U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

25–748 PDF 2017

IMPROVING THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE AT 

NATIONAL PARKS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 5, 2017 

Serial No. 115–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

Jonathan Skladany, Staff Director 

Rebecca Edgar, Deputy Staff Director 

William McKenna, General Counsel 

Chris Esparza, Counsel 

Kiley Bidelman, Clerk 

David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Blake Farenthold, Texas, Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair 

Dennis Ross, Florida 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

(Vacancy) 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 5, 2017 ................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 

Forest Service, US. Department of Agriculture 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Linda Lanterman, Director of the Division of State Parks, State of Kansas 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. Chris Edmonston, Vice President of Government Affairs, BoatU.S. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. Rick Cables, Vice President of Natural Resources and Conservation, 

Vail Resorts 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

APPENDIX 

Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Blake Farenthold .................... 42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

IMPROVING THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE AT 

NATIONAL PARKS 

Wednesday, April 5, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:18 p.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Ross, Palmer, Plaskett, and 

Raskin. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, 

and the Environment will come to order. Without objection, the 

chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment will be examining the Concessions Program 

at the National Park Service, or NPS. 

Last year, the country celebrated the 100th anniversary of the 

NPS. Now that the festivities of that milestone are over, it’s time 

to get back to work improving the Park Service. 

The NPS is the custodian of some of our greatest national treasures. To that end, we must make sure that it’s performing well and 

living up to this responsibility. 

In July of 2015, shortly before the centennial celebrations, this 

subcommittee held a hearing that began the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s involvement in these issues. In her opening statement, my predecessor as chair, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, quoted Stephen Mather, the first director of the National 

Park Service. I believe the quotation is worthy of repeating today. 

He said: ‘‘Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the tourist who sets out 

in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful night’s 

sleep on an impossible bed.’’ 

This is a particularly astute observation. To be able to enjoy our 

Nation’s stunningly beautiful parks, beaches, monuments, wildlife, 

and other features, the people need food, lodging, and other appropriate amenities. 

To this end, since the first national parks were created in the 

late 19th century, there has been a history of private companies 

working on these parks to provide services to visitors. Unfortunately, the amenities at many parks have aged poorly and many 

have not been maintained properly. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

The National Park Service must modernize. It has failed to meet 

the challenge or the changing demands of its visitors. Millennials 

and modern families want tech services, like WiFi and internet access. Cell service is not only an amenity, it’s an important safety 

consideration. 

When NPS does not keep up, our parks lose visitors to other 

tourism opportunities, such as privately run theme parks and other 

attractions. Certainly, we don’t need to turn our parks into 

Disneyland, but we do need to keep up with what 21st century 

Americans want when vacationing. 

I want to see my friends’ vacation pictures at our parks on 

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and I want to know I can get 

help in the event of an emergency by dialing 911. 

By providing up-to-date technology, contemporary food and beverage service, and a choice between rustic, comfortable, and modern places to stay and unique visitor experiences, our parks become 

more attractive. This is where the role of concessionaires is critical. 

They help provide these services while providing much-needed 

funding to the Park Service. 

In our last hearing on the subject, we heard of several instances 

of bureaucratic red tape getting in the way. For instance, one park 

had a 1,629-page-long bid request outline that cost one concessionaire 2,500 company management hours and more than $90,000 

to fill out. As another example, we heard about parks with campgrounds that sell out, but are only open for part of the year due 

to bureaucratic requirements. 

Fortunately, we have sources of ideas for ways to update the 

NPS. For instance, in partnering with ski areas, the Forest Service 

has found a way for people to use the land it leases year round. 

Furthermore, good ideas have come from various State park systems, such as Kansas’ matching of park fees with demand. 

I hope to hear more about these ideas and more from our panel 

today. I very much look forward to hearing suggestions on a way 

forward from here and hopeful the committee can help update our 

National Park System. 

I would now like to recognize our ranking member, Ms. Plaskett, 

for her opening statement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here this afternoon to talk about 

such an important part of the American experience, our national 

parks. 

I appreciate the National Park Service’s protection and care of 

our Nation’s cherished natural and cultural resources and for the 

important educational and recreational opportunities they provide 

for all Americans. The National Park Service plays an important 

economic and recreational role in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands. We have national parks on all three of our major islands. 

Well, technically, St. Croix, Hassel Island, which is off of St. Thomas, and, of course, St. John. 

On the island of St. John, the Virgin Islands National Park covers approximately 60 percent of the island and includes the Cinnamon Bay Resort and Campground located inside of the National 

Park Service, as well as Caneel Bay, one of the most wonderful resorts as well. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Under a new concession agreement reached last fall between the 

National Park Service and Redwood Company, the campgrounds 

are currently undergoing extensive renovations that include eliminating bare sites and installing Eco-Tents. The original plan called 

for 64 Eco-Tents, but after public opposition, that was reduced to 

55. 

My office has received several complaints regarding the relocation of bare site camping and the high cost and quality of the new 

Eco-Tents. This is an example of how improvements of park sites 

can lessen and not improve on the visitor experience at the national parks. 

After the Park Service held its centennial celebration in 2017, we 

must ensure that the very best services are provided for the 280 

million visitors that our national parks attract each year, as well 

as the local employment that it can provide through the vendors 

and through those individuals who work at those park sites and 

the relationship they have with the communities that are located 

adjacent or sometimes even within the parks themselves. 

Vendors play a key role in providing visitor services. They offer 

a wide range of recreational and retail services, while helping to 

generate more than $1.2 billion annually in revenue for the Federal 

Government, as well as the revenues that our local economies are 

able to receive by visitors and individuals who come to the parks 

and pass through the areas in which the parks are located. Vendors also employ more than 25,000 workers and drive economic 

growth in the communities surrounding the parks. 

I understand that the public is demanding more recreational and 

cultural opportunities during their visits to the national parks. I 

also understand that vendors are ready, willing, and able to provide these additional visitor services, but they’ve encountered some 

barriers. We want to understand what these are and how we here 

in Congress can be supportive of the vendors as well as the parks. 

