Forests United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resou.

Federal lands concessions reform : hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 721 ... H.R. 773 ... H.R. 1527 ... H.R. 2028 ... July 25, 1995--Washington, DC online

. (page 1 of 23)
Online LibraryForests United States. Congress. House. Committee on ResouFederal lands concessions reform : hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 721 ... H.R. 773 ... H.R. 1527 ... H.R. 2028 ... July 25, 1995--Washington, DC → online text (page 1 of 23)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Y4.R 31/3:104-30

FEDERAL LANDS CONCESSIONS REFORM



HEARING



BEFORE THE



SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS,

AND LANDS



OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
ON

H.R. 721

A BILL TO ESTABLISH FAIR MARKET VALUE PRICING OF FEDERAL
NATURAL ASSETS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 773

A BILL TO REFORM THE CONCESSION POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 1527

A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL FOREST SKI AREA PERMIT ACT
OF 1986 TO CLARIFY THE AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE SEC-
RETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN ISSUING SKI AREA PERMITS ON NA-
TIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS AND TO WITHDRAW LANDS WITH-
IN SKI AREA PERMIT BOUNDARIES FROM THE OPERATION OF
THE MINING AND MINERAL LEASING LAWS

H.R. 2028

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR A UNIFORM CONCESSIONS POLICY FOR
THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES, lA^NiCQB OTHER
PURPOSES / ^^^Hlt]/]



JULY 25, 1995— WASHINGTON, Dj






Serial No. 104-30



DEC12



Printed for the use of the Committee







93-983 CC



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1995




For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-047769-7



FEDERAL LANDS CONCESSIONS REFORM



HEARING



BEFORE THE



SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PAKKS, FORESTS,

AND LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
ON

H.R. 721

A BILL TO ESTABLISH FAIR MARKET VALUE PRICING OF FEDERAL
NATURAL ASSETS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 773

A BILL TO REFORM THE CONCESSION POUCIES OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 1527

A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL FOREST SKI AREA PERMIT ACT
OF 1986 TO CLARIFY THE AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE SEC-
RETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN ISSUING SKI AREA PERMITS ON NA-
TIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS AND TO WITHDRAW LANDS WITH-
IN SKI AREA PERMIT BOUNDARIES FROM THE OPERATION OF
THE MINING AND MINERAL LEASING LAWS

H.R. 2028

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR A UNIFORM CONCESSIONS POLICY FOR
THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES, |Ai^th«i5QB OTHER
PURPOSES



JULY 25, 1995— WASHINGTON, D



Serial No. 104-30



Printed for the use of the Committee o





''"^'^f^otyna



7595



DEC12






93-983 CC



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASfflNGTON : 1995



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-047769-7



COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman



JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, CaUfomia

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, CaUfornia

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

WES COOLEY, Oregon

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, CaUfornia

WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CaroUna

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington

JACK METCALF, Washington

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

Daniel Val Kish, Chief of Staff

Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk /Administrator

John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director

David Dye, Chief Counsel



GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CaUfornia
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto

Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California



SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman



JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, CaUfomia
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
RICHARD W. POMBO, CaUfornia
PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
WES COOLEY, Oregon
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, CaUfornia
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona



BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto

Rico
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam



Allen Freemyer, Staff Director / Counsel
Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff



(II)



CONTENTS



Page

Hearing held July 25, 1995 1

Text of H.R. 721 68

Text of H.R. 773 149

Text of H.R. 1527 180

Text of H.R. 2028 193

Statements of Members:

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman,

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 1

Meyers, Hon. Jan, a U.S. Representative from Kansas 8

Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico 11

Skaggs, Hon. David E., a U.S. Representative from Colorado 294

Statements of witnesses:

Beck, Timothy, President, Sno.engineering 62

Prepared statement 265

Bigwater, Lee, Canyon de Chelly Guides Association 57

Brown, David, Executive Director, America Outdoors 51

Chandler, WUliam, Director of Conservation Policy, National Parks and

Conservation Association 39

Comelssen, Curtis, Landauer Hospitality Advisory Services 42

DufFus, James III, Director of National Resources Management Issues,

General Accounting Office 2

Prepared statement 222

Frankel, Barry, Director of Real Estate, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .... 14

Gardner, Ray, Chief Executive Officer, Snowbird Ski Resort, Utah 65

Henderson, Chad, Public policy manager. The National Outdoors Leader-
ship School 55

