[Senate Hearing 111-569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-569
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA)
__________
MAY 5, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-794 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 2
Hosseini, Mahmoud R., Division President, Clark Construction
Group, LLC..................................................... 13
Sheaffer, C. Bruce, Comptroller, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 2
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 15
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order.
Good afternoon. The purpose of today's hearing is to review
the National Park Service's implementation of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to assess the progress made so
far, and to look at what work remains to be completed in the
next few months.
The National Park Service received significant new funds
through the Act, $750 million for deferred maintenance,
critical repairs and new construction, equipment replacement,
and other critical park needs. In addition, $170 million was
appropriated for road repairs and restoration through the Park
Roads and Parkways Program of the Federal Highway
Administration.
When I became chairman of this subcommittee last year, one
of the first issues I focused on was oversight of how these
funds are being spent. At that time, the Park Service, like
many other Federal agencies, had only just begun to spend a
small fraction of the available funds. So, a hearing focusing
on the details seemed premature.
Now, that we're 14 months into the program and less than 5
months away from its completion, this is the right time to
review the Park Service's progress and hear about any issues to
program completion.
Our parks are national treasures that speak to the best of
who we are and where we are going as a Nation. Keeping the
parks in a condition that maintains a quality visitor
experience while protecting the environment is an ongoing
challenge.
I look forward to hearing how the Park Service has utilized
the significant funding from the Recovery Act to help care for
these public lands.
Let me now recognize our ranking member, Senator Burr, for
any remarks he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
As many know, I was not supportive of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act last year, and there remains tremendous
division over whether the bill is, or will actually, accomplish
its intended goal. Fortunately, today we're not here to discuss
the entire stimulus package, but just one small part.
National Park Service received $920 million through the
stimulus, and has stated that they hope to finish the
allocation plans by mid-May on each of these dollars. While
that's welcome news, unfortunately, up to this point only 9
percent of the National Park Service stimulus funds have
actually been spent.
If that number's incorrect, I hope you'll correct me today.
I look forward to understanding why such a low percentage
of the funding has been spent, up to this point. It's important
to note that the stimulus package's effectiveness depends not
only on how much is spent, but also when it's spent.
I thank the chairman.
Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member, and I appreciate
his point of view. I'm also pleased he's here, but I know he
will have important questions for our witness.
I might add, before I turn to Mr. Sheaffer for his
testimony, that we've been informed that perhaps we may have as
many as 3 votes at 2:45 p.m.
Mr. Sheaffer, you should feel free to go ahead and provide
us with your testimony.
Bruce Sheaffer is the comptroller of the National Park
Service, Department of the Interior.
Thank you for coming up to the Hill. The floor is yours. We
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF C. BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Sheaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator.
I'll try to be very brief, given your schedule, as I
understand it. I'll go quickly and get to questions I assume
that you may have.
As you said, you summarized well--we had $750 million of
the total governmentwide $275 billion available for contracts/
loans targeted to do Federal work--not only do Federal work,
but to create, of course, jobs nationwide.
The Park Service's Recovery Act funding was divided among 3
appropriations: $146 million for the operational account, to
address minor needs; $589 million for construction; $15 million
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities grant money
and, as you mentioned, money from the Federal Highway--through
the Federal Highway Administration, of $170 million.
As of late February, the $146 million in the operating
account slated for execution of 653 park maintenance projects--
and I must say that some of these projects have been awaiting
funding for many years--so it was a marvelous opportunity for
the Park Service to advance the cause--$589 million in
construction was being used to execute 82 facility projects, 28
road projects, and, quite importantly, 36 abandoned mine
restoration projects.
Projects were selected using a merit-based criteria. They
were drawn from existing priority lists, almost exclusively to
do deferred-maintenance-type projects, Mr. Chairman.
By late April, 57 percent of all NPS Recovery Act funds had
been obligated. The number stands, today, at 61 percent. By
mid-May, we expect to have 90 percent of it obligated. The
remaining 10 percent will be programmed through September, with
some being held to cover change orders that may occur on the
obligated projects; some to cover very late obligations that we
had planned all along, the largest of which is right here in
the District of Columbia, for the Reflecting Pool.
The Service's suggested use of the recovery funding is due,
in part, to development of 2 project lists. One list contained
projects ready for execution, and another contained contingency
projects. I believe we've spoken before, a number of times,
about the fact that we actually made the list large enough to
accommodate potential changes, and, as it turns out, a very
favorable bidding climate that we noticed servicewide. We were
able to advance, on the construction list, every project that
had been over-target, as we described it, to the in-target
program.
We face some challenges going forward. No. 1, Recovery Act
obligation authority expires September 30, and we want to make
the point, of course, that we have executed this in the face of
this relatively tight deadline. Many projects will extend into
the following year, and will require close attention to ensure
all contracting program and project management and contingency
requirements are met.
No. 2, the Act's special emergency temporary hiring
authority will also cease September 30. We are working within
the administration to resolve that potential issue.
Finally, the contracting workload associated with the
Recovery Act projects will result in awarding some scheduled
projects funded from a variety of sources. We will focus on
expediting the award of these projects as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I have a formal
statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheaffer follows:]
Prepared Statement of C. Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today on the National Park Service's
experience with implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Recovery Act).
The Recovery Act was enacted on February 17, 2009, shortly after
the 111th Congress convened and President Obama took office, as a
direct response to the severe economic crisis that the nation was
experiencing. The act had the immediate goals of creating new jobs and
saving existing ones and spurring economic activity and investment in
long-term growth. It aimed to achieve those goals by making $275
billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans, targeted at
infrastructure development and enhancement. Of the total amount
appropriated, the National Park Service received $750 million.
