    [Senate Hearing 114-338]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-338

                       PENDING NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                    S. 145                S. 146

                    S. 319                S. 329

                    S. 403                S. 521

                    S. 610                S. 782

                    S. 873                S. 1483

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 10, 2015

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) 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.fdsys.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-282                         WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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 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                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                             BILL CASSIDY, Chairman
    ROB PORTMAN                          MARTIN HEINRICH
    JOHN BARRASSO                        RON WYDEN
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      BERNARD SANDERS
    MIKE LEE                             DEBBIE STABENOW
    JOHN HOEVEN                          ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO                 ELIZABETH WARREN

                        Karen K. Billups, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana...     1
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from
      New Mexico.....................................................     5
    Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee.............     6
    Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator, from Connecticut.......     7
    Flake, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from Arizona....................     8

                                   WITNESSES

    Knox, Victor, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and
      Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior..    23

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Abraham Lincoln Bicent Commission
        Letter for the Record........................................    64
    Alexander, Hon. Lamar
        Opening Statement............................................     6
    American Hotel & Lodging Association
        Letter for the Record........................................    10
    American Rivers
        Letter for the Record........................................    87
    American Whitewater
        Statement for the Record.....................................    88
    Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation
        Letter for the Record........................................    20
    Baltimore Heritage
        Letter for the Record........................................    66
    Baltimore National Heritage Area
        Letter for the Record........................................    67
    Blumenthal, Hon. Richard
        Statement for the Record.....................................    90
    Brnovich, Hon. Mark
        Letter for the Record........................................    12
    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin
        Statement for the Record.....................................    60
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Colman, Wanda
        Letter for the Record........................................    92
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
        Letter for the Record........................................    16
    Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
        Letter for the Record........................................    93
    East Granby Land Trust, Inc.
        Letter for the Record........................................    94
    Farmington Valley Visitors Association
        Letter for the Record........................................    95
    Flake, Hon. Jeff
        Opening Statement............................................     8
    Frederick Douglass Family Foundation
        Letter for the Record........................................    68
    Friends of the President Street Station, Inc.
        Letter for the Record........................................    69
    Grand Canyon Airlines, Papillon/Grand Canyon Helicopters,
      Maverick Helicopters
        Letter for the Record........................................    96
    Granby Land Trust
        Letter for the Record........................................    98
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    Klobuchar, Hon. Amy
        Statement for the Record.....................................    58
    Knox, Victor
        Opening Statement............................................    23
        Written Testimony............................................    25
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    80
    Kulick, John
        Letter for the Record........................................    99
    Lincoln Group Inc. of the District of Columbia
        Letter for the Record........................................   100
    Maryland Department of Planning and Maryland Historical Trust
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 521.......................    70
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 610.......................    72
    Maryland Historical Society
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 521.......................    73
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 610.......................    74
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa
        Statement for the Record.....................................     2
    Murphy, Hon. Christopher
        Opening Statement............................................     7
    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People-
      Washington Bureau
        Letter for the Record........................................   101
    National Parks Conservation Association
        Letter for the Record........................................    75
    North Country Trail Association
        Statement for the Record.....................................   103
    Rawlings-Blake, Hon. Stephanie
        Letter for the Record........................................    76
    Roaring Brook Nature Center
        Letter for the Record........................................   110
    Safari Club International
        Letter for the Record........................................    18
    Simanski, Hon. Bill
        Letter for the Record........................................   111
    Simsbury Garden Club
        Letter for the Record........................................   112
    Simsbury Land Trust
        Letter for the Record........................................   113
    State of Arizona Game and Fish Department
        Letter for the Record........................................    14
    Tariffville Village Association
        Letter for the Record........................................   114

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=ADC24424-9343-4273-
    BAC7-5C8752E38D11.

                       PENDING NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015

                                            U.S. Senate
                                 Subcommittee on National Parks
                      Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Cassidy,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN AND A U.S.
                         SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

        Senator Cassidy. This is our first legislative hearing in
    the National Parks Subcommittee this Congress and my first as
    Chair. I look forward to presiding over the important work of
    the Subcommittee and working with you, Senator Heinrich.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
    ten bills pending before this Subcommittee. A few have been
    heard before.
        Two bills sponsored by Senator Jeff Flake were prompted by
    the 2013 government shut down, and both advanced on a
    bipartisan basis through the Full Committee. The first, S. 145,
    the National Parks Access Act, would refund money advanced by
    six states to open certain national parks during the shutdown.
    The other, S. 146, the Public Access to Public Lands Guarantee
    Act, would enable the public land management agencies to accept
    public or private funds to keep public lands open in the event
    of a future shutdown. We will hear more about these from
    Senator Flake.
        The other two bills from last Congress are S. 319 from our
    Committee Chair, Senator Murkowski, to change the name of Mount
    McKinley to Mount Denali in Denali National Park, and S. 329,
    Senator Murphy's bill to designate portions of the Farmington
    River and Salmon Brook in Connecticut as wild and scenic
    rivers.
        We will update the record on these four bills. The
    remaining six bills are new to the Subcommittee.
        S. 873 is another bill from Senator Murkowski, to name the
    existing wilderness inside Lake Clark National Park and
    Preserve in Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area.
    Senator Murkowski cannot be here today, so we will include her
    written statement on both of her bills in the hearing record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. We have Senators McCain and Flake's bill,
    S. 782, that will require the Department of the Interior to
    produce a bison management plan at Grand Canyon National Park
    within six months. This plan would require using skilled,
    authorized volunteer hunters to help cull the herd. This herd
    is growing unconstrained and is causing extensive resource
    damage inside the park.
        We have three authorizations for special resource studies.
    S. 521 was introduced by Senator Cardin to study President
    Street Station in Baltimore, the oldest surviving, big city
    railroad terminal with ties to the Civil War and the
    Underground Railroad. S. 610, another bill introduced by
    Senator Cardin, is a proposal to study P. S. 103, the Public
    Elementary School that Thurgood Marshall attended. And S. 1483,
    Senator Alexander's bill, is a proposal to study the James K.
    Polk home, the only existing home of our 11th President.
        Finally we have S. 403, introduced by Senator Klobuchar
    along with Senators Stabenow, Sanders, and Franken as co-
    sponsors. This bill would reroute a portion of the North County
    National Scenic Trail and extend it to connect with the
    Appalachian Trail.
        We have one witness today, Mr. Victor Knox, Associate
    Director of the National Park Service for Park Planning,
    Facilities and Lands. I would like to thank Mr. Knox for being
    with us, but first let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator
    Heinrich, for his remarks.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, RANKING MEMBER AND A U.S.
                        SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Since this is the first hearing of the National Parks
    Subcommittee this Congress I would first start by
    congratulating you on becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee. I
    understand that this Subcommittee has historically had a very
    busy legislative work load, and since next year will mark the
    100th anniversary of the National Park Service, I believe the
    upcoming centennial will likely ensure even more attention to
    National Park-related legislation.
        This is also an important year for New Mexico's National
    Parks with the Valles Caldera National Preserve and the
    Manhattan Project National Historic Park established in
    December of last year.
        Overseeing the process of getting those and the other new
    units around the country organized and open to the public will
    be an essential task for this Subcommittee. I look forward to
    working with you on policies and programs that can help the
    Park Service not only address its current challenges but also
    enable it to better serve its mission of protecting our
    natural, cultural, and historic national treasures and
    providing for the enjoyment for future generations.
        Moving legislation through the Senate is never easy these
    days, and the key to dealing with bills and issues we are
    likely to consider will be to develop solutions that can get
    broad, bipartisan support that will be necessary for those to
    move through the Senate and ultimately get enacted into law.
        Turning to the bills on today's agenda my sense is that
    many of the bills are relatively non-controversial and several
    were previously considered by the Committee last Congress.
        I know the Administration has raised concerns with a couple
    of the bills so those may require some additional discussion,
    but I certainly look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,
    to try and get the bills on today's agenda ready for Full
    Committee consideration as soon as possible. And I see we have
    our colleague from Connecticut.
        Senator Cassidy. Are there any Senators who would like to
    make a short statement on their legislation today?
        Senator Alexander?

     STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Alexander. Well thanks, Senator Cassidy. I have two
    pieces, but let me mention one.
        My legislation would authorize the Park Service to take the
    next step to determine whether it ought to make the James K.
    Polk home in Columbia, Tennessee, a part of the National Park
    Service. Seventeen U.S. Presidents have homes that are operated
    by the National Park Service. This is the only home of
    President Polk, and while they are a dedicated group of
    individuals in Columbia which is a small town who support it,
    it is difficult for them to give it the kind of support it
    deserves.
        We talk a lot about science and math and the importance of
    it, but the worse score our high school seniors have in America
    is on United States History. I cannot think of a better way to
    encourage the study of United States History and what it means
    to be an American than to make sure that our Presidential homes
    are properly cared for.
        President Polk was listed on Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s poll
    of Historians 1996 as the ninth greatest President, ahead of
    Eisenhower, John Adams, Kennedy, Cleveland, Lyndon Johnson, and
    a number of others, so he served one term. He said he would do
    four things. He did all four and went home and died, and that
    was at a relatively young age. He presided over the annexation
    of Texas, fought in the Mexican War, expanded the United States
    to Oregon, and acquired California. That is a lot to do in four
    years, so I will be making the argument when the times comes
    that President Polk's home needs to be recognized because of
    his greatness and because of its usefulness as to helping us
    remind ourselves of what it means to be an American.
        Thank you for the time.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Warren, do you care to make a
    short statement?
        Senator Warren. No, I am good. I am ready to get to our
    witness.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay. All member statements will be added
    to the hearing record.
        We will now turn to Senator Murphy, who has joined us for
    his remarks.
        Senator Murphy, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, U.S. SENATOR, STATE OF
                              CONNECTICUT

        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Heinrich, other members of the Committee. Thank you for having
    me here today.
        Senator Alexander, I will just note that in college I wrote
    a 20-page research paper on why James K. Polk was the most
    underrated President. I will be happy, if I can figure out a
    way to get my Apple 2E computer to work again, to print that
    off for you for your efforts. [Laughter.]
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here to testify, as
    you mentioned, on a bill that this Committee has considered
    before. I thank the Committee and all the staff for its work on
    the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic
    River Act.
        The journey to obtain the designation began over a decade
    ago when local residents in the towns of Avon, Bloomfield,
    Burlington, Canton, East Granby, Farmington, Granby, Hartland,
    Simsbury, and Winsor, Connecticut came together to form a
    unique partnership to protect this river. It is my hope that
    with your help the amazing, community-driven work that has been
    done can be finally endorsed this year through a Federal
    designation for the Lower Farmington River and the Salmon
    Brook.
        There really is an amazing ecological, recreational and
    historic story to tell about this stretch of river. I just want
    to briefly mention a few of the highlights.
        Ecologically this is a really important stretch of river.
    For those of you who care about shellfish, and we care a lot
    about them in the Northeast, this is the only known river to
    support all 12 native New England, freshwater mussel species,
    including the only Federally-endangered freshwater mussel that
    occurs in New England.
        It also has some of the highest water quality in all of
    Connecticut, so it provides excellent fishing for Brown Trout,
    Brook Trout and Salmon. Many fishermen will tell you that cold
    water trout fisheries of the Salmon Brook provide some of the
    most outstanding opportunities for angling anywhere in the
    Northeast.
        Recreationally the Tariffville Gorge in Simsbury, which is
    part of this stretch of river as well as in East Granby,
    provides premier whitewater paddling and has been the location
    for world-class paddling competitions.
        It is also one of the very few rivers in the East where
    there are year round paddling opportunities. The Tariffville
    Whitewater Triple Crown Challenge just wrapped up a few weeks
    ago, and this event has attracted its competitors from all
    around the world including U.S. Olympic team members.
        Historically, this river is also pretty astounding as well.
    Over 100 prehistoric archeological sites have been discovered
    to date in the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook
    corridors. It has been continuously occupied, and this is
    really remarkable. It has been continuously occupied by human
    settlement for over 11,000 years, and most recently of those
    11,000 years, in the 1800's, it was one of the most active
    sites of the Underground Railroad. Farmington was referred to
    as the Grand Central Station of the Railroad because of its
    robust abolitionist activities.
        This bill began back in the mid-2000's when my predecessor
    in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson,
    helped enact legislation that initiated the study on which this
    present bill is based. The study was completed in 2011, and it
    confirmed the suitability of designating the Lower Farmington
    River and Salmon Brook as wild and scenic.
        This is also the product of these ten towns coming
    together. There are Republican and Democratic local
    administrations in all of these towns. They all support it. It
    does not represent the Federal Government stepping in to manage
    the river, rather the bill serves to complement the independent
    work of a group of Connecticut communities that are simply
    looking for a committed partner at the Federal level.
        To my mind this bill really embodies what Congress should
    be doing. We are listening to the needs of local residents, and
    we are supporting their work. It is a model that has worked
    elsewhere in the state. In fact, the upper 14-mile portion of
    the Farmington River was designated as wild and scenic in 1994,
    so we already have Federal designation on the upper portion of
    this river. This is seeking designation for the lower portion
    as well.
        Finally, since last year's hearing on the bill, I have
    worked very closely with the Park Service and one specific dam
    operator along the river to craft an amendment that ensures the
    interest of all stakeholders, the towns and the companies who
    own property along the river so that they are all taken into
    account. So we are here today with full support from all of the
    stakeholders for this underlying bill and the amendments.
        During last year's hearing on the legislation the National
    Park Service spoke positively about the bill but stopped short
    of endorsing it because the Park Service study report had not
    been completed. The study is now complete, and I hope that you
    will hear today endorsement for this bill.
        Again, I thank the Committee for all of its work on this
    bill. This is the second time before you. I hope that this is a
    fairly non-controversial measure.
        As I said, we have really wonderful, broad, bipartisan
    support for this bill. All of the stakeholders are behind it
    given the fact that the upper portion of the river has already
    gotten this designation. Hopefully it makes this bill even
    easier.
        Thank you for your time.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Murphy, and thanks for
    all of your hard work showing how it should be done.
        We have been joined by Senator Flake, who is a member of
    the Full Committee. Senator Flake, would you like to make a
    comment on your bills?

        STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

        Senator Flake. Yes, just a couple of moments, thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to do this.
        There are three pieces of legislation on today's agenda
    that I will very briefly address.
        S. 145, the National Park Access Act. I want to thank the
    Ranking Member, Senator Heinrich, for co-sponsoring that. It is
    sometimes called the reimbursement bill. It just requires that
    the Park Service reimburse the state who fronted the money when
    there was a shut down. The Federal Government got a windfall
    that was never returned to the states. This passed by voice
    vote last Congress. It should be non-controversial. I hope that
    we can get that done.
        The second one is the National Park Access and Public Land
    Guarantee Act. This would simply require the Secretary of
    Interior or the Federal agencies to enter into agreements with
    State agencies or governments if there is another shut down. We
    all hope there is not another shut down, but if there is one,
    we do not want the states to pay the price. The last time there
    was one it took the Federal agencies an undue amount of time to
    actually agree to enter into an agreement and allow these parks
    to remain open. This would simply require them to move more
    swiftly to do that.
        The third one is the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act.
    This, as pointed out before, is a big problem in Grand Canyon
    Park. You have these cattalo or beefalo. These hybrid or cross-
    bred buffalo that migrated into the park are really wreaking
    havoc, and we have asked the Park Service to come up with a
    plan to deal with them. They said more than a year ago they
    would come up with a plan, but they have not finished it yet.
    If they do it will be by next year, and then it will likely be
    very slowly implemented. This bill would simply allow them to
    enter into agreements with licensed, skilled volunteers who
    would assist in lethal culling. This is similar to legislation
    that was introduced by former Senator Mark Udall with regard to
    elk herds in other National Parks. It can be done more quickly
    and certainly help with the situation. The environmental
    degradation is really bad, and we need to move ahead with that.
    This is a bill that has been introduced by Senator McCain and
    myself. Let me just ask unanimous consent to enter some letters
    from outside groups to these bills in support for S. 145, S.
    146, letters from the American Hotel and Lodging Association
    supporting it, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, also the Arizona
    Game and Fish Commission, the Congressional Sportsmen's
    Foundation, Safari Club International, and the Arizona
    Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation is supporting S. 782.
        [The information referred to follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. It is time to hear from our witness. Mr.
    Knox is the Associate Director of the National Park Service. At
    the end of his testimony we will begin questioning. Your full
    written testimony will be made part of the hearing record.
    Please keep your statement to five minutes so that we will have
    time for questions.
        Mr. Knox, please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING,
    FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman and Senator Heinrich, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Knox, I just want to point out to our
    colleague that if he does need to go then now would be an
    appropriate time. You do not need to sit through the entire
    hearing. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Knox.
        Senator Alexander. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
    Senator Murphy for his bipartisan gesture which I assume
    amounts to a co-sponsor of my bill about President Polk.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before this Subcommittee to present the Department of
    Interior's views on the ten bills on today's agenda. I would
    like to submit our full statement on each of these bills for
    the record and summarize in my oral statement the Department's
    views.
        S. 145 requires the National Park Service to reimburse each
    state that provided funds to open and temporarily operate units
    of the National Park system in October 2013 when there was a
    lapse in appropriations for most Federal Government activities.
    The National Park Service does not have the authority to
    reimburse the states for the approximately $2 million in
    donated funds that were expended. S. 145 would provide that
    authority.
        S. 146 would require the Secretaries of Interior and
    Agriculture to enter into agreements with states or their
    political subdivisions to accept funds to open National Park
    units, National Wildlife Refuges, Bureau of Land Management
    public lands and National Forests during a government shut down
    and provide for reimbursement to the states. The Department
    strongly opposes Senate 146. We disagree with the idea of
    enacting laws to lessen the impact of a future government shut
    down for a few select governmental activities rather than
    protecting all such activities by avoiding a future lapse in
    appropriations.
        S. 319 would designate Mount McKinley in the State of
    Alaska as Mount Denali. The National Park Service appreciates
    the long history and public interest for both the name Mount
    McKinley and the traditional Athabaskan name, Denali. The
    Department respects the choice made by this legislation and
    does not object to S. 319.
        S. 329 would designate 35 miles of the Farmington River and
    the entire 26 miles of its major tributary, Salmon Brook, as
    part of the wild and scenic rivers system. The Department
    supports enactment of S. 329 with an amendment.
        S. 403 would revise the route of the North Country National
    Scenic Trail in Northeastern Minnesota and extend the trail
    beyond its current terminus in New York eastward into Vermont
    increasing the total length of the trail for approximately
    4,000 miles to approximately 4,600 miles. The Department
    supports enactment of S. 403.
        S. 521 and S. 610 would authorize special resource studies
    of two sites in Baltimore--President Street Station, which is a
    historic train station associated with the 1861 Baltimore
    riots, and Public School 103 and other resources that relate to
    the early life of Thurgood Marshall. The Department supports
    enactment of these two bills and recommends technical
    amendments to S. 521.
        S. 782 would direct the Secretary of Interior to publish a
    Bison Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park within 180
    days of enactment which must include culling of bison by
    skilled, public volunteers and allow public volunteers to
    remove a full bison harvested from the park. The Department
    opposes S. 782 because it would disrupt an ongoing planning
    effort for managing bison at Grand Canyon National Park. And
    further, it may cause confusion about the National Park
    Service's authorities to manage wildlife populations through a
    variety of means including the use of skilled volunteers.
        S. 873 would designate the approximately 2.6 million acres
    of national wilderness preservation system located within Lake
    Clark National Park and Preserve as the J. S. Hammond
    Wilderness Area. The Department supports enactment of S. 873.
        S. 1483 would authorize a special resource study of the
    James Knox Polk home in Columbia, Tennessee. The Department
    supports enactment of this legislation with amendments.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Knox.
        Now we will begin questioning. Senator Heinrich and I will
    defer our questions until after others go. Senator Alexander
    will go first and then Senator Warren.
        Senator Alexander. Well thanks, Senator Cassidy. That is
    very generous of you and Senator Heinrich.
        I am glad to see you and Senator Warren in different seats
    than I usually see you in our Committee.
        Mr. Knox, I am delighted that the Department supports