Prepared statement 248

Kennedy, Roger, Nationad Park Service 16

King, Aubrey C, Executive Director, Travel and Tourism Government
Affairs Council, and Senior Vice President, Travel Industry Association

of America 44

Mosgrove, Harry, President, Copper Mountain Ski Resort 60

Prepared statement 259

Nielsen, Paul, attorney, Fred Harvey Company, representing National

Park HospitaUty Association 53

Schatz, Thomas A., President, Council for Citizens Against Government

Waste : 37

Selengut, Stanley, Maho Bay Camps Incorporated 57

Senior, David, Bank of America, Las Vegas, Nevada 46

Staveley, Gaylord, Vice President, National Forest Recreation Associa-
tion 49

Unger, David G., Associate Chief, Forest Service 19

Prepared statement 238

Wilson, Kenneth, Landauer Realty Advisors 41

Additional material supplied:

Frankel, Barry: Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PubUc Law

99-662, Section 926 280

Horn, William, Alaska Professional Hunters Association: Testimony on

H.R. 2028 281

Kennedy, Roger, National Park Service: Memorandum of Understanding
between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department
of the Army, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, on Concessions

Management, as requested by Hon. James Hansen 288



(III)



IV

Page



Additional material supplied— Continued

Staudt Greg, and Phil Keeter, Marine Operators Association of America:
Letter of August 20, 1995, to Hon. James V. Hansen 283



FEDERAL LANDS CONCESSIONS REFORM



TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1995

House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Na-
tional Parks, Forests and Lands, Committee on
Resources,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM UTAH AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA-
TIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS

Mr. Hansen. The committee will come to order. This morning,
we will take up a topic long debated within this committee and the
halls of Congress, concession reform. This is an important topic,
and we have a long list of persons to be heard from today. There-
fore, I will not take time to recount the issues surrounding conces-
sion reform which are well established in the record. That same
record also reflects the concerns which full committee Chairman
Young and I share with respect to the topic of concession reform.

I do want to appraise members and other interested persons that
I intend to mark this legislation up in the early fall. I would reit-
erate the comment I made in the introduction of my concession re-
form bill that it is a work in progress. I am willing to work with
interested parties to perfect concession reform legislation, and I
look forward to the testimony today to determine who has an inter-
est to work on this issue.

I have noticed throughout the years that a lot of people have an
interest, but it is very self-serving if I may respectfully say so. I
take the River Runners as an example of that on our wilderness
bill. We asked for input on all of it and got nothing. When they
came to all the hearings, they verbally abused us all over the place
but wouldn't come up and tell us a thing. Therefore, they have
made their point, and I will make mine when we mark this up.

Mr. Hansen. Our first witness is Mr. James Duffus, Director of
National Resources Management Issues, General Accounting Of-
fice. Would you tell us who you have with you please?



(1)



STATEMENT OF JAMES DUFFUS III, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN KALMAR, STAFF MEMBER;
AND NED WOODWARD, STAFF MEMBER

STATEMENT OF JAMES DUFFUS III

Mr. DuFFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hansen, Mr. Duffus, would you tell us who you have with
you please?

Mr. Duffus. Yes, I will. With me today are Ned Woodward on
my right and John Kalmar on my left. They both have worked on
concession issues within the Office.

Mr. Hansen. Mr. Duffiis, how much time do you need?

Mr. Duffus. It takes me about five and a half — six minutes. I
will deliver a summary statement.

Mr. Hansen. We will put eight minutes down on the thing, and
you know how that clock works in front of you.

Mr. Duffus. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman
and members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to be here today
to summarize our work on Federal policies and practices for man-
aging recreation concessioners and to provide our views on the four
bills now before the subcommittee.

Our work has involved concessions activities at six agencies: the
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and the
Corps of Engineers.

In summary, our work has shown that the agencies' concession
policies and practices are based on at least 11 different laws and,
as a result, vary considerably; more competition is needed in
awarding concession contracts; and the Federal Government needs
to obtain a better return from concessioners for the use of its lands,
including obtaining fair market value for the fees it charges ski op-
erators.

Each of the bills before the subcommittee proposes changes to
current concessions policies and practices. Overall, the changes pro-
posed are consistent with our past work, and, therefore, we support
their objectives.

I will first highlight our earlier work and then provide our views
on the bills. No single law authorizes concession operations for all
six agencies. As a result, agencies have developed policies that dif-
fer substantially in terms of concession agreements and terms of
the agreements.

Our work has also shown the need for greater competition in
awarding concession contracts. As early as 1975, we reported that
the Park Service's preferential right of renewal is not in the gov-
ernment's best interest because it impedes competition. Competi-
tion is impeded because existing concessioners who perform satis-
factorily have a right to continue their contracts.

We have also reported that the concessions fees paid to the gov-
ernment appear to be low. As we reported in June 1991, the six
agencies received about $35 million in fees from gross concessions
revenues of $1.4 billion, an average return of about 2.4 percent. We
have updated these figures for the Park Service and the Forest
Service which are shown on the chart to my left. Concessions reve-



nues now exceed $2 billion, and fees are approaching $50 million.
The return to the government remains at about 2.4 percent.