Additionally, the act provided $170 million for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) to spend on improving park roads.
overview
The $750 million appropriated for the National Park Service is in
three separate appropriations accounts: (1) $146 million for Operation
of the National Park System (ONPS), to address minor park deferred or
cyclic maintenance needs, including repair of trails; (2) $589 million
for Construction; and (3) $15 million for the Historic Preservation
Fund, specifically for grants for historic preservation projects at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
The $589 million appropriated to address major construction needs
has been divided among four categories of projects: facility
construction, road construction, abandoned mine lands restoration, and
equipment replacement. With this funding, the National Park Service was
in the process of executing, as of late February, 82 facility projects,
28 road projects, 36 abandoned mine restoration projects, and six
equipment replacement projects. Updates of these project numbers are in
process. A sampling of these projects is attached to this statement.
With the $15 million that was appropriated for repairs to
facilities at HBCUs, 21 grants at 20 universities have been approved
and are in planning. Grantees have three years to complete the approved
work.
With the $170 million appropriated to the FHWA to address road
improvement needs in national park units, 31 projects are underway and
two additional projects are anticipated. Together with the 28 NPS road
projects, these FHWA projects have resulted in 620 miles of NPS roads
that have been or will be repaired or treated for preservation.
Projects were selected using merit-based criteria to address
Servicewide priorities and based on our ability to obligate funds
within the timeframe of the appropriation. The vast majority of
approved projects address either cyclic repairs or rehabilitation of
existing assets.
obligation status
As of late April, 57 percent of all NPS Recovery Act funds had been
obligated. Our goal is to obligate approximately 90 percent by mid-May.
The remaining 10 percent of funding is programmed through September 30
for ongoing management costs, the hiring of summer seasonal laborers
for in-house projects such as trail work, and to execute two approved
facility construction projects slated to be awarded in August:
rehabilitation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and
rehabilitation of the King Gillette Ranch at Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area. The FHWA's $170 million was 87 percent
obligated as of late-April; the remainder is expected to be obligated
by the end of June.
strategies for implementation
The Park Service has employed a number of strategies to ensure
successful use of Recovery Act funds. First, initial project lists
included both ``in-target'' projects, which were those approved for
execution, and ``over-target'' projects, which were those approved for
planning, design and compliance but where execution would depend on
availability of funds. This allowed the National Park Service to
substitute projects when in-target projects proved not viable. Second,
the National Park Service established a management oversight group of
senior-level managers who meet regularly to review progress and
recommend adjustments. Third, temporary personnel were hired to
increase capacity in contracting, budgeting and management/oversight.
Fourth, where necessary, the Service modified internal processes to
track progress and facilitate the orderly dropping or adding of
projects for execution. Finally, we contracted as much of the proposed
work as possible, using a number of techniques to accelerate the
process, such as the use of indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts and
multiple-award task-order contracts, and contracting with FHWA to
execute many of the NPS-funded road projects.
stretching the recovery act funding
Favorable pricing on large construction projects, along with the
efficiencies we employed in the contracting process, resulted in
savings of over 20 percent totaling approximately $129 million by early
2010. Those savings have allowed us to fund an additional 30 high-
priority contingency projects across the country.
We are doing far more than we originally projected we could do with
$750 million. With the funding in the ONPS account, used for minor, but
high-priority park repairs, our original list of 643 projects had
grown, as of late-February, to 653. As of that same date, in the
Construction account we were executing 82 facility projects instead of
60; 28 road projects, not just 17; and 36 abandoned mine restoration
projects.
Another benefit of the Recovery Act to the National Park Service is
that we have forged a stronger partnership with FHWA, which has proved
invaluable in meeting our goals. FHWA executed 14 of the National Park
Service's road projects. Of the total 61 road projects, over 42 have
either been awarded directly by FHWA or by the National Park Service
with significant assistance from FHWA's engineering staff.
challenges facing the national park service
One challenge the National Park Service faces in connection with
the Recovery Act is that availability of the funds will expire
September 30, 2010. Many projects will extend in to the following year
and will require our close attention to ensure that all the
contracting, program and project management, as well as project
contingency requirements, are met in an efficient and transparent
manner.
Second, in authorizing the Recovery Act, Congress provided a
special emergency temporary hiring authority to address the increased
workload. That authority will expire September 30, but the workload
these positions were hired to perform will continue for some time.
Third, the contracting workload associated with executing Recovery
Act projects will result in delays in awarding some scheduled projects
funded from other sources. The National Park Service will focus on
expediting the award of these projects as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions you and the other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Attachment.--Recovery Act Project Highlights
rehabilitate lincoln reflecting pool and rehabilitate surrounding area,
national mall and memorial parks, washington, dc
This project will rehabilitate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool
and the surrounding cultural landscape. Work will include stabilizing
the foundation and repairing the surface features of the pool,
providing pumping and drainage capabilities from the Potomac River to
reduce the use of potable water and provide continuous filtering of the
water, and upgrading the lighting and paths around the pool. Projected
cost: $33 million. Status: Planning/Design Under Way; Contract Award
Scheduled for August, 2010.
rehabilitate union building interior, keweenaw national historical
park, michigan
This project will rehabilitate the interior of the Union Building
for use as the Keweenaw National Historical Park's first interpretive
facility. This project follows a comprehensive rehabilitation of the
Union Building exterior in 2005. Projected cost: $4 million. Status:
Contract Award Pending.
stabilize ellis island seawall, statue of liberty national monument,
new york/new jersey
This project will complete Phase I of the rehabilitation of
portions of the 6,736 foot historic seawall that surrounds Ellis
Island. Projected cost: $22.4 million. Status: Contract Award Pending.