    legislation to take the next step in making President Polk's
    home part of the National Park Service.
        I mentioned earlier how important President Polk was in our
    history and how interesting he is. He kept a diary every night
    at the White House, and this was in the 1840's or so. I have
    read it all the way through. He must have written for an hour,
    an hour and a half at night. It is a fascinating thing, I mean,
    as I mentioned to you earlier, it would say 9 p.m., Senator
    Houston (that would be Sam Houston) showed up for an interview
    and stayed two and a half hours with some other Senator talking
    to the President. Then I guess he wrote this all down later
    after that by candlelight.
        He had two secretaries. That was his whole staff. He would
    spend the morning interviewing people who wanted jobs. If there
    was a treaty he had to read it, and if there was a message to
    the Senate, he had to write it.
        He spent four years, and as I said, he had four major
    objectives and he accomplished them all basically expanding the
    United States all the way to Texas, Oregon, and California.
        But one other thing he did was this. He signed the bill
    that created the Department of Interior, the agency that
    includes the National Park system. Now my question is don't you
    think it would be appropriate for the Presidential home of the
    President who created the Department of Interior, the home of
    the National Park Service, to be managed by the National Park
    Service?
        Mr. Knox. Senator, President Polk was a fascinating man,
    and it's really interesting to think about that time in our
    nation's history and what the job of the President was. I mean,
    as compared to now. So it's fascinating to hear you talk about
    that.
        We definitely support moving forward with this study which
    is really the next step in potential park designation, and we
    think that's the right thing to do to complete the study and
    make a clear recommendation to this Committee and to the
    Congress on whether it should be designated a unit of the
    National Park system.
        Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you. How long will it take to
    complete a special resource study of this sort?
        Mr. Knox. These studies, I think, our average length to
    complete them is about three years.
        Senator Alexander. About three years?
        Mr. Knox. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Anything we can do to help make it
    easier for you to get that done more rapidly?
        Mr. Knox. Well as is in our full testimony, I don't know if
    this makes it easier, but as is in our full testimony we have
    about 33, a backlog of about 33 study bills that the Congress
    has passed that we're working on or beginning to work on. And
    we definitely want to get those done first and then begin
    working on any new bills.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I would hope that you would give
    as much priority as you can to this home because, as I
    mentioned, according to Arthur Schlesinger survey of
    historians, Polk was ranked ninth among the presidents, among
    the near greats.
        The other thing to consider is that if the Park Service
    were to enter into this kind of recommendation or recommend
    that the Government do it, there is a dedicated group of
    citizens in Columbia who support the home. They are not able to
    support it in the way Monticello or the Hermitage are, but they
    support it. With a partnership between the Park Service and
    this group of volunteers, I think, that the home, this home
    south of Nashville, would be a fascinating place and an
    educational source to help children and adults remember that
    important part of American history.
        So I thank you for coming, and I appreciate the
    Department's work to take the first step. This would be the
    second step, and I hope you will decide to recommend that
    President Polk be remembered in this way.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Alexander, thank you.
        How many presidents hail from Tennessee?
        Senator Alexander. Well we claim three, Jackson, Polk and
    Andrew Johnson.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        Senator Alexander. Others have tried. [Laughter.]
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Warren?
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my
    congratulations for your ascending to the Chairmanship of the
    Subcommittee, and I am looking forward to working with you.
        Mr. Knox, I am really glad that you are here today, because
    I am a big believer in the work that your agency does.
        I know that the big national parks out West get most of the
    attention but my husband, Bruce, and I are avid hikers and we
    know how lucky we are to be able to explore the many areas
    within Massachusetts that your agency supports. Bruce and I
    just walked Cape Cod National Seashore on Saturday, and we live
    within walking distance of Longfellow House and General
    Washington's headquarters which are also managed by the Park
    Service.
        Massachusetts has some great national parks, and today I
    came here because I wanted to talk to you about the Taunton
    River. After years of hard work by local Massachusetts'
    communities and by Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Ted
    Kennedy, in 2009 the Taunton River was named a wild and scenic
    river. Now that is a term of art, not just descriptive, and
    this wild and scenic designation helps preserve our rich
    colonial history. It protects a uniquely diverse ecosystem
    throughout its entire 40 miles.
        The National Park Service describes the river as, ``Perhaps
    the most diverse and intact coastal ravine ecosystem in
    Southern New England and the largest freshwater contributor to
    the Narragansett Bay estuary in Rhode Island.'' In other words,
    it is very important to us in Massachusetts. It is very
    important in the region, and we think that makes it important
    to the country.
        Unfortunately, as Congressman Joe Kennedy recently brought
    to the National Park Service's attention, the average wild and
    scenic river managed by the Park Service received four times as
    much funding as the Taunton River. As you know, Federal support
    for wild and scenic rivers is critical to leverage other
    supports of funding that we work on. So I am concerned about
    the impact of these unfair funding levels on the Taunton River.
        Mr. Knox, I know of no reason that the Taunton River would
    receive such an inequitable level of Federal funding. I just
    want to ask you if you would commit to working with me to
    ensure that the Taunton River receives adequate support in the
    future.
        Mr. Knox. Senator Warren, I'm aware that in the President's
    budget request for FY'16 that's before the Congress there is
    some differences in the funding levels for the wild and scenic
    rivers. That is now with the Congress, and certainly Congress
    gets to decide what to do with the President's proposal.
        I am not aware of the reasons for those differences, and so
    I certainly could respond back to you with information on
    that.We certainly would look forward to working with you on the
    President's FY'17 proposal to see if that could be rectified.
        Senator Warren. Good. As I say, look, I am a supporter of
    what you do. I want to see us do adequate funding for the wild
    and scenic rivers for the other parts of the work of the Park
    Service, but I also want to make sure that the money that is
    allocated to wild and scenic rivers is distributed equitably.
        I know that in a case like this we are talking about very
    modest amounts of money, but it would make a big difference in
    communities like Fall River and Somerset and Taunton and others
    throughout the region.
        So I truly appreciate the great work that you and your
    agency have done in Massachusetts and across the country. I
    look forward to working with you to make sure that the natural
    beauty of the Taunton River remains protected for generations
    to come. I hope that we can work on that.
        Mr. Knox. Great.
