    [Senate Hearing 115-535]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-535

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

    S. 2395                        S. 3533                    H.R. 3607
    S. 2895/H.R. 5613              S. 3534                    H.R. 3961
    S. 3291                        S. 3571/H.R. 5420          H.R. 5005
    S. 3439/H.R. 5532              S. 3646                    H.R. 5706
    S. 3468                        S. 3609/H.R. 801           H.R. 6077
    S. 3505                        S. 3659                    H.R. 6599
    S. 3527/H.R. 5585              H.R. 1220                  H.R. 6687

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 12, 2018
                                   __________

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    33-662                    WASHINGTON : 2019

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota
                                     ------

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                             STEVE DAINES, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO                        ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    MIKE LEE                             BERNARD SANDERS
    CORY GARDNER                         DEBBIE STABENOW
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      MARTIN HEINRICH
    JOHN HOEVEN                          MAZIE K. HIRONO
    ROB PORTMAN                          TAMMY DUCKWORTH

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
                    Michelle Lane, Professional Staff Member
                 Mary Louise Wagner, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
              Rebecca Bonner, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Montana........................................................     1
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
      Senator from Maine.............................................     5
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia....     5

                                    WITNESS

    Smith, Mr. P. Daniel, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
      U.S. Department of the Interior................................    42

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Agenda...........................................................     3
    Akers, Randy L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    94
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    City of Hinton (WV):
        Resolution for the Record....................................     7
    City of Summersville (WV):
        Resolution for the Record....................................     9
    Coda, James:
        Letter for the Record........................................    95
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Hearing Announcement and Agenda..............................     3
    Fayette County (WV) Chamber of Commerce:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    11
    Fayette County (WV) Commission:
        Letter and Resolution for the Record.........................    13
    Giles County (VA) Board of Supervisors:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    15
    Graham, Hon. Lindsey O.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   101
        Article by Gregory P. Downs and Kate Masur published in The
          New York Times dated November 16, 2018, entitled ``How to
          Remember Reconstruction''..................................   104
    Keyserling, Hon. Billy, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   108
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    Markey, Hon. Edward J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   115
    Mercer County (WV) Commission:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    18
    National Parks Conservation Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    20
    New River Gorge Convention & Visitors Bureau:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    24
    New River Gorge Regional Development Authority:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    26
    New River Travel Council d/b/a Visit Southern West Virginia:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    28
    Raleigh County (WV) Commission:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    30
    River Expeditions:
        Letter for the Record........................................    34
    Roberts, Hon. Pat:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   116
    Smith, P. Daniel:
        Opening Statement............................................    42
        Written Testimony............................................    45
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    92
    Summers County (WV) Commission:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    35
    West Virginia Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    38
    West Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    40
    Yoder, Hon. Kevin:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   117

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/2018/12/subcommittee-on-national-parks-legislative-
    hearing