Two other major construction projects at Statue of Liberty National
Monument include Installing Perimeter Security and Communication Lines
around Liberty and Ellis Islands ($2.1 million) and Stabilizing the
Ellis Island Baggage and Dormitory Building ($6.7 million). Status of
both: Contract Award Pending.
demolish and replace madison wastewater facility, yellowstone national
park, wyoming
This project will replace the circa 1959 trickling filter
wastewater treatment facility at the Madison Area with an aerated
lagoon-type system and subsurface disposal. Cost: $4.9 million. Status:
Under Way.
provide accessibility to park comfort stations and picnic camp sites,
great smoky mountains national park, north carolina & tennessee
This project will rehabilitate 10 existing comfort stations
including replacing two that are beyond their useful life. The comfort
stations will be made structurally and mechanically sound. Roofs,
windows, plumbing and wood work will be repaired and or replaced at
each comfort station and all will meet accessibility standards. Also,
picnic and campsites will be improved by the construction of accessible
parking spaces with a connecting accessible walkway to the camp or
picnic site. Cost: $3.3 million. Status: Under Way.
Also, 4 roads projects totaling $17 million have been awarded at
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and 4 more projects are pending
contract awards totaling an estimated $16 million.
demolish and replace condemned portions of quarry visitor center,
dinosaur national monument, colorado and utah
This project will rehabilitate the quarry face exhibit shelter and
demolish and replace the failed and condemned visitor service and
administrative spaces at the Quarry Visitor Center (QVC) that have been
closed to public use since July, 2006. Cost: $8.4 million. Status:
Under Way.
replace waterline, chapin mesa to north park boundary, mesa verde
national park, colorado
This project will replace five sections totaling approximately 5.4
miles of the existing deteriorated water line that provides the park's
only source of water. Cost: $5.4 million. Status: Contract Awarded.
Senator Udall. Your statement will be included in the
record. Thank you for being succinct.
My young and wise and experienced Ranking Member informs me
that he thinks we probably have a--the votes are called at
2:45--til about 5 after, even 10 after, to direct some
questions your way. So, why don't we do a series of 5-minute
question periods. I'll start out and recognize myself for 5
minutes.
I want to focus again on what you said about obligating the
available funds. There's some time involved. I understand the
administration has a goal of 90 percent of appropriated funds
being obligated by May 15. According to your testimony, Park
Service has obligated 57 percent. Are you--as of late April--I
think maybe you said 61 or----
Mr. Sheaffer. Right.
Senator Udall. Are you on track to obligate another 33
percent over the next few days?
Mr. Sheaffer. We have been closely monitoring all of the
activities that are required up to the actual awarding of the
contract. I will say that, while anything, of course, can
happen in the late stages of contracting, I feel very confident
we're going to come at or very close to that 90 percent number
by the end of May.
Senator Udall. Is there a cutoff date, Mr. Sheaffer, by
which money not obligated for a specific project will be
transferred to a different project that would be able to
complete its funding in a more timely manner?
Mr. Sheaffer. We've not had to make that decision yet.
We've not had any projects that reached the point where we had
to make that decision. The legal cutoff, of course, is
September 30. It's our goal, ultimately, to obligate every
penny of this money by that point. So, for these 2 or 3
projects that we have, that are scheduled to go very late in
the fiscal year, clearly a decision will have to be made about
those by August or September.
Senator Udall. But, in general, you don't think you're
going to be in that position, is what I hear you saying.
Mr. Sheaffer. We do not.
Senator Udall. All right.
Mr. Sheaffer. It is our intention to execute every in-
target project on that list. Now, should it become, for funding
reasons or contracting reasons or compliance reasons,
impossible to do so, it's our intention to find another fund
source for those projects, probably from a lump-sum program
available to us this year, like the Repair/Rehab Program or a
future-year construction program. We're committed to doing each
and every one of those projects, so they'll get done, one way
or the other.
Senator Udall. When the initial project list was developed,
I understood that one of the main requirements was that only
shovel-ready projects were to be included, projects that were
already in your priority list. If that was the case, why has it
taken so long to get the money out the door?
Mr. Sheaffer. I'm going to say, Mr. Chairman, that it had a
lot to do with the understanding of what it meant to be
``shovel-ready.'' Our construction projects normally have a 3-
year lead-in timeframe from preplanning to planning, then to
construction. We usually schedule the request accordingly.
These projects were as ready to go as any we have. Frankly,
the folks out in the service center that execute these
programs, and elsewhere, have done a remarkable job of getting
them ready. Even though we, in our minds, quote ``shovel-
ready,'' they still required some final compliance work to be
done, some planning work, some packaging of bid documents and
for $5-, $10-, $15-million projects, that still takes some
considerable time.
So, I can tell you that I am very pleased with the way the
folks in the Park Service have performed. I think what is
telling is, if we hit our target, we will have obligated, by
the end of May, $690 million of this program in only a bit over
a year. Despite the fact that the bill passed in February, we
didn't get approval to go ahead until April. That is almost 3
times what we obligate in any given year. So----
Senator Udall. In a normal year.
Mr. Sheaffer. In a normal year. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. That's fair enough. I--probably on the heels
of this, we want to have ``shovel-ready,'' as defined in a
variety of settings. But, hopefully we will not be in another
great recession anytime soon, and we may not--hopefully, we
won't have to use that term in the way we did, just a year ago,
as you point out.