        Senator Warren. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Warren.
        Senator Daines?
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Knox, in my home state of Montana there is a drainage
    in the Beartooth Mountains as part of the Absaroka Beartooth
    Wilderness. In fact I spent a lot of days growing up
    backpacking all over that great part of my state. That
    drainage, called the East Rosebud, is especially worthy of a
    wild and scenic designation. In fact, protection of the East
    Rosebud Creek is unanimously supported by landowners living
    adjacent to the designation and up through the drainage. It is
    really hard to find a more unanimously supported protection
    bill in Montana.
        In the House I introduced a bill to protect this drainage
    that reflects similar concepts as reflected in Senator Murphy's
    wild and scenic designation of the Farmington River, like
    protecting private property and other activities. I plan to
    reintroduce this bill in the Senate along with Senator Tester
    and then Representative Zinke in the House will be doing the
    same.
        Mr. Knox, I am interested to hear your thoughts on the
    importance of partnering with states and local governments like
    the cooperative agreements authorized in the Murphy bill. How
    do these cooperative agreements help to effectively manage the
    river segments protected under the act?
        Mr. Knox. So Senator, the cooperative agreements similar
    to, for the Farmington and Salmon Brook that have been put in
    place really reflect the views of the communities along the
    river. And as you can imagine along Farmington and the Salmon
    Brook there are a number of communities.
        Senator Murphy talked about ten different communities that
    are part of that partnership, and it reflects their views on
    the management of the river while protecting its values for
    recreation, you know, the scenic values of the river and
    preserving those natural resources.
        So it's really the Federal Government helping those local
    communities protect what's important to them.
        Senator Daines. I was intrigued in looking a little more
    into that proposed designation, the protections of the
    operation of that Rainbow Dam that is referenced. Where is the
    Rainbow Dam? I am not familiar with that area. I could tell you
    about the East Rosebud in Montana, I backpacked all over that
    part of the country, but I do not know about Senator Murphy's
    area. Where is the Rainbow Dam located in relation to the river
    segments that are protected under the act?
        Mr. Knox. So, Senator, it's along the lower Farmington
    River, and it's below where the Salmon Brook comes into the
    Lower Farmington River so that--and it's I don't know how many
    miles, probably ten miles or so, upstream of the Connecticut
    River.
        Senator Daines. And would it be part of the wild and scenic
    designation? Is it in that?
        Mr. Knox. It is not. It's excluded from the designation.
        Senator Daines. Okay, but how far away is that from where
    the wild and scenic designation is?
        Mr. Knox. Well, there's an exclusion area that's maybe five
    miles, four or five miles long.
        Senator Daines. Okay, what protects that area where the dam
    is located?
        Mr. Knox. And it's protected--correct. And then the wild
    and scenic river extends on either side of the exclusion area.
        Senator Daines. Okay, great, good. I yield back my time.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Senator Daines, is the East Rosebud, is
    that Forest Service or is that Park Service?
        Senator Daines. The Forest Service.
        Senator Heinrich. I look forward to working with you on
    that.
        Mr. Knox, I wanted to ask you a related question that
    Senator Daines brought up regarding S. 329. In the Farmington
    wild and scenic river designation you have suggested that the
    bill should include language making clear that any future
    changes to the operation of that Rainbow Dam include protection
    for the wild and scenic river's values.
        I wanted to ask do you agree that as it is presently
    configured that the operation of the dam and the reservoir is
    compatible with this designation? And just to make sure I
    understand your perspective, I wanted to ask is the concern
    that, if the dam were to be expanded at some point or operation
    changed in a way that reduced in stream flows that that would
    somehow, that that would impact adversely the wild and scenic
    river?
        Mr. Knox. Senator, I might have to get back to you on some
    of the specifics of your question. But in general the answer is
    your understanding is correct that the current operations are
    compatible with the wild and scenic values and that future
    changes could somehow affect the flow regimes or whatever in
    the river that would change those values and degrade those
    values.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay, thank you.
        On S. 1483, the James Polk home study, my understanding is
    that the Polk home is currently owned by the State of Tennessee
    and is presently administered as a historic site. So that its
    use, if included in the park system, would essentially be
    unchanged. Doesn't your standard study criteria under the
    General Authorities Act allow you to address issues that would
    be relevant to the potential park designation without requiring
    you to spend time analyzing additional issues not directly
    related to suitability? Because there is a whole list of
    things.
        Mr. Knox. I'm not sure I completely understand the
    question, but we have four criteria. One is national
    significance. The second is----
        Senator Heinrich. I think as the actual bill is constructed
    there are a number of things required of you to analyze that
    are not directly related to suitability or feasibility or to
    the four standard criteria that the Park Service looks at.
        Mr. Knox. That's correct. The bill as written requires us
    to look at its impact on energy production and transmission. It
    requires us to look at would it impact the authority of the
    state or local governments to manage local properties.
        Senator Heinrich. I am just saying in a case like this
    where clearly the use is not really changing from, so much as
    the landlord, are you still required to do that kind of
    duplicative analysis?
        Mr. Knox. Well, our position is that additional analysis is
    unnecessary to study the significance and appropriateness of
    this home being added as a unit of the National Park system and
    that it could be quite complex and require, you know, Senator
    Alexander was concerned about the length of time it would take.
    It could take much more time and more money to complete that
    additional analysis.
        Senator Heinrich. Great.
        I am going to leave you with one more question then I will
    wait until the second round to get into a little bit more
    detail. Regarding S. 782, the Grand Canyon Bison Management
    bill, I just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.
    Does the Park Service agree that the bison herd is damaging
    park resources in Grand Canyon National Park?
        Mr. Knox. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. Great. And that it is too large and needs
    to be reduced?
        Mr. Knox. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay.
        I will get to my second round and go into a little bit more
    detail on that.
        Mr. Knox. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich. Thanks.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Flake?
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Heinrich,
    thank you for letting me barge in on this Subcommittee.
        Let me just followup with regard to the Grand Canyon Bison
    Management Act. You mentioned in your testimony that the
    objection to the bill is that the 180-day timeframe would
    complicate public engagement efforts that the National Park
    Service is going through. Is that correct?
        Mr. Knox. Yes, Senator.
        We're underway with the plan. We hope to--we plan to
