for its more significant effects upon congestion in the Valley. The discussion also has an appearance of arguing for the alternative.

On balance, the document is a smooth piece of writing with many effects alluded to but seldom examined in detail or from any explicit standpoint so as to display any marginal change in relationship between cause and effect. Missing are such important data as: trends in visitor use and projected future use; definitions of specific policies or criteria; existing physical conditions and projected physical conditions under the changes described by the plan; type, site and acreage description of vegetation involved; biological reaction under the conditions of management prescribed; vegetation of the key scenic areas; the spectacular nature of key geologic and water features and their viewing conditions, angles, distances and scanning coverage from placement of proposed facilities. Data that describe the specific scope of actions and plans such as acreage, miles, unit levels, capacities, and similar specifics are avoided. The diagrams used are totally conceptual and unrelated to specific ground conditions. Water conditions are never described in terms of quantities, TDS, BOD, coliform count, and flow conditions. Water tables and flood zones in proposed construction areas are not mentioned.

The combined actions contemplated in the Master Plan would have irreversible effects on the character of the Valley itself. These are not acknowledged.

JOHN H. FARRELL

APPENDIX 2.-DATA PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

RELATING TO POSSESSORY INTEREST

POSSESSORY INTEREST

Possessory interest is defined in Public Law 89-249 as consisting of "all incidents of ownership except legal title *** which title shall be vested in the United States." This is the same definition that has been used in our concession contracts for several years. However, with possessory interest vesting in the concessioners by law as well as by contract the concessioners become more secure in the investments they had made in the areas we administer.

For many years the Service recognized that a concessioner had a possessory interest in any improvement, addition, or alteration of a capital nature to a Government-owned building or structure. However, with the passage of time it developed that recognizing a concessioner's possessory interest in an otherwise Government-owned facility created a problem of dual ownership. It was of particular concern when a concessioner decided to sell his concession which included a possessory interest in a Government-owned building or when loss occurred as a result of casualty and the concessioner collected from an insurance company for the loss. As a result, the Director advised the concessioners on May 1, 1964, that "a decision has been made as a matter of policy that in the future such construction will be performed by the Service." The Director advised the concessioners further that if a concessioner should perform such work the cost would be borne by the concessioner and expensed or amortized over the life of the contract.

With the passage of Public Law 89-249 there was considerable discussion and opposition from the Conference of National Park Concessions. At issue was the intent of the legislation as it relates to the concessioners possessory interest and the position of the Service that concessioners shall continue to amortize any capital improvements to government-owned or acquired buildings. It should be pointed out that no distinction is made in the law between new structures constructed entirely by the concessioner, and capital additions or improvements attached to, or made part of, existing government improvements assigned for use by the concessioner.

In 1970 the Public Law Review Commission specifically recommended: "The security of investment offered under the Concessioners' Act of 1965 should be extended. The 1965 Act recognizes a possessory interest in facilities constructed by concessioners and provides for compensation for their values upon termination of the concession agreement. We believe that this policy is sound and should be uniformly applicable. However, we understand that the National Park Service does not recognize such an interest where the concessioner improves or adds to government-built facilities. Since all such concessioner improvements become the legal property of the United States, we see no reason for any such distinction and believe that the concessioners in such cases should be recognized as having a compensable interest,"

Due to any number of situations involving possessory interest, former Director Hartzog concluded that we cannot have a simple statement that all capital improvements made by a concessioner in any type of Government-owned facility would qualify for possessory interest. Rather he suggested that we need an arrangement that allows for sufficient flexibility to deal with each individual

case.

Another consideration requiring that we remain flexible in our attitude toward granting possessory interest in government facilities is the fact that where facilities were damaged by casualty or otherwise needed major repair requiring capital expenditures it became the responsibility of the Service to accomplish such. Due to the budgetary process and the lead time required, funds were not available on a moments notice. Concessioners were reluctant to make capital (445)

expenditures and then amortize them off. As a result, capital improvements were not made on a timely basis, and in the meantime services provided the public were adversely affected.

On September 20, 1973, Acting Director Dickenson revised the policy to permit such possessory interest. In doing so, he stated: "It is now evident that due primarily to the limited appropriations available to the National Park Service for such necessary work, this policy is not serving the best interests of the concessioners nor the United States. Therefore, it has been determined that hereafter concessioners will be permitted to acquire a possessory interest where appropriate as a result of the installation of fixtures or the making of alterations or improvements, with the approval of the Secretary, to Government-owned structures assigned to them for use in their operations."

