are owned by the Government, and we have heard Mission 66 referred to.

What is the status of the facilities in the Park Service that the Government owns vis-a-vis the status of the facilities that the concessioner owns?

Mr. EVERHARDT. In Mission 66 there was a tremendous effort at that time to upgrade facilities in national parks. We were coming out of the war years in 1956, when Conrad Wirth initiated this Mission 66 plan. People had time to visit parks. They wanted to visit parks, and there was a great increase in visitation. There was also a great need to upgrade facilities that had for many, many years gone downhill, had deteriorated, had not had the proper care over those particular years. About a half-billion dollars was spent from 1956 to 1966 to upgrade and provide facilities in parks. That has been some 20 years now for some of those facilities, 10 to 20 years. Many of them are in a deteriorating condition.

Mr. McDADE. And these are Government-owned facilities enacted under a capitalization program?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Right, sir.

Mr. McDADE. That terminated in 1966?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Right, sir.

Mr. McDADE. I guess from what you have said that you would agree with me, if I were to suggest that some of these were not up to the standards that any of us would like to see; is that correct?

Mr. EVERHARDT. That is right, because of funding levels, because of priorities.

Mr. McDADE. Is the funding level for purposes of maintenance on U.S.-owned facilities the only constraints you had, in terms of keeping them up to the kind of standards you would like to have?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes.

Mr. McDADE. Suppose I were to say to you how much money would it take for you to take the publicly owned facilities, and get them up to snuff? Could you tell me how much money we are talking about? Mr. EVERHARDT. Are we talking about just concessioner facilities? Mr. McDADE. Yes.

Mr. EVERHARDT. Or are we talking about all facilities?

Mr. McDADE. Let's take both. The Mission 66 plan was more than just concession facilities, wasn't it?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Absolutely.

Mr. McDADE. Did it include concessioner centers too?
Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes.

MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION REQUIREMENTS

Mr. McDADE. Let's take the broader question first. Suppose we were to talk about the kind of facilities that we invested $500 million in over a 10-year period. What kind of maintenance shortfall have we got with respect to those?

Mr. EVERHARDT. I think the last time we came up and talked to the Appropriations Committee, we talked about a short-term need in the National Park Service of $500 million. We did discuss a short-term development and rehabilitation backlog of about $500 million. This was projected over a short-term period of 1 to 5 years. I would think that out of that, we made an analysis of about $100 to $150 million that would be needed in the area of rehabilitation, of bringing facilities, roads, buildings, water systems up to a standard that would be a top flight standard in the National Park Service.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS

Mr. McDADE. Is this a planning document that you people have developed in the Park Service that results in these figures?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes, sir.

Mr. YATES. When did you develop it?

Mr. EVERHARDT. March of 1975.

Mr. YATES. March 1975.

Mr. EVERHARDT. March 1975.

Mr. QUICK. Copies have been made available to the committee. Mr. EVERHARDT. I think out of that we could extract this $100 to $150 million that would be needed for rehabilitation of structures, of utilities, of roads, to bring those facilities throughout the National Park Service up to standard.

Mr. McDADE. What you are telling me is that you have got facilities some of which are concessions, some of which are general public service type facilities, which were built during a 10-year period.

Mr. EVERHARDT. Right.

Mr. McDADE. You have identified a report as of March of this year that indicates what seems to me to be a serious deficiency in terms of ongoing maintenance; is that right?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Right, sir.

Mr. McDADE. Are you able to say that you need $100 million per year for a period of time in order to bring those facilities up to the standards you want to see them?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes, sir, $100 million to $150 million.

Mr. McDADE. You are in the process of budget preparation now.
Have you submitted that figure within the Department at all?

Mr. EVERHARDT. No, sir.

Mr. McDADE. Is the Service going to make any such request within the Department with respect to that kind of rehabilitation program? Mr. EVERHARDT. No, sir.

Mr. YATES. Why?

Mr. EVERHARDT. We came over and talked to Appropriations in both the House and the Senate. We talked about this development backlog, this rehabilitation backlog of somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.7 billion. We had broken this down into a short-range, a midrange, and then a long-term need. We discussed as I recall the many areas of the system that had been established since 1960 that had no development, that had no facilities. The short term was $518 million, midterm $728 million, and then the long range was $1.4 billion for a total of $2.7 billion.

Mr. McDADE. I think some of the testimony we had from members was that we had newly authorized parks and no facilities to go with them.

Mr. EVERHARDT. Right, sir.

Mr. McDADE. You are including those newly authorized areas?

Mr. EVERHARDT. In this $2.7 billion. This is all parks where we felt. there has not been development, there have been no visitor centers. Many of these have no roads even for access into them. In that shortterm need we did identify about $100 to $150 million of what we would call rehabilitation need, heavy maintenance needs, roads that need resurfacing, buildings that need refurbishing, museums where the exhibits need to be redone and brought up to date to the modern exhibits, trails and so forth.

Mr. McDADE. Could you efficiently spend that kind of money if you were given it for a maintenance program?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Yes, sir.

Mr. McDADE. You could spend $100 million.
Mr. EVERHARDT. I think over a period of time.
Mr. McDADE. Within a fiscal year?

Mr. EVERHARDT. Within a 5-year frame.

USE OF PARKS FOR CONVENTIONS

Mr. YATES. What is the policy of the Park Service toward the use of parks for conventions?

Mr. EVERHARDT. We have just issued some guidelines on that, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to provide a copy of this for the record. I think we could say, though, that our feeling has been that where conventions would interfere with the availability of facilities for the average visitor, a convention would not be allowed. We have, however, felt that in the heavy use season, that as long as there were rooms available, that meetings could take place, that would not utilize the entire facility and remove that availability for the visitor.

We have also issued in this new directive a temporary directive until this can be incorporated in our handbook, that the Park Service superintendent will take steps to assure that he is notified by the concessionaire as far in advance as possible with respect to any conventions or the use of concession facilities by conventions, and that he would have retained the prerogative for approving that or not approving it, based on whatever information he may have with respect to visitation. with respect to use, occupancy rates, and so forth. [The information follows:]