Today, we will examine some of the challenges faced by the National Park Service and vendors in providing the best visitor experiences to our parks. Those challenges include a rigid contracting 

process, contracts which create negative cash flow for vendors, and 

the Park Service’s failure to meet public demand for more services. 

Although the Park Service has made great improvements in its 

contracting process in recent years, more work can and should be 

done. We can always work to improve the contracting process with 

great cooperation between government and industry. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses as we explore possible solutions that can drive progress in these issues. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased to 

welcome Mr. Glenn Casamassa. You’re associate deputy chief of the 

National Forest System for the United States Forest Service and 

the United States Department of Agriculture. 

We have Ms. Linda Lanterman, director of the Division of State 

Parks for the State of Kansas. 

Welcome. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

Mr. Chris Edmonston, the vice president of government affairs 

for BoatU.S. And Mr. Rick Cables, the vice president of natural resources and conservation at Vail Resorts. 

Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn before 

they testify. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

And you can let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for questions and discussions, we’d appreciate it if you’d limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statements will be made part of the record. There ought to be 

a timer in front of you. The green light will be on for the first 4 

minutes. The yellow light, much like a traffic light, means speed 

up—I’m just kidding there—and the red light means your time is 

up. 

So we’ll start first with Mr. Casamassa. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Good afternoon, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking 

Member Plaskett, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today regarding the Forest 

Service recreation program. 

We are proud of the work we accomplish with our private industry partners to provide the best possible breadth of choice and the 

highest quality outdoor recreation opportunities for the American 

people. Today, our national forests hosts 149 million visits. Since 

2009, estimates of our recreation visitation has been rising by an 

average of about 1 million visits per year. 

Through their direct and ripple spending, recreationists who visit 

the national forests contribute billions to the U.S. economy and 

support thousands of jobs, the vast majority of which are in gateway and rural communities. Outdoor recreation supports significant employment opportunities and offers a tremendous economic 

stimulus for local municipalities. 

In addition to the continued popularity of traditional activities, 

like recreational sport shooting, hunting and fishing, we are seeing 

growth in ziplining and snowboarding, off-highway vehicle use, 

rafting trips, or guided backcountry trips. 

The combination of public demand and tremendous economic contributions makes outdoor recreation one of the more challenging 

programs in public land management, pushing the Forest Service 

to seek innovative approaches in balancing the growing demand for 

recreation and economic interest for further development with 

landscape conservation for generations to come. 

We administer recreation special uses that enable thousands of 

private sector professionals to lead a range of activities on national 

forests and grasslands. For many Americans, these activities represent their first introduction to their national forests and grassVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25748.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

lands, and the outfitters and guides they use are small businesses, 

providing jobs and income. 

For example, approximately 4 million people visit the Coconino 

National Forest in Arizona, which surrounds the city of Sedona. 

Several outfitter and guide permits are issued to locally owned and 

operated businesses. One specific example of an outstanding working relationship we have with an outfitter is the Pink Jeep Tours. 

This small business provides about 100 percent of the maintenance 

to the Broken Arrow Road, one of the most popular 4x4 routes in 

the area. 

The national forests also host more than 120 alpine ski areas. 

These facilities are privately owned and constructed by our permittee partners, who provide recreation opportunities for proposing 

and developing sites in response to industry trends and public 

needs. 

We are working with the ski areas to go beyond snow season by 

enhancing year-round recreation, providing more choices for visitors, and creating additional jobs around resort communities. 

This is a win-win situation. More people will be able to find jobs 

in communities around ski areas, and more Americans will have 

access to year-round opportunities in these beautiful and convenient settings. 

Recognizing the critical role that private enterprise plays in outdoor recreation on our national forests and grasslands, we’re also 

working to expand how we service businesses and the public by improving the permitting process. 

Special uses remains one of the primary economic drivers of the 

agency, in terms of both receipts to the government and national 

and local economic activity. Modernizing the special use program 

creates a more predictable business environment and a more efficient workforce. 

The Forest Service is working to eliminate redundant process, 

simplify forms, improve internal and external communication, improve financial accountability through simplification of fees, and 

streamlining the environmental analysis process for use of a continuing nature. Presently, our line officers have discretion to waive 

the special use authorization requirements for proposed uses on a 

case-by-case basis. Forest Service guidance stresses that officers 

shall allow activities that will have little impact on the land to 

move forward without undue process. 

Also, the Forest Service has implemented an agreement with 

GSA’s 18F for development of an ePermitting System. We will soon 

offer a more convenient way for the public to apply for special use 

authorizations via an online application process. 

A national Campground and Day-Use Concession Review was 

conducted in early fiscal year 2017. The goal of the review was to 

enhance public-private ventures and agency business practices that 

promote true partnerships and identify shortfalls in agency policy 

and procedures. 

The Forest Service remains committed to serving the American 

public through commonsense cooperation with businesses, who 

drive the enormous diversity of recreation opportunities on American national forests. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’d be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 25748.001
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 25748.002
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 25748.003
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 25748.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 25748.005
12 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Your timing is phenomenal. I assume you 

practiced that. Thank you. 

Ms. Lanterman, you are up for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA LANTERMAN 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking 

Member Plaskett, and members of the subcommittee. I am here 

representing the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, the Division of State Parks. We manage 26 State parks, with an annual 

budget of $12 million. 

I am also the vice president of the National Association of State 

Park Directors. It’s an organization dedicated to helping State park 

systems effectively manage and administer their State park systems. 

I am here, though, today to discuss Kansas State parks, as well 

as the national State park landscape and how State park systems 

work to improve outdoor recreational opportunities for their constituents and conserve natural resources, through partnerships, innovations, and reducing barriers. 

Nationwide, there are over 10,000 State park areas. They are 

comprised of over 18 million acres, and we receive more than 790 

million visits annually. 

Those State parklands may be owned outright by States or consist of lands leased from Federal agencies. As a result, Federal 

partnerships are crucial to the success of State park systems, as 

well as to the success of Federal agencies which make their lands 

available for public use. 