    release the Bison Management Plan for public review early in
    2016. Passage of this bill would, you know, change how we're
    working on the plan significantly, and we think we're moving
    along and can bring that forward and get public comment early
    next year.
        Senator Flake. There were public meetings held in May 2014,
    I believe. Has there been any public engagement since that
    time?
        Mr. Knox. I'm not sure of the details of public engagement
    since then. We did public scoping back in 2014 which is
    getting, you know, kind of general ideas on the issue from the
    public and took that to begin developing the alternatives for
    the plan.
        Senator Flake. Alright.
        It was a little unclear. I guess you are saying early in
    2016 the plan will be ready because it said winter of 2016. We
    do not know if that means late 2015 or winter, a year later,
    December 2016 or January of 2016.
        You are saying early 2016 which would mean January?
        Mr. Knox. Well I'm not sure January, but sometime in the
    winter months of early 2016.
        Senator Flake. One thing brought up as well is perhaps the
    cost to this. I know we do use sharp shooters to cull white-
    tailed deer in parks in the U.S., in the Eastern U.S., and we
    cull elk on Channel Island. Do you know how much the Park
    Service pays for that kind of arrangement?
        Mr. Knox. No, Senator, I don't but I could get you that
    information.
        Senator Flake. Okay. Alright. Well that would be nice in
    terms of comparative cost to see if that is really a concern.
        Senator Flake. You explain in your testimony that in both
    the Rocky Mountain National Park and the Theodore Roosevelt
    National Park the Park Service uses skilled volunteers to cull
    the elk population there. What type of NEPA instrument was used
    in each of these cases? How long did it take for the Park
    Service to develop these plans?
        Mr. Knox. My understanding is they're both EIS documents. I
    don't know the length of time.
        Senator Flake. Alright.
        Mr. Knox. I'll have to get back to you on that.
        Senator Flake. Alright.
        Our concern is, this is a problem now. It is going to be a
    growing problem, and the longer we go here when it takes two
    and a half years or so total to develop a plan and all we have
    is well, maybe, it will be done or we think it will be done
    early 2016.
        In Yellowstone Park, I think, there are issues with bison
    there. This is one of the posters and pamphlets you are giving
    out to people saying ``Keep your Distance'' because the issues
    there do not approach wildlife including bison here.
        Now I do not know if the beefalo or the hybrid version is
    any more docile, but we might be approaching issues here if we
    do not hurry up. I would just encourage us to move ahead in
    this area more quickly.
        I recognize the opposition of the bill and the timeframe.
    We would not feel a need to put a timeframe if we were moving
    ahead more expeditiously, and it just seems to be taking far
    too much time here.
        With regard to one of the other bills very quickly, the
    National Park Access Act. You said that you do not want to
    shield some parts of the Federal Government from the effects of
    a shut down. We do not want to shut down. Many of us were not
    in favor of any kind of shut down. But in case it does happen,
    if a state or local government is willing to fund these
    activities that the Park Service is undertaking, I would hope
    that we would work with them quickly. That is all we are trying
    to do here. While the Interior Department waited a week or two
    that cost Arizona a significant amount of money. Had the
    decision been made more quickly to work with the state and to
    move ahead it would have been better for the parks and
    certainly better for the population in Arizona. So that is why
    we feel the need to offer this legislation.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell?
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Knox, I know we do not have any bills on the agenda
    regarding this, but I know you are heading up the National Park
    Service team on the implementation of the Manhattan Project. So
    I just wanted to ask about that. If you could tell me if you
    have made any decisions about siting the park headquarters and
    whether Hanford is still under consideration and also about,
    you know, just decisions--well, answer the first question and I
    will get to the second question.
        Mr. Knox. Well Senator, first of all, I want to thank you
    for championing the bill that created the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park. I have had the great pleasure of
    visiting with the National Park Service team, the communities
    of Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford and saw the huge public
    support, local support, for that park in each of those
    communities.
        And each of those resources, each of those areas has a
    different part of the story to tell, and each is equally
    important. We have made no decision at this point on location
    of a headquarters. And we're probably, you know, a ways away
    from making those organizational decisions.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        Mr. Knox. But I would like to commit to you, Senator, that
    we would look at the relatively equal staffing levels, equal
    importance in each of the communities because each have a
    clearly important part of the story.
        Senator Cantwell. There are many sites within the Manhattan
    Project that help us tell the story, like the high school
    building and the construction camp and the White Bluffs, so
    hopefully you are taking all that into consideration in making
    decisions about what should be included?
        Mr. Knox. Yes, Senator.
        The legislation that was passed requires Hanford B reactor
    to be part of this new national historical park and then
    there's a number of properties at all the other, all three
    sites, that are eligible to be within the boundary, both within
    the boundary of the park.
        And we're taking--working with the Department of Energy for
    all the DOE-administered areas to take a hard look at which of
    those sites could, should be part of the park. And they would
    be included in the agreement that we are working with, with the
    Department of Energy and that we hope to have out for public
    comment in the next month or so.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, you can see from visiting the site
    that transportation through the DOE's site and these facilities
    is an issue. We just have to figure this out and get it right
    so that people can have access because obviously it is a
    beautiful area, and there is a story to be told.
        Mr. Knox. Absolutely.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Several points. Last year we had an unfortunate experience
    at Acadia National Park in Maine where the concessionaire who
    had had the concession there for something like 80 years, a
    local company, lost out in the bidding process. It is okay to
    lose in a bidding process, but we found, to our astonishment
    afterwards, and I discussed this with several of your people,
    that there was no consideration given whatsoever to prior
    performance or quality of performance.
        It would be like going into a car dealer and the only
    question is price, not quality or how well it drove or what its
    record of performance was. I am astonished that the process got
    that far without somebody saying well, how people did in the
    past should be relevant in considering their bid because what
    you end up with is a large national company that is very good
    at bidding and a small, local company that is very good at
    performing. Performance should be a factor.
        I would urge you, if this is something that needs a
    legislative fix, based upon the statute in 1998, let us know.
    Otherwise I hope you will modify your procedures in such a way
    as to be able to do the common sense thing which is look at
    both value, performance and price of when you are analyzing
    these because this was a big disruption in Maine. Lots of local