My final question in this round is, the Park Service budget
identified Recovery Act funds would employ up to 10,000 young
people. Can you update us with the results, so far, when it
comes to hiring young people to work?
Mr. Sheaffer. Young people? Is it a question regarding
youth or----
Senator Udall. Youth--yes----
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. Employment period?
Senator Udall. Youth hiring, specifically.
Mr. Sheaffer. The ARRA program includes roughly $23 million
of projects to be directed to youth organizations. We don't
have accurate numbers, at this point. Many of them will be
brought on board this summer, to do summer work--trails,
noxious weed removal, and the like. We estimate that that will
produce something in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 3,500 summer
jobs for youth. Some were employed last summer, but most of
those are going to be brought on this summer.
Part of the reason that it didn't get underway--it's mostly
a summer program, of course--the large reason why they didn't
get on board last summer is because the decisions of the
project funding came very late to us. So, you have to get in
early on those programs.
Senator Udall. Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Mr. Sheaffer, how many jobs were created with
the money that you've put in the system?
Mr. Sheaffer. I'd like to give you 2 answers. There are
contractor reporting requirements, that have been devised by
OMB, where they report directly into a data base system. It's
been difficult, frankly. It's required that we work with every
single contractor to get them to understand the government
terminology and the like to----
Senator Burr. Tell you what, do this. Tell me how many
permanent jobs were created.
Mr. Sheaffer. None are permanent----
Senator Burr. OK.
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. Senator. These are temporary.
Senator Burr. Were any foreign jobs created at the result
of stimulus money?
Mr. Sheaffer. Not that I'm aware of. No, sir.
Senator Burr. OK.
Mr. Sheaffer. No, sir.
Senator Burr. What percentage of the Park Service stimulus
funds went to new construction projects?
Mr. Sheaffer. Almost none. We have, in the construction
program--it's all repair, rehabilitation, cultural
preservation, and the like. We have one project that is
building a storage facility for curatorial artifacts----
Senator Burr. Of the----
Mr. Sheaffer. No new construction for visitors, at all.
Senator Burr. Of the 9.5 billion in backlog--maintenance
backlogs that the National Park Service has, how much of that
was funded out of the stimulus package?
Mr. Sheaffer. Virtually all of the $750 million went toward
deferred maintenance. Very minor exceptions; that one project I
mentioned to you. The money that went for abandoned mine lands,
for example, Senator, is not actually a part of our deferred
maintenance backlog, but it's necessary.
Part of the reason is, we didn't have a good and accurate
inventory of what our abandoned mine-lands projects were, so
they've never been fed into the deferred maintenance list. But,
if you look down that list, you'll see ``rehabilitate, repair,
replace,'' that sort of thing.
Senator Burr. According to----
Mr. Sheaffer. That's----
Senator Burr. According to the Department's Website, a
total of $20 million--$20,456,000--was originally announced
from my home State of North Carolina. Do you know how much of
those funds have actually been spent to date?
Mr. Sheaffer. No. I actually have different numbers for
your State, Senator. I'll have to go check and see what the Web
site says.
Senator Burr. What do you----
Mr. Sheaffer. Our records show $65 million actually went to
the State of North Carolina. It may have been only 1 of the 2
or 3 funding sources is being counted there. We show out of $65
million about $40 million of it obligated so far.
Senator Burr. I noticed to planned stimulus projects
located on the Blue Ridge Parkway were actually completed using
other funding, other than stimulus. Where were those funds----
Mr. Sheaffer. You--I----
Senator Burr [continuing]. Derived from?
Mr. Sheaffer. I mentioned early, Senator, that regarding
repair/rehabilitation--there were some delays in working
through the early process. In the course of those delays, while
projects were being considered, the region, because of the
concern or urgency over the projects, went ahead and executed
some of those projects out of our annual money that was
available to us, for similar type work, repair and
rehabilitation. So, they were funded out of other money
available to us.
Senator Burr. Again, according to your Website, eight
planned projects from ARRA were canceled and seven projects
were deferred. What would one interpret either cancellation or
the deferment of those 15 projects to be around?
Mr. Sheaffer. They were only a very small number. I'd have
to go back and reconcile the numbers that you're telling me
here. There was only a very small number that got canceled.
Very small. Most of them got moved over to another fund source.
I know for a fact of one project in North Carolina that was
done out of the Dam Safety Program; again, they had it ready to
go while we were still awaiting the final decision. So, that
project would probably show up as canceled, in the ARRA
program.
Senator Burr. Was I accurate, in my opening statement, to
say that you had spent just over 9 percent of the stimulus
funding?
Mr. Sheaffer. Spent, in terms of outlay, the number is now
13 percent.
Senator Burr. Thirteen percent.
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. So, stimulus package has been into effect 15
months?
Mr. Sheaffer. Approximately. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. We've spent 13 percent.
Mr. Sheaffer. That's correct. In a normal year, with a
normal appropriation for our construction account, the first-
year outlays for that account are under 20 percent. So, that's
not an unusual outlay rate for our accounts.
Senator Burr. But, would you agree that it's an unusual
amount, given that this was a package to stimulate economic
activity and job creation?
Mr. Sheaffer. I would have to say that, for the type of
work the Park Service needed to get done and got done, it has
been a consistent rate. I think that, to us, the driver clearly
was getting very important backlog work done. We have done that
in a fairly expeditious manner.
Senator Burr. What do you anticipate the spend-out rate to
be at the end of 2010?
Mr. Sheaffer. I do actually have an estimate, and I'd be
glad to provide that to you.