The current policy revision was initiated on June 20, 1973, in a meeting with the Chairman and other members of the Conference of National Park Concessioners. The Director agreed that this administrative decision should be changed and the concessioner would be allowed possessory interest where appropriate in these Government structures. It is the opinion of the Service that the present policy permits flexibility because "where appropriate" concessioners will be allowed possessory interest in Government structures. This is in keeping with the Law and presents a positive attitude toward meeting the intent and the mandate of Congress when it approved Public Law 89-249.

In reviewing the current policy we believe it to be necessary and adequate to provide for visitor needs as previously stated. In making this policy revision the Service did not feel it necessary to issue a public notice or to seek public input on an issue already established by Law. An Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared nor was it felt necessary to do so in that policy change had no overall effect on our contracting procedures but rather one which would have to be and is considered on an individual basis.

No contract issued prior to June 1973 has been amended to grant a possessory interest.

Mr. DON HUMMEL,

Chairman, Conference of National Park Concessioners, Yosemite National Park, Calif.

DEAR MR. HUMMEL: As a followup to the overview meeting with Director Walker on June 18, I enclose for your information copies of memoranda to the Regional Directors advising them of the decisions reached at that meeting with resepct to, (1) the policy relating to concessioners acquiring a possessory interest in government-owned buildings; (2) cooperating associations; and (3) conces sioners' participation in National Park Service planning.

Sincerely yours,

RUSSELL E. DICKENSON,

Acting Director.

JUNE 20, 1973.

Memorandum to the files.

Subject: Overview meeting with the Director and the Chairman and certain members of the Conference on National Park Concessioners.

The meeting was convened at 4 p.m., June 18, and the following were in attendance:

Don Hummel, President, Yosemite Park and Curry Company and Chairman. Conference on National Park Concessioners; Trev Povah, President, Hamilton Stores, Yellowstone; Al Donau, General Manager, Glacier Park Company: Ed Lightfoot, Washington Representative, Board of U.S. Natural Resources, Inc.: Ronald Walker. Director, National Park Service; Raymond L. Freeman, Associate Director, Operations, NPS.

The Director opened the meeting outlining his basic philosophy as Director of the National Park Service and filled them in as to what he has been doing since becoming Director. He indicated the importance of the concessioner function within the Service and pointed out that one of the immediate objectives is to realign and strengthen the Operations function of the Service particularly in Washington and Regions. The Operations function is, of course, of primary concern to concessions. The concessioners felt that the Service has insufficient staff to properly and expeditiously handle the concession program in the Service. The

Director agreed with this and indicated that staff in the Washington Office would be expanded to handle major policy guidelines, contracts, and monitor the program. The Regional Concessions Office would be primarily concerned with the day-to-day operations type matters. The Director also indicated that he was definitely delegating as much management authority as possible to the Regional Directors and Park Superintendents. He recognizes that certain concession functions such as contracts must remain centralized.

At this point, Mr. Hummel outlined in considerable detail the history of the concession movement in the National Park Service including the establishment back in 1919 of the Conference on National Park Concessioners. This Conference was started by Secretary of the Interior Lane and Director Mather of the Park Service. The Conference provides a point of contact with Interior and the Service for the concessioners.

Mr. Hummel then explained his view and presumably that of the concessioner organization of the role and function of the concessioner in the National Park System. The first Director, Steven Mather, encouraged private enterprise for concession operations thus establishing a basic policy. He indicated that Mather and Albright's policy allowed concessioners to secure their investments and since the preservation concept did not completely allow for free competition, they instituted the prior and preferential right of concessioners on contracts. This basic policy included continuity of operations by the concessioners through negotiation rather than lowest bidder and also stressed that the Government would provide the opportunity for concessioners to make a profit.

All of these things were established because the mortgage bankers challenged the concession system since it is a one-purpose business (recreation) and there needs to be some inducement for financing because the bankers basically do not like this kind of investment. These concession concepts, according to Mr. Hummel, have been challenged three times. During and shortly after World War II, Secretary Ickes and then Secretary Krug felt that concessions should be Government owned and operated or Government owned and operated by private enterprise. They felt the concession program was a commercial enterprise.

Since concessioners and the Secretary could not reach agreements and hence no contracts awarded, a citizens committee was established to review the entire program. This committee was called the Collins Committee. Mr. Collins was chairman and an accountant. The committee report pretty much upheld most of the basic policies and the concept of private enterprise operation of concessions.

During the period of 1959 to 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission had a special report prepared concerning concessions and its operation in the Park System. Again this commission basically upheld the private system but recommended strongly the need for a public policy in this regard. This led to P.L. 89-249 which was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1965. The Service presently operates under this law and its policy.