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2018

                                   U.S. Senate,
                        Subcommittee on National Parks,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Steve Daines,
    presiding.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to
    order.
        This morning the National Parks Subcommittee is meeting to
    discuss 26 bills that cover a wide range of priorities for
    members, both on and off the Committee, all of which pertain to
    lands or programs administered by the National Park Service. As
    we move closer to the end of the year, I would like to note
    that we have reported out well over 100 bills through the full
    Committee with a large number of those coming from this
    Subcommittee. We do a lot of great work in the Subcommittee
    with items that, at times, may be impactful to the entire
    nation, like Senate bill 3172, the Restore Our Parks Act.
    Senate bill 3172, which I was a co-sponsor on, would work to
    resolve the deferred maintenance backlog in our National Parks.
    As the Ranking Member here has so well said, ``deferred
    maintenance is debt.'' I attribute that quote to the Senator
    from Maine.
        Other bills are more parochial in nature and may deal with
    either adjusting a park unit boundary, redesignating a park
    unit or simply authorizing a study. No matter how big or small,
    all of these pieces of legislation are important, and I am
    happy we can continue to build upon that body of work here
    today.
        There are a number of interesting pieces of legislation on
    the agenda today, including one that would designate the Route
    66 National Historic Trail. Now Route 66 does not go through my
    home State of Montana, but the road symbolizes a shared
    American experience and, in many ways, the spirit of adventure
    and the thrill of the road trip that is so unique to us as
    Americans.
        We will also be looking at H.R. 3607, a bill that would
    allow the National Park Service to retain the fees it collects
    from medical services provided in park units. Given the remote
    nature of many parks, like Glacier or Yellowstone in my home
    State of Montana, a number of these parks provide regular
    medical services to visitors. When visitors or their insurers
    reimburse the park for services incurred by park staff, those
    monies are deposited in the general treasury and are not given
    back to the individual park unit. Thus, the individual park
    units have to pay for these expenses out of their annual
    operating budgets which can place quite a strain on staff and
    assets on the ground. Working to resolve this issue seems like
    a commonsense solution we can all get behind.
        We have a packed schedule today, so I am going to try to
    keep things moving quickly if that is okay with everybody here.
        The purpose of this hearing is to consider the
    Administration's views on pending legislation and allow
    Committee members an opportunity to ask questions. We will also
    include written statements that have been sent to the
    Subcommittee in the official hearing record.
        Because of the large number of bills on today's agenda, I
    will not read through the list. Rather, we will include the
    complete agenda in the hearing record, without objection.
        [List of the bills on the agenda follows:]

                                 COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                    HEARING ANNOUNCEMENT AND AGENDA

        This notice is to advise you of a legislative hearing
    before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources'
    Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on
    Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the
    Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
        The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the
    following bills:
       S. 2395, to amend title 54, United States Code, to
            authorize the provision of technical assistance under
            the Preserve America Program and to direct the
            Secretary of the Interior to enter into partnerships
            with communities adjacent to units of the National Park
            System to leverage local cultural heritage tourism
            assets (Schatz)
       S. 2895/H.R. 5613, to designate the Quindaro
            Townsite in Kansas City, Kansas, as a National
            Commemorative Site (Roberts/Yoder)
       S. 3291, to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal
            Heritage Trail Route, and for other purposes (Menendez)
       S. 3439/H.R. 5532, to redesignate the Reconstruction
            Era National Monument as the Reconstruction Era
            National Historical Park, and for other purposes
            (Graham/Clyburn)
       S. 3468, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
            designate segments of the Nashua, Squannacook, and
            Nissitissit Rivers as components of the Wild and Scenic
            Rivers System, and for other purposes (Markey)
       S. 3505, to provide for partnerships among State and
            local governments, regional entities, and the private
            sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance the visitor
            experience at nationally significant battlefields of
            the American Revolution, War of 1812, and Civil War,
            and for other purposes (Isakson)
       S. 3527/H.R. 5585, to extend the authorization for
            the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission
            (Markey/Keating)
       S. 3533, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
            designate certain river segments within the Wood-
            Pawcatuck watershed as components of the National Wild
            and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes (Reed)
       S. 3534, to redesignate the New River Gorge National
            River in the State of West Virginia as the `New River
            Gorge National Park' (Capito)
       S. 3571/H.R. 5420, to authorize the acquisition of
            land for addition to the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt
            National Historic Site in the State of New York, and
            for other purposes (Gillibrand/Faso)
       S. 3646, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
            Interior to accept certain properties in the State of
            Missouri (Blunt)
       S. 3609/H.R. 801, to amend the National Trails
            System Act to designate the Route 66 National Historic
            Trail, and for other purposes (Udall/LaHood)
       S. 3659, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
            to annually designate at least one city in the United
            States as an ``American World War II Heritage City'',
            and for other purposes (Tillis)
       H.R. 1220, to establish the Adams Memorial
            Commission to carry out the provisions of Public Law
            107-62, and for other purposes (Lynch)
       H.R. 3607, to authorize the Secretary of the
            Interior to establish fees for medical services
            provided in units of the National Park System, and for
            other purposes (McClintock)
       H.R. 3961, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
            to designate segments of the Kissimmee River and its
            tributaries in the State of Florida for the study of
            potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic
            Rivers System, and for other purposes (Soto)
       H.R. 5005, to direct the Secretary of the Interior
            to conduct a special resource study to determine the
            suitability and feasibility of establishing the
            birthplace of James Weldon Johnson in Jacksonville,
            Florida, as a unit of the National Park System (Lawson)
       H.R. 5706, to establish the Pearl Harbor National
            Memorial in the State of Hawai'i and the Honouliuli
            National Historic Site in the State of Hawai'i, and for
            other purposes (Hanabusa)
       H.R. 6077, recognizing the National Comedy Center in
            Jamestown, New York (Reed)
       H.R. 6599, to modify the application of temporary
            limited appointment regulations to the National Park
            Service, and for other purposes (Knight)
       H.R. 6687, to direct the Secretary of the Interior
            to manage the Point Reyes National Seashore in the
            State of California consistently with Congress' long-
            standing intent to continue to authorize working
            dairies and ranches on agricultural property as part of
            the seashore's unique historic, cultural, scenic and
            natural values, and for other purposes (Huffman)
        Senator Daines. We have one witness here today. He has been
    here before, Mr. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the
    National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. It is
    very good to see you here again, Mr. Smith.
        First, let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator King, for
    his opening remarks.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR.,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