Of special importance to State park systems are Federal programs, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Recreational Trails Grant, and the AmeriCorps program. 

State parks around the country collectively serve the public with 

more than 37,000 miles of trails, over 241,000 campsites, over 

9,400 cabins and cottages, and 161 lodges. Operating expenditures 

account for $2.5 billion, with less than half of those expenditures 

coming from the general funds of the States. Nineteen thousand 

full-time and 29,000 part-time or seasonal staffs work tirelessly to 

provide topnotch memorable visitor experiences. 

Nationally, it’s been estimated there may be as much as $95 billion in unfunded capital improvements and maintenance needed 

just to sustain the State park systems. In Kansas, our capital improvement and maintenance needs are over $25 million. 

The Kansas State Parks Division and the Department do not receive any State general funds. Instead, our State parks are funded 

primarily from revenues we receive from our State park vehicle 

permits, camping permits, and cabin rentals. In addition, we also 

receive a portion of the Department’s allocation of the Economic 

Development Incentive Fund, which is funded by proceeds from the 

Kansas Lottery. 

However, there are many State park systems that benefit from 

dedicated funding sources. The Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, the Recreational Trails Grant program, and the AmeriCorps 

program have always been an important and efficient matching 

fund for Kansas State parks. We rely heavily on our partnerships 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

with our friends groups, our volunteers, and other park supporters 

that provide financial, labor, and advocacy support. 

With the support of Governor Brownback, we have implemented 

several measures to meet challenges of operating a primarily feebased parks program. For example, we aggressively market our 

State park systems within Kansas, nationally and internationally. 

We hold staff positions open at times to save staffing costs. We’ve 

been successful in matching permit fees with demand. 

Additionally, we have special events to attract and encourage our 

customers’ ongoing loyalty. Some of those events include outdoor 

music concerts, live bands, guided nature hikes, Halloween events, 

Black Friday with the hashtag #OPTOUTSIDE, the Governor’s 

Campouts and, of course, our First Day Hike. 

To be competitive in today’s leisure market, it’s important that 

we address the changing needs and expectations of our customers. 

Some of the land use policies of the Federal agencies need to be 

modernized so our parks can compete for our Nation’s young family 

free time. 

Among the immediate changes we recommend concerning our 

Federal landlord partners are more flexible lease agreements, more 

streamlined processing of concessionaire contracts, an ability for 

our Department to retain all net proceeds arising from hosting of 

special events designed to attract our customers. 

Some of the Corps properties, we have both State park and Corps 

parks. Efficiencies could be improved if these two levels of government were not duplicating their services, such as camping. 

Kansas State parks and those in other States attract a diverse 

clientele who enjoy traveling in their home State and visiting parks 

in other States. Staying at a State park is truly a form of recreation that’s important on a national level. 

From my testimony today, I hope you really see the important 

role Federal partnerships are and how the Federal funding in our 

State parks and how important the partnership with State parks 

are nationally to an efficient public land strategy. 

I too will accept any questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Lanterman follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 25748.006
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 25748.007
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 25748.008
17 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

Mr. Edmonston, you are up for 5. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS EDMONSTON 

Mr. EDMONSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Plaskett, and 

members of the committee, I am pleased to be here representing 

the 550,000 members of the Boat Owners Association of the United 

States, BoatU.S. We appreciate the chance to share how access, 

public-private partnerships, and technology can improve the visitor 

experience in national parks and other public lands. 

Reflecting on the visitor experience in national parks provides an 

opportunity to consider how important access to the water really is. 

Boaters need facilities to launch and retrieve, dock, moor, and anchor their boats. Providing such access is vital to keeping boating 

available to the American public. 

The thoughtful oversight of this committee and Congress should 

focus the National Park Service and other Federal agencies on providing such access to our public lands and waters. In our experience, how well a particular national park unit or other Federal entity provides access is highly variable. In some cases, they welcome 

boats, which might be the only way to reach some of the more remote areas. Other park units do not always welcome all boats and 

often make management decisions that diminish public access. 

The controversies at Key Biscayne National Park surrounding 

fishing closures, adequate moorings, bans on certain types of boats, 

and expansive nonmotorized zones is of grave concern to us. In our 

view, a shift in management philosophy to one that welcomes all 

users, not just the young and fit, is long overdue. 

Our current system of waterway access provides a good example 

of the wide range of partnerships that can benefit all of us. For example, many boating access programs are funded by the Sportfish 

Restoration Boating Trust Fund. This user pay-everyone benefits 

fund is supported primarily through taxes on boaters and anglers. 

The system is widely supported by the boating and angling communities. Boaters are not looking for a free ride and are quite willing 

to pay reasonable fees, provided they can count on the facilities 

being available and well-managed. 

We recognize there is a reconsideration of Federal budget priorities currently underway. We respectfully suggest that investment 

in facilities that provide access to public lands and waters should 

remain a priority for this Congress. 

Each year, over 80 million Americans go boating, with a large 

portion doing so on federally managed waters. We ask the help of 

this Congress to be sure that recreational boaters, as well as other 

outdoor recreation participants, aren’t ignored as tough budget decisions are made. 

During another time of budget crunches several decades ago, the 

Coast Guard shifted its mission focus and ended its longtime policy 

of aiding recreational boaters stranded on public waters. While 

they do continue to come to the aid of those in life-threatening conditions, other situations, such as a malfunctioning engine or running out of fuel, are no longer a time where the Coast Guard will 

provide assistance. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

In response to this policy change, BoatU.S. created a nationwide 

towing dispatch service, which today has more than 600 towboats 

across the country and is available at a very reasonable cost. The 

program is effective, it’s popular, and it allows the Coast Guard to 

focus on emergency missions. In fact, there is a large industry of 

on-water service providers which works closely with State and Federal agencies to ensure that recreational boaters receive prompt 

and professional assistance on the water, assistance which over the 

past few decades has saved the Coast Guard untold millions of dollars. 