Senator Burr. Would you supply it for----
Mr. Sheaffer. I would be happy to.
Senator Burr. Let me ask this. What is the target for
having 100-percent spend-out of stimulus money?
Mr. Sheaffer. It will probably take 3 years to----
Senator Burr. Three years?
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. Spend it out. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Any idea of how the 1-percent current spend-
out of stimulus money at Park Service compares to other
agencies?
Mr. Sheaffer. No, I don't, because it depends on what the
other agencies are engaged in. If you're making grants, it
spends out at a rate that sometimes is very different, because
of the match required or not required, or the work to be done,
or how much planning needed to be done. In most cases, if you
were buying equipment or replacing stream gauges, as, say, the
Fish and Wildlife Service was, that spend-out would be pretty
quick. But, in the case of actually doing on-the-ground work
and hands-on work, I doubt if anybody is doing a whole lot
better than us.
Senator Burr. So, I take for granted that, if I asked you a
question of how you rate Park Service, relative to execution of
your original plan, you would rate pretty good.
Mr. Sheaffer. That would be my judgment. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. OK.
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Let me follow up on--in a general way, on Senator Burr's
line of questioning. Large influx of money in a short time, I
know it's been a unique management challenge, although,
hopefully, a welcome one. Your testimony identified some of the
challenges that the Park Service still faces to successfully
implement the Act. Are there any important lessons to be
learned, or unexpected surprises? You could answer to the best
of your thinking now, and also answer for the record, over
time, if you--if that worked, as well.
Mr. Sheaffer. Absolutely. Our biggest concern, going into
the program, was the lack of, frankly, contracting support--
Federal employees to execute these contracts. It was an
enormous--and remains--an enormous workload. We have tried to
be creative. We've had the cooperation of the Department in
finding creative ways to execute contracts. I think we're going
to find, in the end, that we did so very successfully.
I think that we found that people were challenged to work
faster, more efficiently, and better than they ever had done
before. They've done that. So, that's been a very pleasant
surprise. The cooperation among other Department of the
Interior bureaus and the Department has been extraordinary, and
that's been a pleasant surprise, the way it's come out.
There's no question, in programs like this--of this
magnitude--that it kind of magnifies any weaknesses that you
may have. But, we've reacted quickly to try to make up for
them. So, it's, frankly, been very exciting to be able to do
and to be able to do work--I've seen some of these projects sit
on backlog lists and sit on priority lists for many years, and
we had the opportunity to fund them. So, that's been real
gratifying for everybody involved.
Senator Udall. All right. Thank you for that insight. I
certainly--the subcommittee would welcome additional thoughts,
moving forward, Mr. Sheaffer, in that regard.
At a budget hearing last year, Deputy Director Wenk, who
you know, expressed some hope that the funded projects would
spur partners to come forward with additional funds that might
allow for the completion of even more work. Has that happened?
Mr. Sheaffer. There are only a couple of projects in here
that were ever anticipated to be partnership projects, Mr.
Chairman. Because we drew from project lists that were ready,
that had, for the most part, been planned, or where planning
was well underway, we couldn't really turn the direction toward
partnership projects, so to speak. We have a small amount of
appropriated dollars that have been given to us by the
Congress--roughly $15 million--that we are using as leverage
money. But, there are only a couple of projects--significant
ones here, where we're partnering mostly with States--the State
of Maryland on a project at the C&O Canal; and the State of
California on a project at Santa Monica Mountains--both good-
sized, large projects. Again, I think, in both cases, they were
projects that desperately needed to be done. Maryland kicked in
with road money, and the State of California kicked in with a
land transfer. So, opportunities were seized, for good solid
projects.
Senator Udall. You noted, the funding authority under the
Recovery Act expires at the end of the fiscal year, which is
September 30, yet many of the funded projects will continue
into next year. Is there a chance any of these projects will be
left uncompleted once the funding authority expires?
Mr. Sheaffer. Uncompleted, no. There are provisions that
will allow us to use funds available to complete the projects,
if necessary. Now, we have discussed with the appropriators the
need for some language that would allow us to use other
available funds to complete some of these projects, should it
be necessary for change orders and the like, and to continue
the administration of these projects to the end. So, I think,
with that one proviso, we'll be able to accommodate all these
projects.
Senator Udall. You sound like you've had to play the role
of a general contractor, writ large. You don't have to respond
to that, but----
One last question, before I turn it back to Senator Burr,
and it's related to that--the question I just asked. Your
emergency hiring authority expires, as well, I believe, on----
Mr. Sheaffer. Correct.
Senator Udall [continuing]. September 30. Your testimony
notes that the workload associated with those hires will
continue. How will the Park Service address the loss of those
positions while getting the projects completely finished?
Mr. Sheaffer. We have asked for some guidance in that
regard. We may have to look for another authority to keep these
people on that we'll need to execute the program. I've already
started conversations with the Department, and probably OPM, to
do so. I expect we'll find some way to continue it.
Senator Udall. I want to turn to Senator Burr.
I do have one last question for the record. I'll tell you
that it talks about the difference in some funding in 2 of our
3 national parks, at Great Sand Dunes and Rocky Mountain
National Park. But, I'll direct that to you for the record.
Senator Udall. Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. I think we used your money already.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. I'm fond of North Carolina.
Senator Burr. Mr. Sheaffer----
Senator Udall. Up to a point.
Senator Burr [continuing]. Just a quick clarification. On
the HBCUs and the grants, why 3 years to use that money?
Mr. Sheaffer. Why 3 years--allowing 3 years----
Senator Burr. Yes.