        Senator King. I don't want to use too much of the
    Committee's time. I just want to welcome Dan Smith. Mr.
    Chairman, I can attest that anything he says will be both wise
    and true. I know that because he is from the State of Maine.
        We are delighted to have you with us this morning. These
    bills are indicative of the confidence that people have in the
    Park Service because they want you to do a little bit of
    everything, and I think that is a tribute to the quality of the
    Park Service and the services they deliver to the American
    people. So I look forward to the hearing, look forward to
    considering these bills and I thank the Chair.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator King.
        I understand Senator Capito would like to give a short
    opening statement regarding Senate bill 3534.
        Senator Capito.

                STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Daines, and thank you,
    Ranking Member King, for letting me discuss my bill, the New
    River Gorge National Park Designation Act, that is before the
    Subcommittee today. I want to thank your staffs as well for
    including S. 3534, the New River Gorge National Park
    Designation Act, in today's proceedings and I want to thank
    you, Deputy Director Smith--we have your statement--for coming
    to share your views on this.
        The New River Gorge serves as a great source of pride for
    my State of West Virginia and is a driver for our state's
    tourism industry. It was established in 1978 as a national
    river and hundreds of thousands of tourists, many from the DC
    area and--I see former Congressman Rahall in the audience
    today, he was very active in this--visitors from all over the
    world come annually to take in the breathtaking views and
    outdoor recreation opportunities that the New River Gorge has
    to offer.
        In addition to incredible scenery, the Gorge plays host to
    thrill seekers of all ages from watching base jumpers leap or
    catapult--they were catapulting last time I saw them--on the
    New River Gorge Bridge Day to hiking the countless trails.
        Over the years the idea to redesignate the New River Gorge
    National River as a national park has been floated but no
    policy steps have been taken until this point. This year I
    heard from a growing chorus of the constituents, local
    government officials and other West Virginia organizations and
    businesses who support redesignation which prompted my
    introduction of S. 3534.
        With unanimous consent, I would like to submit letters of
    support I have from the counties of Raleigh County, Fayette
    County, Summers County, Mercer County, City of Hinton and City
    of Summersville, the local leaders. If I could submit those
    letters and other letters without objection.
        Senator Daines. Without objection.
        [Letters in support of S. 3534 follow:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. So, fairly or not, national parks endure
    more public awareness than our national rivers. In May,
    Headwaters Economics released a study in which they examined
    eight national monuments that were redesignated as national
    parks. The study found that the average number of visitors to
    the eight parks increased by 28 percent in the five years after
    they had gained a national park status. West Virginia's economy
    is diversifying and the tourism is playing a significant role
    in providing jobs directly and indirectly to West Virginians,
    so this represents a real opportunity for that growth.
        I also drafted this legislation in mind with the sportsmen
    and sportswomen of West Virginia. The tradition of hunting and
    fishing in the New River Gorge has been passed down for
    generations, which is why my bill ensures that the current
    hunting and fishing regulations that govern the national river
    would be carried to the national park in accordance with the
    statutory attempt of previous Congresses.
        Getting redesignation across the finish line may require
    political compromise, and you allude to this in your statement,
    perhaps via a park and preserve model, but the principle of
    preserving hunting and fishing is non-negotiable. We must
    ensure that the sportsmen and women of West Virginia can
    continue the long tradition of hunting and fishing on these
    public lands and that the state maintains primacy in the field
    of wildlife management. That is why I introduced the strongest
    bill possible on this point to open discussion on a path
    forward.
        Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to do this and to
    discuss this with you, Deputy Director Smith. I look forward to
    this. We feel that the New River Gorge deserves the recognition
    that it deserves as a National Park Service unit that cherishes
    our history, emphasizes our state's natural beauty and
    enshrines the traditional access of our sportsmen and women.
        Thank you.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        All member statements will be added to the hearing record.
        We will now proceed to the witness testimony. At the end of
    the testimony, we will begin questions.
        Mr. Smith, your full written testimony will be made part of
    the official hearing record.
        Mr. Smith, you may proceed.

            STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                INTERIOR

        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, it was great to be
    with both of you in your states dealing with deferred
    maintenance earlier this year and it's good to see you here
    today again.
        I will summarize all my testimony.
        The Department supports S. 3571 and H.R. 5420, which would
    authorize the acquisition of land for addition to the Franklin
    D. Roosevelt National Historic Site. We prefer the Senate bill.
        The Department also supports S. 3609 and H.R. 801, which
    would designate the Route 66 National Historic Trail.
        The Department supports the following bills with
    amendments: S. 3439 and H.R. 5532, which would redesignate the
    Reconstruction Era National Monument as a National Historical
    Park;
    S. 3646, which would authorize the acquisition of certain
    properties at the Sainte Genevieve National Historical Park and
    at the Harry S. Truman National Historic Site; H.R. 3607, which
    would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish and
    collect fees for medical services provided at national parks;
    H.R. 5706, which would establish the Pearl Harbor National
    Memorial as a separate unit of the National Park System and
    redesignate the Honouliuli National Monument as a National
    Historic Site; and H.R. 6687, which would provide the National
    Park Service with direction and authority regarding certain
    management actions at Point Reyes National Seashore.
        The Department would support the following bills if they
    are amended: S. 3534, which would redesignate New River Gorge
    National River as a National Park; and H.R. 6599, which would
    modify the application of regulations that govern temporary,
    limited appointments, allowing the National Park Service to
    return to its traditional hiring practices for seasonal
    employees. This is a very critical bill for our workforce, but
    it is important for the one-year sunset provision to be
    removed.
        The Department does not object to the following bills: H.R.
    6077, which would provide an official designation for the
    National Comedy Center in Jamestown, New York; and H.R. 1220,
    which would establish an Adams Memorial Commission. We
    recommend an amendment to this bill.
        The Department recommends deferring action on the following
    bills: H.R. 3961, which would authorize a study of the
    Kissimmee River for potential addition to the National Wild and
    Scenic River System; H.R. 3468, which would designate segments
    of the Nashua River and related rivers as components of the
    National Wild and Scenic River System; and S. 3533, which would
    designate river sections in the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed as
    components of the National Wild and Scenic River System.
        Finally, the Department does not support the following
    bills:
    S. 2395, which would support cultural heritage tourism and
    historic preservation through a variety of partnerships; S.
    2895 and H.R. 5613, which would designate the Quindaro Townsite
    in Kansas City, Kansas, as a National Historic Landmark and as
    a National Commemorative Site, respectively; S. 3291, which
    would reauthorize funding for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage
    Trail Route; S. 3505, which would increase the authorization of
    appropriations to $20 million annually to support state and
    local acquisition of important battlefield sites; S. 3527 and
    H.R. 5585, which would retroactively extend the authorization
    for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission; S.
    3659, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    annually designate at least one city in the United States as a
    World War II Heritage City; and H.R. 5005, which would
    authorize a study of the birthplace of James Weldon Johnson in
    Jacksonville, Florida, for potential inclusion in the National
    Park System.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the
    Subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Smith follow:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your testimony.
        We will move to questions.
        I would like to ask you about a piece of legislation that
    was introduced in the House by Congressman Knight. It is H.R.
    6599 that deals with a personnel matter specific to the
    National Park Service.
        Now, I grew up in the shadows of Yellowstone National Park.
    Glacier isn't too far away, by Montana standards, and recognize
    that seasonal employees are truly the backbone of the Park
    Service. You really need them to keep the agency functioning.
    Many seasonal employees, particularly in the Park Service,
    choose to remain on a seasonal basis, rotating between park
    units as the seasons and needs of the park units change.
        It is my understanding, according to your written
    testimony, that the National Park Service and the Office of