Another area where we see opportunity for Federal agencies to 

provide better service involves the application of new technology. 

Information on boating and other outdoor opportunities are often 

difficult to discover on many government or individual park 

websites. 

Such resources should be welcoming to visitors and provide ways 

to discover all the activities available. This requires a new outlook 

on the part of Federal managers, one with a view to enhance the 

visitor experience as part of their core mission. 

We also see technology as a way to enhance access while protecting resources. Providing greater connectivity will open up management options, such as allowing faster updates to resource information, better reporting of available activities, such as fishing or 

camping, and the purchase of passes and permits needed for recreating. BoatU.S. supports the appropriate use of technology to improve visitor experiences on all public lands and waters. 

In closing, recreational boaters and anglers have an abiding interest in the protection of our waterways, as do other recreational 

users of public lands. We wish to see these special places protected. 

We also need to be able to reach these special places in many different ways. Providing appropriate access is crucial to the longterm political and financial support for national parks and other 

public lands. 

We appreciate the opportunity to bring the voice of boaters before 

the subcommittee. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Edmonston follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 25748.009
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 25748.010
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 25748.011
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 25748.012
23 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Edmonston. 

Mr. Cables, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICK CABLES 

Mr. CABLES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Plaskett, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the invitation today. 

Vail Resorts operates 13 premier resorts worldwide. We have resorts in Canada, in British Columbia, and Australia. The others 

are all in the United States. We have some of the most iconic and 

beautiful landscapes that we operate on in the Nation, and we’ve 

learned a thing or two about managing people and providing a 

guest experience that I want to share today. 

Six of our largest resorts are on the national forest, and we have 

a 40-year permit with the United States Forest Service that lays 

out exactly how we can operate. It’s a classic example of a publicprivate partnership, where the Federal Government provides the 

land and our business provides the business acumen, the capital, 

and the operational capability to deliver wonderful experiences for 

the American public and our guests. We provide a fee to the Treasury for leasing the land, which is substantial. 

It wasn’t long ago that ski areas were just thought of as for the 

winter recreation. You do it on snow. And so for the bulk of the 

winter, that’s when ski areas operated. In the summer, they didn’t. 

In the fall, they didn’t. The private land ski areas started changing 

that by offering summertime activities on the ski resorts and including things like hiking trails, mountain biking trails and mountain coasters, ziplines, and those sorts of activities. 

And so about a decade ago, we approached our partner, the 

United States Forest Service, with the idea: Can we do that on our 

public land resorts? Can we actually open it up for four seasons? 

The response was: Yes, and it’s probably better if you get some enabling legislation that helps do that. 

So we approached Congress, and in 2011 the Ski Area Recreation 

Opportunity Enhancement Act was passed unanimously in both 

Houses. And I think that’s a testament that it just made common 

sense that you would use this land for four seasons. We have the 

infrastructure in place, parking lots, restaurants. They were sitting 

idle half of the year. It helps us round out the resort communities’ 

economies, because we provide jobs all year round now, and for our 

own employees. So the benefits, both from a guest experience and 

from an economic benefit, are significant. 

Our company proposed the first projects under the new law in 

2014, after the regulations were promulgated. We started at Vail 

in Colorado and Heavenly at Lake Tahoe. We proposed ziplines, 

coasters, canopy tours, mountain biking trails, and a whole host of 

fun things to do. Our concept is learn through play. So we want 

people to learn a little bit about the natural environment and also 

have fun on these mountains. 

The results are spectacular. If any of you ever want to come out 

and enjoy a zipline at 11,000 feet, you should do it. The public 

loves it. The economic benefits are coming. Our guests are up in 

the summer versus what we had before, clearly. And we’ve got a 

partnership with the Nature Conservancy to take a percentage of 

our revenue and put it into conservation projects. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

We’ve worked with the Forest Service because we want uniformed rangers on the mountain. The public loves it when they’re 

on the mountain and there’s a ranger there that can talk to them 

about the environment, the wildlife, the forest, water, whatever 

questions they may have. So we’re really excited about that. It’s 

working. 

The challenges we have are with funding and the way the Forest 

Service budget’s fire suppression has eaten into the other programs, like recreation. So the Forest Service is having a hard time 

keeping up with us. 

We have a proposal to solve that. If we could get legislation that 

allows us to keep the fees we pay local, then we can help fund the 

Forest Service and they can be a better partner and a healthier 

partner. Senators Gardner and Wyden on the Senate side are proposing this legislation and working with us on it, and we’d like to 

work with Members of Congress here. 

And also, obviously, there’s process streamlining that would help. 

We think there’s ways to streamline some of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis associated with really common projects 

that we do. 

So, again, I’ll close by saying, if you can imagine a family, maybe 

a single parent from Denver, that gets up to Vail that’s really 

never spent time in the mountain, getting on a chair lift in the fall 

with the Aspen turning, getting up on the mountain and doing a 

mountain bike trip or riding a mountain coaster, and just hooking 

those people on the outdoors and recreation, that’s what we’re trying to do, have fun and get people out and do it in a way that we 

haven’t done in the past. 

So our partners with the Forest Service have been fabulous to 

work with. I can’t say enough about that relationship. 

Thank you, and look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cables follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 25748.013
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 25748.014
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 25748.015
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 25748.016
29 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

And we’ll start with Mr. Ross for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I’m particularly grateful to our witnesses today who’ve testified. I feel like I’ve been to most of the locations that you all have 

discussed today. 

To give you an example, I grew up traveling to national parks 

with my grandfather in a 1960 Airstream, which I have now restored and own. We went to the ’62 World’s Fair staying at national parks—that shows you how old I am—’64 World’s Fair, ’67 

World’s Fair. But what we did is we stayed at the national parks 

because they were not only convenient, but they had full facilities 

and the commercial market didn’t. 

And today, the RV industry is growing phenomenally. In fact, I 

own three RVs, one of which is an antique, one of which I let my 

boys use, and one of which my wife and I use when we travel 

around the country. By the time my boys were 12, they had been 

to all continental 48 States and predominantly staying in national 

parks throughout this country. 