    jobs went away, and it was a real problem and frankly it was a
    black eye for the Park Service.
        Do you know anything about this process?
        Mr. Knox. Senator, I don't. I do know something about the
    concession process, but I don't know specifics on Acadia.
        Senator King. I do not expect you to speak specifically,
    but I am talking about the concession process and how the
    applicants are judged.
        Mr. Knox. Yes, it should be based on their financial
    capability, their quality of their--experience providing
    quality operations and the proposal that they put back to the
    National Park Service in terms of franchise fee returned to the
    National Park Service. And other considerations depending on
    each prospectus has different issues. Sometimes it's
    environmental concerns that they provide additional protection
    of the environment. So there's a number of criteria that each
    operation is judged based on.
        Senator King. I just hope you will consider this issue
    because we had a specific discussion. As I recall it was in
    this room with your people, and they said well, no, past
    performance of the current incumbent is not a factor in the
    scoring. I hope you would correct that. I will be following up.
    Actually you will be getting a letter from me, or your office
    will, very shortly.
        The second question is about revenues and fees. I proudly
    carry my senior pass which gets me into any National Park in
    the country for the rest of my life. It can be purchased at the
    age of 62, and the total cost for a lifetime pass to every
    National Park is $10. Now I am all for discounts for seniors
    and I like getting this for $10, but it strikes me that that is
    not fair to the taxpayers of the country who have to make up
    the difference. I do not know whether it should be $40 or $50
    or some other number, but $10 struck me as a very low fee for a
    lifetime pass for somebody that hopes to live another 30 years
    and really loves going to the National Parks. I just commend
    that to you for your consideration.
        Another issue along those lines that we have observed in
    Maine is where and how the fees are collected. I think that is
    worth a review because my sense is we are leaving a lot of
    money on the table, particularly in parks that have multiple
    entrances. We ought to be in a place where you can pay online,
    where you have an app that you can wave it as you go in that
    would expedite the lines. It would be more sure of getting the
    accurate payment and those kinds of things.
        I talked to Secretary Jewell about this. When you go to the
    app store for National Parks, you get either a commercial app
    or Australia National Parks. I think we ought to have a good
    app that you could use around the country, put a credit card
    number on it. It would pay your fee wherever you went, and we
    would again be collecting more revenues that would offset the
    shortfall for maintenance and other purposes.
        So those are two suggestions. It may not be apparent, but I
    am a huge supporter of the National Parks. I think it is one of
    the great, you know, Ken Burns said America's best idea,
    wonderful idea. My wife and I were at Yosemite a few months
    ago, so I want to do all I can to help you. But I think that
    there has to be a realization that the budget situation here is
    not likely to improve anytime soon, and therefore, you have to
    be thinking of creative ways to generate your own revenues
    without making it prohibitive and without making it so people
    cannot enjoy the parks but to be sure that people who want to
    and are willing to pay have a way to do so.
        So, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator King.
        I will ask my questions now.
        Mr. Knox, Senate bills S. 521, S. 610, and S. 1483
    authorize the National Park Service to conduct special resource
    studies, one purpose to determine the suitability, feasibility
    of designating study areas as a unit of the National Park
    Service. Part of that analysis is whether the park can be
    managed at a reasonable cost.
        Can you tell us what goes into making the determination to
    recommend a new park? For example, do you consider cost of
    managing the units you already have in the system, existing
    maintenance backlog and if you divert more resources to a new
    park can you maintain current responsibilities?
        Mr. Knox. Yes, Senator, you're speaking about the
    feasibility criteria, one of four criteria for studying a new
    unit.
        Senator Cassidy. Correct.
        Mr. Knox. What we generally look at there is--are the
    resources within, that are within that proposed area? Are they
    co-located where they could be reasonably managed
    operationally? What would be the cost if there's land
    acquisition involved, what would be the cost of acquiring land
    for that new unit? We look at----
        Senator Cassidy. Is there a metric involved? What is
    considered a reasonable cost?
        Mr. Knox. We basically compare the proposed unit to similar
    units that are within the National Park System and----
        Senator Cassidy. Now this presupposes that you will be
    getting more money every year because presumably your budget is
    for the parks you currently manage. So it presupposes some
    increase unless you can co-locate, it is so co-located, that
    you are at marginal cost or minimal. Is that a fair statement?
        Mr. Knox. That is correct.
        Senator Cassidy. Has your budget been increasing? I say
    this because I am all for expanding our Park Service, but we
    have to live within our means, as Senator King pointed out. So
    in your calculations do you say, okay, it is a reasonable cost
    plus we expect our budget to grow, but if our budget does not
    grow despite being a reasonable cost, it does not happen?
        Mr. Knox. Well we see our job as recommending whether it's
    an appropriate unit for the National Park System based on the
    historical and natural resource significance of those resources
    that are within the unit. It wouldn't be extraordinarily
    expensive as compared to existing units or difficult to manage
    compared to existing units of the National Park System. Is
    there someone else that could do or is already doing or----
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, I get that.
        Mr. Knox. Or could do a good job?
        Senator Cassidy. But you have to project your budget for
    the coming year. When you project your budget for the coming
    year what if you know your budget is going to be tight, again
    as Senator King pointed out. The budgets will be tight. Would
    something which would otherwise be recommended to be considered
    a national park not be recommended because of the overall
    budget process? I am just curious.
        Mr. Knox. Well, we make the recommendation based on is it
    an appropriate unit of the National Park System and Congress
    gets to make the decision on designation.
        Senator Cassidy. I see.
        So, I guess what I am trying to get, as an authorizer and
    appropriator, if there is a portfolio you have. You can expand
    that portfolio ad infinitum if there is infinite resources.
    But, are you prohibited from viewing what our resources or you
    say, this would be appropriate. Would we have resources? I do
    not quite understand this process.
        Mr. Knox. We look at the decision on appropriate levels of
    funding for the National Park Service. That's Congress'
    decision.
        Senator Cassidy. I guess----
        Mr. Knox. And so I guess and also the decision whether to
    add units to the National Park System.
        Senator Cassidy. But are you agnostic as to what Congress
    will do and you just make the decision and if Congress wants to
    appropriate the money they do? But you may recommend to make it
    a park, but Congress does not appropriate the extra money. What
    happens then? Do you still make it a park or do you follow what
    I am saying or do you say no, Congress did not give us the
    money so we cannot designate it a park this time around?
        Mr. Knox. Well the Congress makes the designation. And if