    Personnel Management have a different interpretation of a long-
    standing regulation because the Park Service will defer to OPM.
    In this case, a number of long-term, seasonal employees may
    have to recompete for positions within park units such as
    Yellowstone and Glacier, should they return within a year. Do I
    have a correct understanding of that?
        Mr. Smith. You have a very exact understanding of it, yes,
    Senator.
        Senator Daines. How has this determination from OPM
    impacted seasonal employees that may have worked in park units
    for many years, in fact, many of whom have worked in Montana?
        Mr. Smith. All of our parks were affected by this. We
    basically have about 7,500 seasonal employees who definitely
    are part of the backbone of visitor services for us in our busy
    seasons. It's been the standard in the Park Service, and a good
    example would be somebody who works at Glacier in the summer
    but would go down and work in a park in Florida for the winter.
    Very capable, have been doing this for years, superintendents
    rely on their expertise.
        The OPM ruling basically said that we couldn't do what we
    usually do and have them not have to compete for those jobs.
    The OPM regulation required that. So out of the 7,500, it's
    probably a much smaller group, but certainly in the hundreds
    that have been affected by this. Some people just don't
    understand how much we rely on seasonal workforces. We have the
    visitation in the summer months. We can't carry these people
    year-round and we have people who actually prefer this type of
    splitting their season and traveling the country.
        So the bill that's before you would address that situation
    and correct it so that we would be not under the OPM
    determination. And our one concern though, is the House bill
    only has it for one year. To put it in effect for one year
    really doesn't help us at all. We'd like just to basically
    clear up this issue and go back to our standard policy of being
    able to let these people go back and forth for the year worth
    of employment without having to recompete for those positions.
        Senator Daines. I think you have answered the question by
    the change you would like to see, I mean, if there were a
    couple of changes you want to see. You said the House bill just
    has a one-year requirement. What change would you like to see
    in support of this legislation?
        Mr. Smith. Well, if we get the one year, we will put it all
    back into play but then the same issue will be before us next
    fiscal year. Basically, since Congress is looking at this, we'd
    like the relief so that we can go back to what our people
    understand is a policy that's worked very well for years, for
    this group of people who do seasonal employment. So the one
    year to start a policy now to bring them back but next, you
    know, one summer further to not have it in law, it doesn't
    correct the situation.
        Senator Daines. Yes, it seems like if there is one thing
    that DC is good at, it is creating uncertainty. I would suggest
    that your testimony highlights this could have an unintended
    consequence of creating more uncertainty and that we could make
    this legislation a bit better with your suggestions.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, Senator.
        And again, these people that prefer to do this, they are
    people who are so competent in their jobs that they're people
    who, you know, have been there for years doing this and don't
    require additional training or whatever else. And it's really
    upset our workforce. It's a quality of life issue and, again,
    at least one or two people in every park have been affected by
    this.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Talking about the New River Gorge, which
    Senator Capito so ably presented, one of the things she
    mentioned was traditional hunting and fishing as being non-
    negotiable, I think was the term she used.
        Give me a more general picture of how the Park Service
    deals with issues of hunting and fishing and how--is it allowed
    in any parks and how do you accommodate local traditions and
    interests at the same time maintaining the tradition and basic
    structure of the National Park System?
        Mr. Smith. Senator, we do allow hunting and fishing in
    units of the National Park System. I believe it's 71 units that
    allow hunting, but those units are designated in a broad
    category as preserves. The best examples of those would be
    Denali Park and Preserve in Alaska, and other ones across the
    country. And the preserve status, besides allowing hunting, it
    can allow also other types of activities.
        Senator King. But when it says park and preserve is it the
    same land? Is it a park and preserve or is the preserve over
    here and the park over here?
        Mr. Smith. They're adjacent but Denali--using Denali as the
    example--there are parts of that park where you cannot hunt and