And what we’ve seen, though, unfortunately, is that the national 

park campgrounds have declined from nearly 4.5 million overnights 

in the 1980s to less than 2 million overnight stays in 2013. There’s 

an opportunity being missed there, not only by the national parks 

but by the citizens of the United States because they don’t have a 

chance to enjoy those phenomenal resources, those natural resources that are out there. 

So my questions are, first of all, Ms. Lanterman, I love what you 

guys are doing with public-private partnerships and I think that 

you’ve hit on something there, but it’s the capital requirements 

that are necessary. And if Kansas is like Florida and like any other 

State, those resources, those dollar resources are so limited. Are 

there opportunities for bond issues to be funded by revenues from 

concessionaires or things of that nature? Is Kansas looking into 

creative ways to finance these capital improvements? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. We actually do. That’s a great question. We 

look at bond issues. And we’ve also looked at our foundation for 

support on putting in our cabin program. Actually, our foundation 

helped do that. And then our Governor, through the Economic Development Fund, paid those off. 

And so now we are reaping the benefits of those revenues. And 

today, as I sit here, we are still looking at a bond issue for another 

development in one of our bigger parks. 

So you have to look at all sources. You can’t look at the State 

anymore just to fund. 

Mr. ROSS. You can’t. And, in fact, these RVs today have become 

so—I mean, really, you know, they’re your home once you take the 

wheels off. But they’re large and the facilities in our national parks 

just can’t accommodate them, so we have to put in the infrastructure necessary to allow this. 

And then I guess my question is, Mr. Cables, you’ve talked about 

the four seasons in Vail and how you’ve been able to make use of 

a resource. What other ways can we utilize our national parks and 

creative financial resources to bring them up to speed so that they 

can accommodate today’s recreational vehicles? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you, Congressman Ross. 

All I will say is that we found a way with our partner, our Federal partner, the United States Forest Service, to look at creative 

ways to expand recreational opportunities, and where there’s a 

will, there’s a way. 

The Forest Service came to us when we started working on these 

opportunities, and we proposed some things that they didn’t believe 

were natural resource-based or went a little bit over the line, and 

we talked it through and worked it through and came up with an 

agreement on the things that really did make sense that we 

thought our guests would love and that the Forest Service—— 

Mr. ROSS. And it’s been a good relationship. 

Mr. CABLES. Yes. It’s the relationship, it’s the quality of the land 

managers that we deal with locally, that we’ve been able to work 

this through. So I think that’s really the secret. 

Mr. ROSS. And, Mr. Casamassa, if I might, how has your relationship been with the National Park Service, I mean, in terms of 

wanting to be able to expand the infrastructure in these national 

parks? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I think at times, in my experience, working with 

park superintendents around different parts of the country, we’ve 

looked at ways to provide opportunities for one thing on the park, 

like, for example, a large parking lot. And then, in addition to that, 

we would then do something as it relates to camping on the National Forest System. 

So it was providing a full suite of amenities. I think we have the 

opportunity to expand that, to find a full suite of opportunities for 

people, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be on one land administration or another. It could be done together. 

Mr. ROSS. And just to bring in an aside here since I’ve got limited time here, working with the RV industry, working with the 

Outdoor Recreation Industry Roundtable, is that something that 

you’re taking the initiative to do? I think that would be very fundamental to getting it done in a very all-encompassing way. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I think right now to ensure that we can make 

our facilities contemporary and connect people to their public lands 

is paramount. 

Mr. ROSS. I agree. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. And that any way that we can to set up roundtable discussions to understand fully what the needs are and 

try—— 

Mr. ROSS. And with the industry. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. With industry. And try to marry up the public 

lands with those kinds of needs is something that we’d be certainly 

interested in. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. 

And I see my time is expired. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. 

Ms. Plaskett, I’ll recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much. 

The National Park Service is entering its second century, and I 

want to explore ways that the agency can better utilize the vendors 

that operate with them. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Mr. Edmonston and Mr. Cables, I understand from your testimony here today that the path to improving visitor experiences in 

our national parks starts with an effective public-private partnership. Would you say that that is correct? 

Mr. EDMONSTON. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

One of the things I noticed, and I happened to look at the Park 

Service websites for your Virgin Islands, and I noticed several 

things related to vendors. 

First off, there is a 35-page guide to becoming a vendor in the 

Park Service, and I noticed that it hadn’t been updated since 2001. 

When I read it, it seemed more of a way for the Park Service to 

limit liability for the parks rather than a way to encourage entrepreneurs to come into the park system. 

I also looked at ways people could utilize parks, their visit to the 

parks, like, let’s say, they wanted to get married and they wanted 

a nice scenic overlook or a pavilion to get married in. The only way 

to do that would be to print out a form, mail it in with a nonrefundable deposit, and hope that the date and the facility you 

wanted were available. There was no way to look to see online even 

what facilities were available for renting. So if you didn’t have local 

knowledge, you couldn’t do it. 

There are many ways, simple ways, better use of technology, that 

could help visitor experience and also could make it easier for vendors to come in and use the parks. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So just to go forward with that before I get to Mr. 

Cables, when you talked about, you know, in your testimony you 

talked about technology, and prior to the passage of the Centennial 

Act, the business community had raised several concerns with it. 

And within that, I know that there was some discussion about 

technology. You talked about the manual that is probably a 

PDF—— 

Mr. EDMONSTON. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. —that is not interactive, not easy to utilize. What 

are some of the other new technology that we might—we know 

what’s wrong, but what could the parks be using that would facilitate—— 

Mr. EDMONSTON. Oh, goodness, I will defer to Mr. Cables on that 

since he uses that on a daily basis in his business. 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you, Ranking Member Plaskett. 

First, real quick on the public-private partnership. Yeah, that 

has to start, be where it starts. The government, at least in my experience in the government, isn’t the best at entrepreneurial, some 

entrepreneurial thinking, marketing, some of those kind of things. 