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. For them to use that money? Wwe
have found, in the past, that those colleges and universities
tend to not have plans ready, as I mentioned earlier. I would
say, chances of them having, quote, ``shovel-ready'' projects
was probably slimmer than ours, frankly. We've seen, in the
past, where it can take them 2 or 3 years to get a major
project up and done. I think that was anticipated----
Senator Burr. Just------
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. Frankly.
Senator Burr [continuing]. Just for your own knowledge,
I've got seven of 'em. Trust me, they're ready.
Mr. Sheaffer. They are ready?
Senator Burr. Yes.
Mr. Sheaffer. The money's been given to them, Senator. So,
we'll hope for the best.
Senator Burr. If you will, briefly--and it may be the
Chairman knows this--but, can you describe for me what an
``indefinite-quantity contract'' is and what a ``multiple-award
task-order contract'' is?
Mr. Sheaffer. They are both contracting options that are
available, and used often, beyond this program, to expedite the
contracting process, where the overall contract allows you to
go in and develop task orders against the broad contract to get
a variety of projects done. A few years ago--it was fairly
amazing--people starting looking for efficiencies from the
contracting process. It took them, frankly, a long time to get
to it. This is one of those efficiencies, where they define a
contract at a large----
Senator Burr. This----
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. Level----
Senator Burr [continuing]. Would be a multiproject
contract?
Mr. Sheaffer. That's correct.
Senator Burr. Are both of them the same? A multi-award
task----
Mr. Sheaffer. No----
Senator Burr.--order----
Mr. Sheaffer [continuing]. The multi----
Senator Burr [continuing]. Contract----
Mr. Sheaffer. No, sir, they're not.
Senator Burr [continuing]. Indefinite-quantity contract?
Mr. Sheaffer. That would be with a single contractor. The
other one often involves the use of multiple contractors under
a blanket contract, where a contractor--let's say you have one
in the East that would be willing to do work throughout the
entire East, or throughout the entire Rocky Mountain area,
multiple States. There's a cap put on it, and you could
actually toss several contracts their way, and then they would
find the subcontractors to do the work. Again, it's kind of a
new model and an expeditious way to go. We've done some very
successfully in the Intermountain Region, and are beginning to
do it in the East.
Senator Burr. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. I thank the Senator from North Carolina.
I want to thank Mr. Sheaffer. I know I have some additional
questions, but we'll extend them to you through the process of
the record.
I want to thank you for coming up here, for answering all
of our questions, for the work you've done.
As you know from your previous experience, some members may
want to submit additional questions in writing. If so, we may
ask you to submit answers for the record, as well.
We'll keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to receive
any additional comments.
Finally, thank you for being such a great general
contractor. I look forward to seeing a lot of these successes
in my visits to the parks and the units of the Park Service.
With that, the subcommittee's adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Prepared Statement of Mahmoud R. Hosseini, Division President, Clark
Construction Group, LLC
Founded in 1906, Clark Construction Group, LLC, is today one of the
nation's most experienced and respected providers of construction
services, with over $4.5 billion in annual revenue and major projects
throughout the United States. In 2008 we ranked 14th in the United
States on the Engineering News Record Top 400 list.
We perform a full range of construction services throughout the
United States from small interior renovations to some of the most
visible architectural landmarks in the country. Projects we are known
for in the Washington, DC, area include the Verizon Center, FedEx
Field, and the United States Institute for Peace. Nationally, completed
projects include McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago, the Los
Angeles County/ University of Southern California Hospital in Los
Angeles, and Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. The
foundation of all of our construction work is a solid relationship with
both public and private clients who have the confidence to rely, time
and again, on our experience, and in-house expertise to make their
vision a reality and a commitment to the communities where we work.
We approach each project with a cooperative mindset, working with
clients, architects, subcontractors and the community toward the common
goal--successful project delivery. Our diverse construction portfolio
and specialized divisions and subsidiaries ensure that each project is
matched with appropriate resources and expertise. Through technical
skill, pre-construction know-how and self-performance capability, we
anticipate project challenges, develop solutions that meet clients'
objectives and ultimately deliver award-winning projects. In this way,
our work today continues to meet the stringent standards of safety,
quality and integrity, which have been the Company's core values since
its founding in 1906.
Today, Clark is pleased to respond to the Subcommittee request to
address the use of stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for the repair of the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Seawall.
To date, we have been awarded four projects which included ARRA
funding. Three of these projects are in the National Capital area: Air
National Guard Readiness Center--Area D at Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland; Construction of the new U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
Building at St. Elizabeth's, Washington, DC, and Emergency Repairs for
Settlement at the Jefferson Memorial Seawall, Washington DC.
Emergency Repairs for Settlement at the Jefferson Memorial Seawall
was awarded on September 17, 2009. This seawall protects one of the
most recognizable landmarks in Washington, DC, and is slowly sinking.
Areas surrounding the Jefferson Memorial, which stand directly south of
the White House on the Potomac River Tidal Basin, have long suffered
from settlement and lateral movement. Clark Construction Group, LLC,
was awarded a $12.4 million contract by the National Park Service with
funds from the ARRA to stabilize the Ashlar Seawall and preserve those
portions of the famous monument.
Originally constructed from 1939 to 1943, the Jefferson Memorial
structure is supported by a deep foundation system that includes 443
concrete piles and nearly 200 concrete caissons that prevent
settlement. However, the Ashlar Seawall, which separates the public
North Plaza from the Tidal Basin, is supported by timber piles that
investigators believe never reached solid rock during the original
construction.
