[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]