I think the private sector does that better. The private sector is an 

expert on the land management, the forest and wildlife and water 

science and the considerations associated with that. So if we’re 

both playing to our strengths in a partnership, then it can really 

work, and I think that’s been our experience. 

I would say on the technology, again, my expertise is more in 

natural resources, but we do have a program that we initiated a 

couple years ago called EpicMix where there’s an app and people 

can track their vertical fee in a given day, and you can actually 

find out which lift lines are shorter than others. And it gives young 

people particularly but a lot of people the opportunity to use their 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

phones and to use it in a way that’s kind of fun and figure out 

where to meet and to do things along those lines. 

So we find that tying that kind of technology in with an outdoor 

experience can actually work and not diminish the outdoor experience, but actually enhance it. 

So, yes, we have some really talented people in our company that 

focus on technology and how it makes the guest experience better. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. 

I think what I’m really trying to understand is, if we want to 

have these relationships and we want to work together, I don’t 

want us to just be beating up on the park, but really offering them 

some constructive support, because we know that they have their 

budgetary constraints. They are a government agency. And so it’s 

not their orientation to think this way. 

And how do we in Congress facilitate a way that you as vendors 

and you as entrepreneurs and being in this recreation and resort 

business can facilitate more people coming to the park. Because, 

listen, in the Virgin Islands, on St. John, we want to maintain the 

park. And we realize how important it is to our local economy, because when you get to St. John, you’ve got to come over on the 

ferry. That’s a ferry fee for us. You’re going to eat in a local restaurant. You’re going to do other things. And that supports our 

economy. So how do we make that experience such that people are 

going to keep coming back? 

So if you all have any other thoughts, I’d just leave it up to— 

I see you, Ms. Lanterman, shaking your head. If you have any 

other thoughts or, otherwise, I’ll yield back after that. 

Ms. LANTERMAN. What I would say is we are government, those 

of us that are in government, and we can change. And there are 

companies out there that can help us change, with iPhone apps and 

with a reservation system. And we are moving towards that. 

And sometimes it’s a little bit slower, but I’ve found the best way 

for you learning those changes is when you go out and use it yourself. And so when we travel and when I travel on my own, I use 

those systems and I come back and I think: Oh, my gosh, we’ve got 

to do this. 

And so that’s how you learn. And it’s a process, but I believe it 

can be done. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

And I want to follow up on a little bit of the testimony in my 5 

minutes here. 

Mr. Casamassa, you talked about getting special use permits and 

the like. Can you give me an example of what some of the special 

uses that people use in the forest or parks? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Sure. There’s, say, recreational events. In some 

respects we have, say, a bike race that crosses over five different 

national forests in an entire State over a week’s period of time. 

Lots of activity associated with an event of that scale. And that’s 

one of the kinds of permits that we issue for those type of recreational events. 

We have outfitter and guide permits for whitewater rafting, 

hunting, fishing, mountain bike tours, OHVs, and the like. So 

there’s a full suite of things that we look at when it comes to proVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25748.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

viding recreational opportunities to meet the demands and needs 

of people. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So how do you balance the mission of preserving the wilderness with making it available to the public? This 

has got to be one of the biggest challenges. I’ve sensed in some— 

Park Service more so than Forest Service—but this is a great national park but for the damn tourists. I mean, how do you reconcile 

that? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. And that’s a very delicate balance. And one of 

the ways that—I think about looking at opportunities, a full suite 

of opportunities. And maybe people only understand or are provided the information about one place that provides that opportunity. If you would then provide them a full suite of, well, are you 

looking for a hike? Are you looking for a lake? Are you looking for 

that kind of setting? You know, this is a very crowded place here, 

maybe we can direct you to another location. 

So I think it is a lot about information. It’s a lot about balancing 

the maintenance and enhancement of that landscape for generations to come with the use. 

And I think there’s an interest from the Forest Service about understanding a bit more about the carrying capacity, and perhaps 

we should be thinking through this and maybe looking at letting 

the users provide that carrying capacity for an area if we feel like 

that the area could be maintained, that there isn’t any damage to 

the environment around it. 

So it’s just about looking at it maybe in a different way that expands, I think, our opportunities. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Ms. Lanterman, you work in the State parks, 

and I’ve found that States are a little bit more responsive to the 

public than we are here in Washington, D.C. Did you want to kind 

of weigh in on that balance as well? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. You know, we have to be. We are in the business of making sure that our customers have a place to go and that 

it’s maintained. And we do our best, truly, to make sure that we 

have the loyalty of our constituent groups. And, frankly, they’ll tell 

us if we do not. 

And so, along with what my colleague here said, it’s an education 

process. We have to educate our users. You don’t love and protect 

what you don’t know about. And so that’s what our process is, is 

try to educate our users when they come in so that we can keep 

it for the preservation for years to come. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Cables, you look like you wanted to weigh 

in as well. 

Mr. CABLES. Yes. I would say there are other mechanisms to do 

that. For example, for operating our ski mountains in the summer 

on national forests, we’ve zoned the mountain. So at the top of, 

like, the gondola, in an area that’s already developed, there’s hard 

infrastructure, the environment’s been altered, that’s where we’ll 

put certain things like climbing walls, ropes courses, and some of 

the heavier infrastructure. And then as you get further from that 

location, you’ll get into what we call zones two, three, four, and 

five, where there may just be the only appropriate use is a hiking 

trail. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

So it’s a spectrum of concentrated recreation, which some people 

like. They don’t want to get too far off, away from sight of a building. But yet others may want to do a mountain bike trip or a hiking trip and get really back away from everything. And there’s a 

master development plan that we have to submit to the Forest 

Service that actually creates a zoning, and that’s how we deal with 

that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. 

I’ve got some more questions, but I’ve only got about 10 seconds 

left. So I’ll save them to the second round of questioning and let 

Mr. Raskin go for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. 

Let’s see. Mr. Casamassa, I was interested in something that you 

said just a moment ago where you were saying that people might 

have a cluster of different interests. They might want to do a hike. 