I would like now to discuss the four bills currently before the
subcommittee. While the bills differ, each proposes significant re-
form in Federal concessions policy. As I said, our work has shown
the need for one law to estabHsh common concessions policies so
that similar concessions operations are managed consistently
throughout Federal recreation lands.

One policy difference among agencies is possessory interest. H.R.
2028 would encourage the private sector to build and maintain con-
cessions facilities but would not grant possessory interests for these
facilities. Under H.R. 773 and H.R. 721, the Park Service would
generally extinguish possessory interest. As existing contracts ex-
pired, the new contracts would depreciate the value of possessory
interests over an extended period of time. Once fully depreciated,
the structures would be owned by the government.

Removing possessory interests as proposed in H.R. 773 and H.R.
721 would provide the Park Service with greater control over the
facilities and allow greater flexibility in managing concessioners.
However, acquiring these facilities could be costly.

If the Park Service acquired a concessions facility during the
term of the contract, the fees it received would likely be lower be-
cause the concessioner would probably not give up its ownership in-
terest in a park facility without some form of compensation in re-
turn. In addition, once the Park Service owns the facilities, it will
be responsible for maintaining them which could increase its
multibillion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance.

In our opinion, any effort to reform concessions policy should in-
clude greater competition in the awarding of concessions contracts.
Competition could improve both the return to the government and
the quality of visitor services. The bills promote more competition
but treat preferential right of renewal differently.

H.R, 2028 proposes that no concessioner have a guaranteed pref-
erential right of renewal. However, a concessioner could acquire a
limited preference on the basis of its past performance. H.R. 773
and H.R, 721 guarantee a preferential right of renewal for conces-
sioners generating less than $500,000 annually, which constitute
about three-quarters of all park concessioners.

While removing preference for the largest concessioners is a good
start toward creating a competitive environment, we continue to
believe that a preferential right should not be guaranteed for any
park concessioner. H.R. 2028, H.R. 773, and H.R. 721 each propose
expanding competition in awarding concessions contracts. This
competition will likely result in a better return to the government.

These bills also propose that the fees collected from the conces-
sioners would be available for use by the collecting agency. Return-
ing fees to the local level would, if properly managed, help to bring
about needed improvements. However, the benefit would only be
realized if the funds were used to supplement and not supplant ex-
isting funding.

Finally, the fee system proposed in H.R. 1527 would be simpler
to administer than the existing system benefiting both the Forest
Service and individual ski areas. However, the proposed fee system
has the same rates as those the ski industry proposed in 1993. As



we reported at that time, these rates were not designed to reflect
fair market value but to generate fees comparable to the fees col-
lected under the existing system.

Forest Service officials acknowledge that they do not know
whether the fees collected under the existing system reflect fair
market value. As such, any fee system designed to collect com-
parable fees will likewise not ensure that fair market value is re-
ceived. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and we would
be glad to respond to questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duffus can be found at the end
of the hearing.]

Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Duffus. Do either of your colleagues
have anything they would like to add to that?

Mr. I-LvLMAR. No, sir.

Mr. Woodward. Not at this time.

Mr. Hansen. Mr. Allard. I will recognize members of the commit-
tee for five minutes each to ask the witness questions.

Mr. Allard. You say that all three of these bills keep the conces-
sion process more competitive than what it is now. Is that correct?

Mr. Duffus. That is correct.

Mr. Allard. Which one of the pieces of legislation in your view
opens up the free market the most?

Mr. Duffus. Well, as were reported in the past, the preferential
right of renewal is a right which, in our view, impeded competition
because that gives the concessioner the right to better any offer
that is received on a new concessions contract.

H.R. 2028 would essentially remove preferential right of renewal;
whereas, the other two bills still have a guaranteed right. So from
the standpoint of preferential right of renewal, H.R. 2028 would do
a better job.

Mr. Allard. How do you address the area where you have a con-
cessioner who made a substantial investment just to be there? How
do you assure that he gets back — or is there a way of provision
there where there can be a contract with the Forest Sen-ice where
that contract can be of sutTicient length where he can get a return
on his investment? Or are you going to compact that down so that
he has to charge an exceptionally high fee on maybe the goods or
services that he provides in order to recoup a profit on that?

Mr. Duffus. Well, I guess you are talking about possessory in-
terest to some extent?

Mr. .Ai.l.\rd. Yes.

Mr. Duffus. Possessory interest is unique to the Park Service.
It doesn't exist in any of the other agencies.

Mr. All.\rd. Yes.

Mr. DlTFFUS. These other agencies are able to deal with conces-
sioners' investment in a way without ofTering possessory interest.
We favor possessor^' interest not being included in concessions con-
tracts. We think it has associated problems. The issue of what do
you do with existing contracts with possessor>' interest is some-
thing that needs to be looked at rather carefully in terms of wheth-
er or not acquiring the ownership interests of concessioners could
result in less fees.