    then in the preserve portions of that park, we do allow
    hunting. And that's through, usually it's Congressional.
    Congress has given us this direction. Congress, for any units
    of the National Park System that are created, Congress
    stipulates whether or not there's hunting.
        In the National Park category, we don't have hunting. There
    may be situations where we do culling and whatever else for
    resource management, but we do not have traditional hunting.
        And so, believe me, I am very aware of the situation at New
    River Gorge. When that was created there was a, the Secretary
    may allow hunting in that and certainly with Congressman Rahall
    sitting behind me and former Senator Byrd, they put in
    legislation that we----
        Senator King. Former Senator Byrd's ghost is here by the
    way.
        Mr. Smith. I feel it right behind me----
        [Laughter.]
        ----and I'm very comforted by it.
        Very explicitly, it was put in language that there shall be
    hunting in New River Gorge.
        Senator King. So in order to support this bill, there would
    have to be a line drawing in terms of what would be preserve
    and what would be park, is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator King. Does your bill have that in it, Senator
    Capito?
        Senator Capito. If I may answer the question?
        The bill that I put in actually uses the language that was
    brought forward by Congress that says, ``shall allow hunting''
    but it only calls for a redesignation to a National Park. In my
    statement I realized that is the strongest possible--I wanted
    to come out with my strongest negotiating position realizing
    that, probably, in order to preserve the hunting and fishing we
    may have to try to get a combination park/preserve kind of
    approach. We want to work with all the stakeholders.
        Right now in the National River there are, I think, 70,000
    approximate acres in the New River National River and only some
    50,000 of those allow hunting as it stands. So there are some
    restrictions in there now.
        Senator King. So a property could have the designation, the
    label, National Park and Preserve and have these traditional
    uses?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. And I would be on record saying that our first
    position would be for it to be a National Recreation Area but I
    certainly understand the Senator's position on this for it to
    be a National Park designation.
        Senator Daines. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Well, thank you, and thank you very much.
        And thank you, I should have begun my statement with
    thanking both of you for permitting me to come since I am not a
    traditional member of the Subcommittee. So I appreciate that.
        We pretty much covered some of the specifics Senator King
    asked but you did make the clarification that in the National
    River designation it was redesignated to say, ``shall permit
    hunting and fishing.''
        So if my bill were to pass as written, hunting and fishing
    would be--if that was the will of the Congress and signed by
    the President, if it said, if it carried that language, it
    would have to permit. But you are saying it would be the only
    one, except for the one, Grand Teton, I think does some hunting
    for wildlife management. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. There are probably several other examples,
    Senator, but yeah, technically there is no national park
    designation that allows the recreational type of hunting that
    we're talking about, the sport hunting.
        Senator Capito. Let me ask you. I just had a meeting with a
    lot of our outdoorsmen and sportsmen just this Monday and one
    of the issues that they asked me in terms of moving forward
    with this was, is there a difference in coordination between
    the DNR and the National Park Service if it is designated as a
    National River or if it is designated as a National Park? Are
    there differences there in terms of more regulatory oversight
    by a park as opposed to a National River? Do you understand
    what I am asking?
        Mr. Smith. Senator, there would be some differences but, in
    the majority, we try to comply with state law and regulation
    when it comes to hunting and fishing. There are certain things
    that can be different.
        In the fishing arena there may be certain parks where we're
    worried about a certain type of trout being introduced or
    whatever else so we might have more restrictions on things like
    that. But in the hunting realm, we track coordination with our
    state fish and wildlife agencies very, very closely.
        Senator Capito. So whatever type of hunting is permitted by
    state law would be what is permitted in a national preserve,
    say, if we made it a preserve rather----
        Mr. Smith. Usually that would be the case, yes----
        Senator Capito. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. ----especially when they designate seasons and
