[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-748 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Blake Farenthold, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Ron DeSantis, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Val Butler Demings, Florida
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Peter Welch, Vermont
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Mark DeSaulnier, California
Will Hurd, Texas John Sarbanes, Maryland
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
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 Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Dennis Ross, Florida Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama (Vacancy)
James Comer, Kentucky (Vacancy)
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
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.
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.
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.
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 grasslands, 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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 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
fee-based 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
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 long-term 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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 public-private 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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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?
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.
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 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
providing 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]