Letters, statements etc., submitted for the record by-Continued Dickenson, Russell E.-Continued Submission by National Park Service to General Accounting Office Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the Permanent Select Committee on Small Business: Additional correspondence between officials of the NPS and the Convention bookings-Yosemite National Park, tables--- December 13, 1974, letter to George Hartman, regional manager, General Accounting Office, from John M. Morehead, Assistant Director, Technical Consultant, National Park Service, re cur- December 16, 1974, letter to Senator Bible from Bradley Rosen- thal, re irresponsible management of Yosemite Park_‒‒‒‒‒‒ 214-215 February 6, 1975, letter to Gary Everhardt, Director, National January 14, 1975, letter to Bradley Rosenthal from Edward C. Hardy, chief operating officer, Yosemite Park and Curry Co., re June 10, 1974, memorandum with enclosed brochure_. September 3, 1974, letter to Chairman Dingell from Jay S. Stein, re newspaper articles regarding Yosemite Park and Curry Finnegan, David B., associate counsel, Conservation and Natural Re- 95-98 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Sub- committee of the Committee on Government Operations: Correspondence between the subcommittees and Don Hummel, chairman of the Conference of National Park Concessioners__ 238-240 Correspondence and material relative to the hearing. July 12, 1974, memorandum regarding Sierra TV series__-- Officers and directors of MCA, Inc., and its subsidiaries____ Walker, Ronald H., Director, National Park Service, Department of National Park Service's past practices, present practices, and 270 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANNING AND CONCESSION OPERATIONS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry S. Reuss (chairman of the Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee) presiding. Members present from the Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee: Representatives Henry S. Reuss, Dante B. Fascell, Floyd V. Hicks, John L. Burton, Gilbert Gude, Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., and Alan Steelman. Members present from the Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies: Representatives John D. Dingell (chairman), Fernand J. St Germain, and James T. Broyhill. Staff present from the Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee: Phineas Indritz, chief counsel; David B. Finnegan, associate counsel; Robert Hellman, professional staff member; and Frances C. Clements, clerk. Staff present from the Committee on Government Operations: J. P. Carlson, minority counsel. Staff present from the Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies: William F. Demarest, Jr., counsel. Staff present from the Permanent Select Committee on Small Business: Myrtle Ruth Foutch, clerk. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS Mr. REUSS. Good morning. The hearing of the House Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, joined in by the Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the Select Small Business Committee, will be in session. In September of this year our two subcommittees initiated an investigation, with the aid of the General Accounting Office, into the way the National Park Service is administering concession activities within the National Park System and issuing permits for commercial filming in (1) the national parks. Our investigation thus far suggests that the concessioners, not the National Park Service, are running the national parks. Since 1925, the Yosemite Park and Curry Co. has been a valued concessioner at Yosemite National Park. In May 1963, its contract was renewed for 30 years. But in September 1973, 96.5 percent of the company's stock was acquired by MCA Recreation, Inc., a subsidiary of the Music Corp. of America, Inc., which then took over the concession operation at Yosemite. Prior to this changeover, the National Park Service initiated a planning process in 1969, published a draft master plan in 1971, and held hearings thereon. But thereafter the planning process limped along until MCA Recreation, Inc., took over the concession in September 1973. Soon after that, MCA Recreation proposed to replace 150 cabin-tents without baths at Curry Village with 150 winterized motel-type units with baths. Needless to say, the motel-type units will be vastly more costly to the visitor than the simpler cabin-tent accommodations. Indeed, the Park Service's draft development planning document provided to us on October 17 bears this out. It states that the lodging option "preferred" by the Park Service "would have the most pronounced effect on the present visitor population." It continues on page 116: At each of the three lodging centers, the quality and price of accommodations would be raised. The Yosemite Lodge cabins without baths would be replaced by new cabins with baths. The diversity of accommodation type would be preserved at the lodge under this option, but the economic range would be compressed. At Curry Village, more than one-third of the low-priced cabins without baths would be replaced with units that would have rates in the upper end of the moderate price range. At the Ahwahnee [Hotel], 129 luxury units would be added. This elevation in the quality and price of lodging accommodations appears to be in keeping with demonstrated visitor demand, according to occupancy statistics compiled by the concessioner. The Park Service professional planners strongly opposed the 150 unit replacement proposal. But MCA quickly rejected any compromise and soon thereafter the Park Service caved in. Despite the warning by the Department's Field Solicitor on June 3, 1974, that such approval would probably be upset in court for failure to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Park Service proceeded to approve the MCA proposal. But the planning staff continued its opposition and Regional Director Howard Chapman then informed MCA that the 150 units proposal should be delayed until the Park Service completed the master plan and an environmental impact statement. However, on July 25 NPS Director Ronald Walker wrote to the President of MCA, Mr. Jay Stein, apologizing for the Park Service's flip-flop and giving him "my firm personal commitment" that the master plan and related documents would be completed "in a timely fashion" and that the Park Service decision on the 150 units would be completed by January 20, 1975. Shortly thereafter Mr. Walker issued the substance of this letter to the public in a press release approved by Mr. Stein. Interestingly enough, however, Yosemite Park Superintendent Leslie P. Arnberger, in a July 29, 1974, memorandum to the files, said that he was "informed" by Regional Director Chapman that a "decision had been made that the 150 units could proceed following the approval of the master plan in January." If Superintendent Arnberger's statement is true, then the Park Service was telling the public one thing-namely, that it would not make any decision until the master plan was completed-and the concessioner another-that the 150 units proposal was a sure thing. It is my view, and I am sure it is the view of many members of the subcommittees, that recreational opportunities in national parks ought not to concentrate on wealth, but should be developed so that persons with modest means may enjoy them. Our investigation has revealed that in addition to the 150 unit controversy, the concessioner has caused the Park Service to make extensive revisions in its plans. The concessioner has had daily access to the Park Service plans while the public has been afforded virtually no opportunity to participate in the planning process. The result has inevitably been to develop plans which Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel Reed aptly characterized at a September meeting with Park Service officials as appearing "to have been written by the concessioner," that are contrary to "conservation interests," and "would simply destroy NPS credibility with conservation organizations in view of the rather strong positions that had been taken in the past regarding stabilizing commercial accommodations in the Valley and even moving some services and activities out of the park." On October 21, 1974, Chairman Dingell and I wrote to Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton and urged that the Park Service abandon its commitments to MCA and publish the many versions of the master plan, including the ones that have not been doctored by MCA, together with all the comments thereon by MCA and the National Park Service. We also said that the Park Service should give the public 90 days to review these documents and then hold public hearings to insure that the public, as well as the concessioner, would have some input into the planning process. We have not received a reply to our letter. [NOTE. By letter of December 20, 1974, Secretary Morton replied to the October 21 letter referred to above. The October letter and the December 20 reply are printed on pp. 61-67.] Mr. REUSS. Yet, on December 13, 1974, Mr. Ronald Walker, who is resigning effective the end of this month, announced that the Park Service is abandoning all of its 5 years of planning at considerable cost to the taxpayer and is going to start over again. He also said that some-but not all of the planning documents, and some-but not all of the letters, memoranda, and other correspondence, would be made public, and that a "new and complete" planning process would be initiated and take 18 to 20 months. He did not say what the cost of this new process would be. We applaud this belated effort to include the public in at least some part of the planning process. But all documents, not just some of them, should be made available to the public. We note that several organizations and individuals have requested them under the Freedom of Information Act, but have not yet obtained them. We want to know why they haven't. |