    there's no funding, if there's no appropriation for that unit,
    we manage it on a shoestring until there are appropriations,
    generally.
        Senator Cassidy. Gotcha. How often does a study come back
    that does not recommend a study area become a unit of the Park
    system?
        Mr. Knox. We have a number of studies where we've
    recommended that the unit not be included or the property not
    be included.
        Senator Cassidy. Do you have a sense of that percent of
    studies?
        Mr. Knox. No. I can get you that number.
        Senator Cassidy. That would be great.
        Senator Cassidy. Let's go to the Grand Canyon Bison bill. I
    am not from the Grand Canyon states, but I understand why they
    are frustrated. Here you have a herd of bison trampling the
    current environment. They have become an invasive, damaging
    species, but the environmental impact study takes so long. Yet
    I think you mentioned that you can see it probably needs some
    work. It just seems like it is taking so long. Why does it take
    so long to determine that an environmental invasive species is
    harmful to the environment? Do you follow what I am saying?
    That is kind of what gives government a bad name. The obvious
    solution or an obvious conclusion takes a long time to be
    arrived at.
        Mr. Knox. Well the environmental impact statement will look
    at alternative solutions, you know, to the problem. And we want
    to get the right science to bear on that decision with the
    right solution.
        Senator Cassidy. So there may be a solution aside from
    culling. It would just be to herd them out or would there be
    some other solution besides culling?
        Again, I do not know the issue so I am asking. Is there
    another solution envisioned besides decreasing the size of the
    herd by culling?
        Mr. Knox. I'm not aware of what the other alternatives are
    so I can't tell you that specifically. And those, obviously,
    are still being developed.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        Senator Heinrich, second round?
        Senator Heinrich. You bet.
        First off, let me say, Senator Klobuchar has submitted a
    statement in support of S. 403, her North Country National
    Scenic Trail bill, which I ask unanimous consent to be included
    in the record.
        Senator Cardin has also submitted several letters in
    support of S. 521, the study of the President Street Station,
    and S. 610, the study of Thurgood Marshall Elementary School. I
    would ask that these be included in the record by unanimous
    consent.
        Senator Cassidy. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Heinrich. Let's followup a little bit on the Grand
    Canyon bill.
        The Park Service, as you know, has allowed the use of
    skilled volunteers to reduce ungulate populations, mostly elk
    and deer, and by deer I mean white-tailed deer, at a number of
    National Park System areas including at least a few National
    Parks. Are there changes to the bill's requirement that the
    Park Service use skilled volunteers at Grand Canyon that you
    would suggest to make that use more consistent with what you
    have done in other places or are you just simply asking for
    more time?
        Mr. Knox. Our concern is that the bill is picking the
    alternative solution, you know, the right solution to this
    problem, and we're in the middle of studying and trying to get
    the right science and public input to come up with what is the
    right solution to the problem. The bill goes to the solution
    before that study is completed.
        Senator Heinrich. So you do not expect any additional
    rounds of public input into the NEPA process. You think that,
    at this point, it is just a matter of coming up with a proposed
    action and finishing out that process and then having something
    in early 2016, January, February, March?
        Mr. Knox. No, it's my understanding the draft plan would be
    issued for public review in early 2016. So there would be an
    opportunity for the public to weigh in at that point. The
    public review today----
        Senator Heinrich. So you have done scoping but you have
    not----
        Mr. Knox. Correct.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay.
        Well you can imagine that we kind of have a chicken and an
    egg problem here to some degree. I mean, I think one of the
    issues is frankly we do not fund the Park Service to do all the
    things that we ask the Park Service to do. I would suggest that
    the solution to that is probably not to say National Parks are
    a bad thing and we should quit making them but to begin to take
    our own responsibilities more seriously than we have before and
    find a solution to the kind of budget caps that were imposed by
    the Budget Control Act.
        I want to ask you one last question with regard to--that
    was a commentary, that was not actually a question. So you are
    off the hook on that one.
        With respect to the headquarters for the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park, would potential co-location of
    resources with other National Park Service units, for example,
    Bandelier National Monument, be taken into consideration if
    those could produce any sort of administrative savings or other
    benefits to the overall cost of administering the new park
    headquarters?
        Mr. Knox. Yes. That's one of the factors we're considering
    in terms of what's the right organizational structure for the
    park.
        Senator Heinrich. Did the original Manhattan Project study
    call out any specific locations as ideal or suitable for the
    park headquarters?
        Mr. Knox. The ``fonzie'' on the Special Resource Study that
    was issued in 2010 recommended Los Alamos.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        That will do it for me, thank you.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator King, would you like to make any
    additional comments?
        Senator King. Yes, the first thing I want to do is fess up.
    I found a great app. [Laughter.]
        Senator King. Passports to your National Parks, and it is
    done by Eastern National, a non-for-profit partner of the
    National Park Service. So I was bully ragging you improperly.
    You cannot buy your passes on the app which I think you should
    be able to, but it is very informative and a good app. So
    congratulations. [Laughter.]
        Are you familiar with the Roosevelt Campobello
    International Park?
        Mr. Knox. Not very, you know, I know about it, but I have
    not actually been there myself.
        Senator King. Well, here is the issue. It is unique in that
    it is really not part of the National Park Service per se. It
    is an international park. I think it is the only one in the
    world established by treaty with Canada some 50 years ago. The
    problem is that the National Park Service keeps treating it as
    if it is one of their parks. They intercept the budget, and
    then it comes to Congress. I am going to see what I can do to
    make this budget come directly from the park to Congress and
    not go through the Department of the Interior. I know Senator
    Harkin worked on this for many years, and he is on the Board of
    this park. It is a little embarrassing because the Canadians
    fund their side of this. It is a 50/50 split, and they fund it
    automatically, and we quibble and change and sequester it and
    everything else.
        I feel it is a treaty obligation and should not be treated
    as just another National Park that happens to be very far to
    our East. So I just want to alert you to the fact that this is
    a concern and that I believe that this park should have the
    status that it in fact has an established by international
    treaty, not by act of Congress. So we will be discussing that,
    and I will be discussing that at a later date with the
    Secretary.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Cassidy. If there are no more questions for today,
    members may also submit written questions for the record. The
    record will be open for two weeks. Thank you, Mr. Knox, for
    your time and testimony.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]