They might want to do camping near a Civil War battlefield. Is it 

possible on your website for me to put in all of my different requests and then for you to send me back what your advice is for 

where I might go? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well, I think there are opportunities to do that. 

We continue to enhance. Rec.gov, I think, is a multi-agency website 

that provides, I think, a relatively large suite of opportunities for 

people to be informed, to maybe do some trip planning, to get some 

kind of reservations. Certainly that is unto itself a good start. Tailoring some of the more I’d say specific trips is something that we 

continue to work on. 

One thing that I’d like to add to that is that we recognize that 

providing information and education in more of a digital platform, 

really, what I call it is I think it adds capacity without adding any 

people. 

Mr. RASKIN. Got you. Let me just follow up with you for 1 second. 

I think you’re the right person to direct this to, but others can comment if they need to. 

To what extent are you dealing with the effects of climate change 

and severe weather events, and to what extent is that having an 

effect on the visitor experience in national parks, in terms of floods, 

forest fires, hurricanes, severe events? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. And a good question. I think one of the things 

that I’ve experienced prior to coming to the headquarters here in 

our Nation’s Capital is I’ve had to manage lands that had a significant number of forest fires, catastrophic events, that really impacted the landscape as a whole. 

In addition to that, I’ve seen some pretty significant flooding 

across a wide landscape that actually really wiped out all the roads 

and access, bridges, and some of our developed sites. 

Mr. RASKIN. Where is that? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. In Colorado. And so that, you know, I’ve seen 

some significant weather events that we’ve had to adjust our thinking around how best to site areas and be able to adjust and mitigate to the best of our ability some weather events. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. 

I’m interested also in the question of accessibility. One of the 

things I’ve always loved about the national parks is, at least the 

ones I go to, people just go and they’re not even paying. There 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

might be some, I think, where people pay, but it’s kept at a modest 

level. And I was moved by what Mr. Cables said about doing public-private partnerships that allow for different things to go on. 

But to what extent is that done with an eye towards accessibility 

for the whole population that would otherwise be able to come and 

hike there? Does it suddenly become off limits to large numbers of 

people because it’s so expensive? Just curious what you might have 

to say about that. 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you for the question. 

The resorts that operate on National Forest System lands, 

they’re public lands. So uses can occur on those lands as long as 

they don’t materially interfere with our permitted use. So, for example, people come up all the time in the summer and hike that 

don’t pay a fee, don’t get a ticket, don’t engage in our own facilities 

or activities. 

Mr. RASKIN. You’re not displacing them. 

Mr. CABLES. No, no, we’re not, no. 

Mr. RASKIN. But how much does it cost to do your kinds of 

things? 

Mr. CABLES. Again, we’ve got one summer under our belt and 

we’ve got a suite of products for summer. The high end to do everything is like $80- to $90-dollar range. 

Mr. RASKIN. For the day? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes, for a day. And then we have a package, I think 

we call it the Little Explorer, which is around $50 for kids. And 

you can also do things a la carte, where you don’t get the whole 

package, but you can go to a specific ride or do something along 

those lines separately. And we’re still experimenting. Like I said, 

we’ve got one season under our belt. 

Mr. RASKIN. That’s great. Okay. 

And my final question is about education. Is there some formal 

effort underway to make connections with schools in local areas 

with the national parks? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I would say that we, ‘‘we’’ the Forest Service, we 

invest heavily in student conservation service, resource assistant 

programs, and programs that connect youth to the outdoors. There 

are several applications that we use for children to be able to explore specific locations. 

So I think what we’re trying to do is invest in youth to grow the 

next, I’d say, generation of conservationists in the country. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

And I guess I’m back up for my second round of questions rather 

quickly. 

So I want to talk, Mr. Cables, a little bit about something that 

I’ve heard from various national parks and some forest concessionaires, and that’s end of contract time. 

You’ve entered into I’m assuming a relatively long-term contract 

with the amount of capital investments that you have put in. But 

as you near the end of that term, say you’ve had a—I’m picking a 

number out of the air—say you’ve had a 30- or 40-year lease, in 

the last 5 to 7 years there’s not a lot of incentive for you to put 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

a lot of money in maintenance and upgrades because most likely 

your whole deal will go out for bids again. 

Is there any middle ground or way that we can structure this to 

where we don’t end up having a huge capital expenditure, putting 

in nice facilities up front, with no incentives other than contractual 

requirements to upgrade or improve the facilities? 

Twenty or 30 years down the road, we’re not going to think of 

the amenities that people are going to want and are going to be 

necessary to keep your facility competitive, and you have no real 

financial incentive to do those upgrades as you’re in the waning 

years of your contract. 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would say that it sounds like you’re describing an assumption 

or a set of assumptions based on the park’s concession program 

versus ours. We have a 40-year term special use permit, which is 

a huge factor because it allows us to invest and amortize that investment over a long period of time, A. 

B, we own the facilities, so they’re our facilities, and the equipment, the lifts, whatever, they’re our facilities. 

And thirdly, at the end of the term of that permit, we’re able to 

get a reissued permit, without competition, as long as we’re managing and meeting the requirements of the permit. So we don’t go 

through a competitive bidding process. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Does anybody want to address that issue? 

Do you face that in Kansas? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. We actually do. And what we’ve done is we’ve 

enacted a list of what our concessionaires do. Are they in compliance? Have they always been in compliance? And then we allow 

them to renew. 

Our problem is, though, if we are on Corps or Bureau property, 

we cannot extend it beyond our lease. And that is if we have only 

a 25-year lease with them, we can’t extend it longer than that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay, great. 

All right, so you talked about some of the funding issues and 

such. Is there ever a point where we can be closer to self-sustaining? I mean, a lot of this, especially on the Federal level, is financed through appropriations. Obviously a ski resort has a much 

better chance of being self-sufficient than some wilderness park 

somewhere. How close to self-sufficient can we get? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Well, I guess what I would say is the challenges 

we have is we have to—or at least we feel like we need to make 

sure our customers, all customers can come, so all clientele. Can 

they afford it? Can that single mom come? And we try to make our 

fees that way. 