The seawall and the plaza have been subject to settlement since the
Memorial was dedicated in 1943. By 1965, settlement of the North Plaza
had reached three feet. Four years later, a reconstruction effort
placed the North Plaza on structural slab-on-grade beams and piles.
However, settlement and lateral movement at the North Plaza continued
as groundwater conditions in the area changed, causing consolidation of
the soil below.
To accommodate the repairs, the Clark team will construct a sheet
pile cofferdam installation this spring, removing water from an area
within the Tidal Basin along the length of the Ashlar Seawall. Historic
stone on the seawall will be removed, cleaned, and stored. Clark will
demolish the existing concrete seawall, install caissons and driven
pipe piles, and construct a new cast-in-place seawall. Clark will
further resurface the North Plaza. These repairs are designed to
provide resistance to both vertical and lateral movement in the North
Plaza area. Additionally, the memorial's structural transition zones
leading from the North Plaza will be rebuilt to accommodate future
settlement of surrounding landscaped areas.
Clark received notice to proceed with the emergency repairs on this
critical project on December 7, 2009. As of the first quarter of 2010,
this project has created 21 new and retained jobs. As with most
construction projects, different trades work on different stages of the
project, completing their work and allowing the next set of trades to
begin work on the following phase. This project is no different. Thus
not all of the jobs created last the entire length of the project. That
does not diminish the nature or number of jobs created nor its
corresponding economic impact.
The seawall project is approximately 20 percent complete. We expect
that this project will employ 40 people at its peak in the fall of this
year. The anticipated completion date is June 2011.
Stimulus or not, construction jobs help fuel the American economy,
creating good paying jobs and creating demand for American goods and
materials.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses From C. Bruce Sheaffer to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. The National Park Service used the process stated in 36
CFR 1.5 to close hunting and trapping authorized by the Alaska Board of
Game in park/preserve units. Does NPS dispute that the state provides
subsistence on park lands, as clearly stated in ANILCA?
Answer. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) authorizes subsistence uses pursuant to Title VIII of ANILCA
by ``local rural residents'' in certain national parks and monuments in
Alaska. In addition sport hunting and trapping are authorized in those
park areas in the State labeled as preserves. The Alaska Supreme Court
found the rural preference provisions of the state's subsistence law
unconstitutional in 1989. The Departments of Interior and Agriculture
assumed management of subsistence on federal public lands in 1990.
Unless and until the state amends its Constitution to meet the
federally required rural preference, it cannot manage Title VIII
subsistence. There is no other statutory authorization for state
managed subsistence on park lands.
Question 2. The Park Service closed park areas to hunting and
trapping based on ``national park values'' which are not among the
statutory criteria for restricting state authorized hunting and
trapping. These values seem in direct contradiction of the
Congressional intent of ANILCA. How will the Park Service reconcile
these differences?
Answer. Section 1313 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act authorizes Federal restrictions on hunting and
trapping for ``public safety, administration, floral and faunal
protection, or public use and enjoyment.'' National park values
encompass all of those items. In addition, section 201 of ANILCA
identifies the purposes for which the Alaska parks were established.
Included in these are the protection of populations of wolves and
bears.
In the case of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, the purposes
of the preserve expressly include the protection of wolves. The Yukon-
Charley Rivers National Preserve also provides hunting and trapping
opportunities for local rural residents under Title VIII of ANILCA. The
restrictions on sport take of wolves were prompted by a 43 percent
decline in wolf numbers and the loss of one complete wolf pack in the
preceding months. Because the state-authorized method of killing black
bear sows and cubs at den sites was allowed for any resident hunter in
Alaska, the Federal restriction was enacted to help prevent a loss of
natural abundance and changes in distribution, and behavior.
Question 3. Reports have indicated that NPS made its decision to
close park areas to hunting and trapping prior to consulting with the
Department of Fish and Game and without consulting with the affected
user groups, despite requests from such groups, inconsistent with the
park closure regulations.
a. If the Park Service did indeed meet with affected use
groups, can you please provide a list of the user groups which
were consulted prior to the decision to close park areas?
b. What is the NPS' process for consulting with affected
users prior to closures that are not an emergency?
c. Were the Alaska Native organizations consulted or just
provided notice of hearings?
d. Were the local residents of Huslia that requested the
Board of Game authorize spring bear take consulted about your
intent to supersede the State's authorization of a longstanding
customary and traditional subsistence practice?
Answer. Any reports suggesting that closure decisions were made by
the National Park Service prior to consultation with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game are incorrect. Our concerns regarding the
allowance for anyone with a state hunting license to kill black bear
sows and cubs at den sites in portions of Denali and Gates of the
Arctic National Preserve were initially conveyed on May 19, 2009, in a
meeting with Alaska Department of Fish and Game regional supervisors.
More than a dozen subsequent meetings and lengthy phone conversations
were held with ADFG management, up to and including the Commissioner.
The NPS engaged in an extensive public process regarding both the
bear sow/cub restrictions and the wolf hunting closure. These included
publishing advertisements and issuing press releases on the
availability of the proposed restriction for comment as part of the
annual compendium process; media interviews; posting public notices;
written proposals and oral testimony as part of the Board of Game's
public process; a meeting with the Denali Subsistence Resource
Commission on February 21, 2010; and public hearings in the communities
closest to the affected units (Eagle, Allakaket, Nikolai, Fairbanks and
Denali Park). The Allakaket meeting included the village council chiefs
of Alatna and Allakaket. The State of Alaska commented in writing about
the proposed compendium closures on February 16, March 22, and March
29.