It seems reasonable that if the government is to acquire a conces-
sioner's ownership interest then the concessioner would want some-



thing in return. The one thing he may want in return perhaps is
to pay less fees.

Mr. Allard. I see. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Cooley.

Mr. Cooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your testimony, you
talked about establishing a single policy to manage similar conces-
sions operations on Federal lands. Could you explain to me why
you think a single policy with the diversity that we have of conces-
sioners on Federal lands would be a good policy? Shouldn't we have
maybe something that has some flexibility in it for special situa-
tions?

Mr. DuFFUS. Yes. Let me just make a comment and then I would
ask Mr. Woodward to respond. The issue here is that we see a need
for consistency in the management of similar concessioners that
are operating on Federal recreation lands.

We are not saying that the agencies should not have flexibility
in the management of concessioners on their lands, but at least
they should be consistent, for example, in the rates that they
charge and the process by which they go about setting the rates.
And perhaps Mr. Woodward would comment.

Mr. Cooley. Excuse me. When you say rates

Mr. DuFFUS. Fees. I am sorry.

Mr. Cooley. You are talking about fees?

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cooley. OK. Because I was going to say if you look at a con-
cessioner who may or may not have a living space as a rental and
then you look at a concessioner that sells convenience — hot dogs,
things of that type, and that is what I was really looking at. Aiid
you are talking about a flat rate system

Mr. Woodward. Sir, I don't think we are-



Mr. Cooley [continuing], are you thinking in the point of profit
margins or

Mr. Woodward. I don't think we are suggesting a flat rate sys-
tem. I think what we are suggesting is that a marina on Corps of
Engineers' land may be a lot like a marina on Forest Service land
and the same with a marina in the Park Service.

Our point is that similar concessioners should probably be man-
aged in a similar fashion. What we see not only in just dealing
with the fee, but length of contract, the possessory interest type of
issues, whether they need to report revenues, things of that nature,
are very inconsistent throughout these six agencies.

So I think our point is where you have similar facilities, and
many of them are similar — there are a lot of restaurants, there is
a lot of lodging throughout the Forest Service, the Corps, the Park
service especially — we would suggest that there are strong reasons
to have those types of concessioners managed in a consistent fash-
ion.

Mr. Cooley. So what you are talking about is a general overall
management plan with the flexibility within the units itself on
nonsimilar things?

Mr. Woodward. Flexibility still remains a key issue. We are not
trying to tie the hands of any of the agencies to one strict law. I
think H.R. 2028 provides for the agencies to develop regulations



based on some overall guidelines, and to that extent we would sup-
port that.

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hansen, Thank you. The gentlewoman from Idaho, Mrs.
Chenoweth.

Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Duffus, I am really
pleased with what I am seeing proposed in 1527 for return on ski
operations. But I need to ask you a question because I don't under-
stand this particular section of the law. Formerly, the GRFS, you
reported in your testimony, did not ensure that the Forest Service
receives fair market value for the use of its land. And in what law
did we establish that they should receive fair market value rather
than a marginal return for their operations?

Mr. Duffus. I believe it is the National Forest Ski Area Permit
Act of 1986 that requires the Forest Service to obtain fair market
value for the use of its lands for ski operations.

Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you help me by explaining how you cal-
culate fair market value for the Forest Service lands?

Mr. Duffus. I am not so sure I can do that, but I will offer some
suggestions. It is difficult, and I think the Forest Service recognizes
it is difficult to do. The Forest Service, as we reported in 1993, had
attempted through a contracted private appraiser, to analyze some
11 or so transactions where ski land was sold in order to get a bet-
ter feel as to what the value of ski area operations would be.

I believe that effort was not concluded. I believe it was termi-
nated, and currently I don't know what they are doing. But when
you look at fair market value for ski operations, it is difficult to de-
termine because there are not a lot of comparables that exist.
There is a very small market of non-Federal lands carr5dng out ski
operations.

So you have to look to other areas. Perhaps some other areas
would be the rents that are being paid for highly de^^eloped resort
areas such as golf courses or maybe oceanside resorts, although it
is not exactly the same type of situation. It is not a ski operation,
but it is a resort area. Perhaps another area to look at would be
the profitability norms for ski areas.

That information probably is available through Dun & Brad-
street and some other financial referral document. So it is not an
easy thing to do, but we believe that what they are doing now and
how they are setting the rates does not reflect fair market value.

Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank you because if we were to really ana-
lyze fair Forest Service activities because they are a government
organization, I mean, they are not in the free market system at all.
We should analyze their activities on the rest of the forest and
make comparables with regards to their fair market return on the


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Online LibraryForests United States. Congress. House. Committee on ResouFederal lands concessions reform : hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 721 ... H.R. 773 ... H.R. 1527 ... H.R. 2028 ... July 25, 1995--Washington, DC → online text (page 1 of 23)