    bow hunting or whatever.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, usually, in by far the majority, there is a
    coordination between state regulation and what we permit, yes.
        Senator Capito. Okay, so let's go back to the park and
    preserve concept. Who draws the designated lines for that? Is
    that done by Congress? Obviously it would have to be done in
    conjunction with you all or how do you do that? Do you do it by
    GPS or how has it been done in the past?
        Mr. Smith. Usually there's coordination and usually with
    legislation a map is introduced that shows that.
        Senator Capito. With the legislation?
        Mr. Smith. With the legislation. And that's usually done in
    coordination with the Park Service and whoever is introducing
    the bill.
        Without knowing all the details, obviously, this
    unbelievably deep gorge, that characteristic, obviously you'd
    think that you'd draw that line down the river and then all the
    uplands and whatever else would be what would be in the
    preserve but there would be eventually a mapping exercise that
    we would undertake on that.
        Senator Capito. Yes, we are a pretty hearty bunch, but
    hunting on a steep slope like that might even be challenging
    for us as West Virginians.
        Well, I would like to ask you then to continue working with
    me and my office and others that are interested in this, to
    help us look at how we could construct something like that.
        Let me ask you, in your past park, in your other park and
    preserve arrangements, like Denali, do you--is the park part
    contiguous? Is it all contained in one area or can you have a
    park area here and then maybe some preserve here and then a
    park area over there?
        Mr. Smith. A lot of it's in contiguous areas but it can be
    generally, again, where those lines are drawn. It doesn't have
    to be contiguous.
        Senator Capito. It does not, okay.
        Let's see, let me just ask you this.
        In my opening statement I remarked on how much economic
    impact a national park designation would have and that is
    obviously one of the key interests that we have here as West
    Virginians.
        Can you quantify that at all or how do you see that as it
    has rolled out through, I do not know how many years you have
    been there? How many years have you been?
        Mr. Smith. I've been around quite a long time, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Okay, so you have a lot of good--if you are
    invoking Senator Byrd, then I know you have been here for a
    while.
        Mr. Smith. Senator, Congressman Rahall and I were talking
    about 1979 on a bill, so----
        Senator Capito. Okay.
        Mr. Smith. ----I am a little bit long of tooth here.
        I'm sorry and again the question?
        Senator Capito. The economic impacts of a park
    redesignation.
        Mr. Smith. Well, you know, there's a nationwide report on
    the impact that, in general, the National Park Service has in
    the billions of dollars.
        I must admit I'm old school where I really think that this
    trend toward taking units into park status doesn't really
    change that much, but I've, again, been convinced that it does
    actually carry a certain uptick in people being interested with
    that park designation rather than a national recreation area
    designation or whatever else.
        Right now, the Park Service, ever since our centennial, our
    visitation is just off the charts.
        Senator Capito. Good.
        Mr. Smith. And so, I won't give that full credit to hunting
    and fishing or that type of thing but, basically, our
    visitation is going--but there's definitely an effect, National
    Park Service units do draw people----
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Smith. ----and do draw economic value----
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Smith. ----in the billions of dollars.
        Senator Capito. In the billions, yes. I mean, I would say
    it would be, not just within the park, but also the contiguous
    areas of Fayette and Raleigh and other counties----
        Mr. Smith. All of the gateway communities benefit from the
    visitation at the parks, yes, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Alright, well I look forward to working
    with you. This is something I am very passionate about, and we
    have a lot of support. We are talking with everybody here. I
    have talked with Senator Manchin, and we are working together
    on this.
        I really appreciate your valued service of so many years
    but also your willingness to work with us.
        Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        If there are no more questions for today, members may also
    submit follow-up, written questions for the record.
        This hearing record will be open for two weeks.
        I want to thank Mr. Smith for his time and testimony and
    institutional knowledge today.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    [all]