Regulations at 36 CFR 13.50(f)(1) require the NPS to provide notice
of closures by the following methods: ``Published in at least one
newspaper of general circulation in the State and in at least one local
newspaper if available, posted at community post offices within the
vicinity affected, made available for broadcast on local radio stations
in a manner reasonably calculated to inform residents in the affected
vicinity, and designated on a map which shall be available for public
inspection at the office of the Superintendent and other places
convenient to the public.''
The efforts described above were judged successful, as about 60
people attended public hearings, and additional comments were received,
including comments from user groups such as the Alaska Trappers
Association and the Alaska Outdoor Council.
The community of Allakaket was selected for a public hearing as it
was the closest village to Gates of the Arctic National Preserve and is
one of the park's subsistence resident zone communities (as is Alatna,
but not Huslia). Public statements and discussions with area residents
also noted that if the bear hunting practice approved for all state
residents was brought to the Federal Subsistence Board for
consideration as a hunting method for local rural residents under Title
VIII of ANILCA, the NPS would be likely to support the proposal. The
issue has already been discussed at the late April meeting of the Gates
of the Arctic Subsistence Resource Commission in Barrow.
Question 4. Can you please describe in detail why the NPS would
close park-managed lands to a state authorized hunting or trapping
activity even though the NPS conceded there was no biological
emergency?
Answer. Biological emergencies are not the only reasons for hunting
and trapping closures. As noted above, Section 1313 of the ANILCA
authorizes Federal restrictions on hunting and trapping for ``public
safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and
enjoyment.'' Additionally, regulations at 36 CFR 13.50 provide for
closures on an emergency, temporary, or permanent basis. Under the
regulation, the Service is guided by ``factors such as public health
and safety, resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific
values, subsistence uses, endangered or threatened species
conservation, and other management considerations necessary to ensure
that the activity or area is being managed in a manner compatible with
the purposes for which the park area was established.''
As described in Answer #2, the decision by the State of Alaska to
allow any resident with a hunting license to engage in the unusual
practice of taking black bear sows and cubs at den sites, and
increasing hunter efficiency by allowing the use of artificial light,
brought about a potential for a harvest that would adversely change the
natural distribution, behavior, and abundance of bears in Denali and
Gates of the Arctic. Similarly, the 43 percent drop in Yukon-Charley
wolf numbers, when paired with an active aerial predator control
program immediately outside the preserve boundary, has left 26 wolves
(known through radio collars and other tracking methods) that spend
much of their time within the 2.7 million acre preserve. Given that low
population level, the natural integrity of these populations is
compromised and subsistence trapping opportunities are reduced. These
factors resulted in the closure under 36 CFR 13.50.
Question 5. How do you reconcile the use of technology as customary
and traditional in Gates of the Arctic NPP for the transportation for
hunters (ORVs), while making rules against the ``technology'' of using
a flashlight to determine the presence of cubs or the gender of black
bears within a den?
Answer. Certain types of technology, such as snowmachines when
ground conditions are favorable, are authorized in Gates of the Arctic
National Park and Preserve to support lawful hunter access. Other types
of technology, such as ORVs are not authorized. The practice of taking
bear cubs and sows with cubs at den sites has been generally prohibited
in Alaska since statehood. This is in keeping with traditional
management principles by which hunters avoid animals at their most
vulnerable state. At the time the state allowance for this method of
taking sows and cubs was authorized, and at the time the Federal
restrictions were proposed, the written finding of the Alaska Board of
Game protected sows and cubs from harvest unless it was necessary as
part of a bear predator control program. The provision for the use of
artificial light further added to the efficiency by which hunters could
kill sows and cubs. State laws which seek to manipulate wildlife
populations in favor of prey species, or which have that practical
effect, are inconsistent with NPS statutes, regulations, and policies
and exceed the authorization for sport hunting contained in ANILCA.
Existing Federal Subsistence Board regulations (developed from
long-standing State prohibitions) prohibit the take of black bear sows
and cubs and the use of artificial lights on Federal public lands. The
recent state authorizations in question undermined these subsistence
regulations; the practical effect being that a local rural hunter
hunting under subsistence is prohibited from taking these bears by this
means, but a sport hunter from an urban area can use artificial lights
and kill sows and cubs. The NPS closure brought uniformity to the
regulations, and we encouraged Federal subsistence users to apply to
the Federal Subsistence Board if they desire to use these means in
these preserves.
Question 6. Wouldn't Federal funds currently being expended by NPS
to ``manage wildlife'' be more appropriately directed as a ``pass-
through'' to the proper State wildlife management agency?
Answer. The State of Alaska has a substantial role in managing
wildlife on state and Federal land; however, that role is not solely
theirs nor is their authority unlimited. The National Park Service
Organic Act, ANILCA, and other laws address Federal responsibilities in
managing wildlife and other activities to meet the park purposes
mandated by Congress. Federal funds allow the NPS to meet those
responsibilities. To a large extent, state hunting and fishing
regulations do not conflict with National Park System purposes and are
supported and enforced in national preserves. This spring's regulatory
actions responded to circumstances where the mandates of the National
Park System differ from the recent direction taken by the Alaska Board
of Game and implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
It is important to note that significant Federal funding already
benefits Alaska's fish and wildlife management; for instance, on March
2, 2010, the Department of the Interior announced $39.6 million in
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program grants to the state of
Alaska. Additional National Park Service funds are spent in support of
our partnership role with the state of Alaska in managing fish and
wildlife resources. Many of these research projects can be viewed at
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/AKRO/index.cfm.