Mr. Hummel's concern at present is that a law is no better than it is administered and he questions some of the administrative actions taken in the last few years. One of the actions has to do with the determination that the concessioner has no possessory interest in the investments made in Government buildings assigned to him or improvements made by the concessioners to Government buildings. Public Law 89-249 does not specifically address itself to this point. The Director agreed that this administrative decision should be changed and the concessioner would be allowed possessory interest where appropriate in these Government structures.

Mr. Hummel also indicated that in his opinion the recent sale of the concession at Sequoia National Work to Government Services, Inc. was illegal. We do not agree. He indicated that nonprofit companies like GSI and National Park Concessions, Inc. are not private enterprise organizations but basically Government sanctioned. It is our view that legally these nonprofit organizations are in the private sector.

Mr. Hummel and the other concessioners feel that the roles of the natural history and historical associations have been expanded beyond their original concept to assist the Service in the field of interpretation. This has to do primarily with the sale of certain souvenirs, color slides, some food, and beverages. The Director agreed that the Service would re-examine the association's role to determine whether they really have expanded beyond their original concept.

The next item involved transportation services-concession vs. the National Park Service. The concern here is the recent transportation program instituted at Yosemite Valley, Everglades, Mt. McKinley, and the plans for Grand Canyon for next summer. Again this involves the preferential rights of concessioners to provide transportation services or the right of first refusal. Again there is an honest difference of opinion. The General Accounting Office has investigated this matter along with the Solicitor's Office. In the case of Grand Canyon, the concessioner waived his preferential right in order for the Service to institute and operate this service.

Another matter disturbing to these gentlemen involves the policy on trailer villages particularly in the west and at recreation areas such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon. They maintain that our policy would ultimately require phasing out of trailer villages and force them to give up possessory interest. The Bull Frong area of Glen Canyon was cited as an example. Hummel also criticizes the phase out policy to remove overnight facilities at Zion and Bryce. These properties were turned over in the National Park Service by the Utah Parks Company and subsequently an operating contract was negotiated with TWA. Again this is a difference of opinion between the Service and concessioners on basic requirements and needs of the public for overnight accommodations in these parks. He indicated that the land and many of the overnight facilities located immediately adjacent to Zion NP are either owned or controlled by Las Vegas gamblers. The next point involved master planning. The concessioners are aware of our policy to bring them in on the master planning process but they maintain this is on paper only and that they actually are not brought in on the planning process until decisions are made. The Director informed the concessioners that he will insist that they be brought in on master and other planning processes and that we will work together. A point in this connection was brought out by Trev Povah whereby he was not informed of the master plan at Death Valley but that it had been discussed with the 49er's group. Povah also wanted to leave the old road at West Thumb in operation for a year even though the bypass road would be completed and in use.

The concessioners requested a cautious approach to any drastic changes in souvenir policy. Admittedly this is where the money is made and many of them would suffer severe financial problems if a hard line souvenir policy involving only quality native hand-made products can be sold. They maintain that these products are not in sufficient quantity to meet their needs. They feel that other kinds of souvenirs should be sold. They do not advocate inappropriate ones but rather appropriate souvenirs that are cheaper and which customers can buy for the children and something to take home to "Aunt Susie."

In summing up, Mr. Hummel felt that we had a relatively short period of time to shore up our problems. The concessioners are just as vitally concerned with the preservation of the resources as rangers and superintendents. Mr. Hummel, on behalf of the association, pledged support to the concept of continually working together. The concessioner must have the opportunity to participate and the policies laid down by Public Law 89-249 should be adhered to.

The Director told them that he will do what is right after full consultation with all concerned. He stressed that his administration will have an open line of communication with the concessioners; that we will get together and not ignore each other.

Memorandum:

RAYMOND L. FREEMAN.

To: Regional Directors, Midwest, Northeast, Pacific Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Western Regions, and Director, National Capital Parks. From: Acting Director.

Subject: Concessioners' Improvements to Government-owned Buildings.

By memorandum of May 1, 1964, all Regional Directors were advised that in order to prevent the problems inherent in mixed ownership of property, a decision had been made that concessioners will not be permitted to acquire, in the future, possessory interests in Government-owned buildings: that in the event a concessioner installed fixtures or equipment or made alterations or improvements to a Government-owned building in such a manner as to become a part of the realty the cost should be treated as an expense of the business and expensed or amortized. This policy anticipated that the National Park Service would perform capital repairs when required to such Government-owned structures.