Additionally, you have that weather issue. Most State park systems receive most of their revenue May through September. And 

so if you have weather issues in there, then you have a challenge 

of your finances and your cash flow coming in. And so I always believe that may be something that plays a part in this. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Anybody else want to weigh in there? 

Mr. EDMONSTON. Yes, sir, I would like to. I mentioned in my testimony the Sportfish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and that 

is a system that collects fees based on the sales of boats, motors, 

fishing equipment. It collects some revenues from the gasoline tax. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

And it really goes a long way towards paying for a lot of the infrastructure that boaters and people who recreate on water use. It 

pays for fish stocking in most of the rivers and lakes around the 

country. It is a great partnership. 

And I would say that there is an appetite for more access, better 

access, better services. And if vendors were allowed to come in and 

provide those, maybe not at every park, maybe not at every piece 

of Federal land, but you would see an increase in revenue and you 

would be able to better manage your properties. 

And getting back to the leases, we have seen on particularly 

Corps of Engineers facilities, issues with marina managers losing 

their lease. We saw that up in New York after Hurricane Isabel, 

I believe, a few years ago, where a marina was taken out by the 

storm, and they were not allowed to rebuild, and we had to really 

have an act of Congress to get them to get their lease back. So that 

is an ongoing issue, yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Plaskett, do you have some more questions? 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes, I did want to ask just a question to Mr. 

Casamassa, just along the lines of discussion about the growing 

public demand for outdoor recreation, discussing some of the best 

practices and initiatives you have identified in your testimony towards improving the visitor experience. 

How many partnerships are there between the Forest Service 

and small businesses utilizing recreational special use permits, if 

you are aware? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Today, I want to say close to 25,000 permits, 

recreational permits. I think that that is the number that we have 

for recreational opportunities. But it is in the thousands, and it is 

partnerships that we have for a full suite of activities. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And how long does it take to apply and then receive the permit on average or typically? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. It depends on, I would say, what the proposal 

would be and how significant it would be, what the scope and scale 

of it. I would say for individual rec events it should not take but 

several weeks to get from a proposal into the actual issuance of a 

permit on something that is that relatively routine and minor, 

some of the activities now that we are saying that you don’t really 

need a permit. Other activities that have some infrastructure considerations and some longer terms for the permit will take longer 

than that. 

Ms. PLASKETT. What is the longest that you have seen permits 

take? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. That is a good question. From my own personal 

experience, I’d say over a year. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And how much do the permits cost? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. It depends on what actually is being authorized. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And then could you tell us a little bit about 

the rollout of ePermit system? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Sure. One of the things that we’ve done, just to 

back up a bit, is that we have what we called a recreational diagnostic. It was both a public- and a private-facing assessment of how 

well we were doing. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

We had five different things that came out of our diagnostic, and 

one of them was is that we wanted to connect youth to—we 

thought it would be advantageous to connect youth to the outdoors. 

We wanted to celebrate our iconic places. We wanted to ensure that 

there was appropriate access, both roads and trails. We wanted to 

increase our reach when it came to the digital strategy as another 

one. And we wanted to streamline our special use permitting process because we recognized that that was a bottleneck. 

And so in conjunction with the streamlining, we recognized that 

some of the activities could be done online. So we are making considerable investments right now not only in the back of the house 

with our data systems that connect to the front of the house, which 

would be our ePermitting issue. And we are looking at—right now 

we have a platform that we are working with AT&F on that could 

be—it could be used for a wide array of permits. Right now our 

launches are around rec special uses in specific areas, as well as 

Christmas tree permits. 

And so those are the things we are starting, but, again, that’s 

one of the—for me, I am advocating that we invest in the technology to add capacity without increasing the number of people 

that we have. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. I really appreciate the work that you 

all are doing, and I am particularly grateful that you talk about the 

youth program and working with young people. I think that that 

is really important. On the island of St. Croix we have had a really 

outstanding summer youth program with the National Park Service, which has been really instrumental in a lot of kids, high school 

students and others, really getting comfortable and having a great 

community awareness for the Park Service that is there in their 

communities. 

Personally, one of my sons ended up going to this program in the 

summer, being really involved in the restoration that was happening with our fort, went on to college to get his degree in architecture, and is in the outdoors doing this kind of work. So it has 

really been important to us. 

And I am also grateful to the regional director of the National 

Park Service who has committed to the Virgin Islands to reinvigorate the program on the Island of St. John, where that relationship 

is even more important because the proximity that the park and 

the community and the young people really be closely involved. 

So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to ask 

these questions. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

And they’ve just called votes, which means we’ve got about 5 

minutes before we need to walk over to make it. So I just have one 

quick question for you guys. And if you all had some advice to give 

to the Park Service and/or concessionaires about what we need to 

do, what would it would be? And we will just go down the line with 

Mr. Casamassa. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I would say, and I think that the—I don’t know 

everything that the Park Service is doing, but I know that they are 

on a trajectory to look at or assess their concession program, and 

I think that that is something that we did. There are some good 

findings out of that. And to me, I would like to think that we would 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

continue on with looking at ways to lever public-private partnerships through that assessment. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. 

Ms. Lanterman. 

Ms. LANTERMAN. And I would suggest that the National Park 

Service, as they have in the past, just continue to work with America’s State parks to help solve some of these issues too that we face 

too with them. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. 

Mr. Edmonston. 

Mr. EDMONSTON. I would say it is maybe a slight change of focus 

in having the focus placed on how to enhance the visitor experience 

and how to work better with industry and other outside partners. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Make it better for those doggone tourists. 

Mr. Cables. 

Mr. CABLES. Talk and listen to your constituencies and have an 

open mind. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, listen, I want to thank our witness panel for being here. I think we got some great input. We do 

have votes coming up, so we will wrap this up if you guys are good 

with that. 

And I will ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative days to submit questions for the record. And without objection, that’s so ordered. 

Did you have anything else, Mr. Raskin? 

All right. Well, then, with no further business, without objection, 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(41) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 25748.017