[Senate Report 114-184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 329

114th Congress }                                           {  Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session   }                                           { 114-184

======================================================================
 
                   GRAND CANYON BISON MANAGEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

               December 16, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Ms. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 782]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 782) to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish a bison management plan for Grand Canyon 
National Park, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of S. 782 is to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish a bison management plan for Grand Canyon 
National Park.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEED

    In the early 1900s, Charles ``Buffalo'' Jones brought bison 
to northern Arizona to breed with cattle in an attempt to 
create a more robust breed of livestock. The effort proved to 
be unsuccessful; however, some of the descendants survived. 
Since 1950, the State of Arizona Game and Fish Department has 
managed the hybrid, dubbed ``beefalo,'' as a game species in 
the House Rock Wildlife Area on the Kaibab National Forest 
through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Forest Service 
and the Bureau of Land Management. During the late 1990s, the 
bison started expanding their range by way of the Kaibab 
Plateau into the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. Over 
the last several years, few bison have returned to the national 
forest. Most now spend a majority of their time inside the 
park, and many no longer leave the park at all.
    Even though bison hunting is allowed on national forest 
lands, hunting on those lands has not been effective in 
reducing the size of the herd because the herd generally 
resides within the national park boundaries. Hunting is not 
permitted in the national park, and the herd has few natural 
predators other than humans. As a result, the population is 
growing by as much as 50 percent a year according to the 
Arizona Game and Fish Department. The current movement, 
distribution, and abundance of bison are negatively impacting 
park resources, such as fragile soils, vegetation, 
archeological sites, and limited water resources. The Grand 
Canyon Superintendent described the destruction to the AP on 
April 3, 2014, ``The massive animals have reduced vegetation in 
meadows to nubs, traveled into Mexican spotted owl habitat, 
knocked over walls at American Indian cliff dwellings below the 
North Rim, defecated in lakes, and left ruts in wetlands.''
    Additionally, the current situation precludes the Arizona 
Game and Fish Department from providing bison hunting 
opportunities outside the park and meeting the bison management 
goals of the state and the Forest Service.
    In 2014, the National Park Service (NPS) initiated public 
scoping to start the process of developing a management plan 
for bison that takes into account the current and future 
impacts of bison on Grand Canyon National Park natural and 
cultural resources, and supports the Forest Service and Arizona 
Game and Fish Department's goals for management of a free-
ranging bison population on the Kaibab National Forest.
    A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is not expected 
until at least the winter of 2016. There are significant 
concerns with the current timeline, as it is not clear when an 
actual management plan for the herd will be in place. In the 
meantime the herd will continue to expand and destroy park 
resources.
    In order to address the bison problem in Grand Canyon 
National Park as quickly as possible, S. 782 requires a 
management plan to be published within 180 days following 
enactment of the bill. As part of the plan, NPS would be 
required to use skilled public volunteers to help cull the herd 
on parklands (something NPS already has the authority to do) 
and bring the size of the herd down to ecologically appropriate 
levels. Using skilled public volunteers rather than contracted, 
professional sharpshooters is expected to reduce the cost of 
culling and help the park save funds.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    A companion bill to S. 782, H.R. 1443, was introduced in 
the House of Representatives by Representatives Gosar, 
Kirkpatrick, Salmon, Schweikert, Franks, Lummis, Zinke, and 
Sinema on March 18, 2015. The text of H.R. 1443 was included in 
an amendment to H.R. 2406 at a business meeting of the House 
Natural Resources Committee on October 8, 2015. H.R. 2606, as 
amended, was ordered reported on October 8, 2015 on a vote of 
21-15.
    S. 782 was introduced by Senators McCain and Flake on March 
18, 2015. The Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on 
S. 782 on June 10, 2015. On November 19, 2015, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources met in open business session and 
ordered S. 782 favorably reported without amendment.

            COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on November 19, 2015, by a majority voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 
782. Five Senators requested that their votes be recorded as 
follows:
    NAYS
    Ms. Cantwell
    Ms. Stabenow
    Mr. Franken
    Ms. Hirono
    Ms. Warren\*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \*\Indicates vote by proxy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 contains the short title, ``Grand Canyon Bison 
Management Act.''
    Section 2 contains definitions.
    Section 3 directs the Secretary of the Interior to produce 
a bison management plan within 180 days following enactment of 
the bill. The plan should reduce the number of bison living 
within Grand Canyon National Park through culling by skilled 
volunteer hunters and through other nonlethal means. Skilled 
volunteer hunters are authorized to remove a full bison 
harvested from within the park. The Secretary is also directed 
to coordinate the development and implementation of the plan 
with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, while still 
complying with all federal environmental laws.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of 
this measure has been requested but was not received at the 
time the report was filed. When the report is available, the 
Chairman will request it to be printed in the Congressional 
Record for the advice of the Senate.

                      REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 782. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of S. 782, as ordered reported.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    S. 782, as ordered reported, does not contain any 
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, 
or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The testimony provided by the NPS at the June 10, 2015, 
hearing on S. 782 follows:

Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities 
      and Lands, National Park Service, Department of the Interior

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views 
of the Department of the Interior on S. 782, a bill to direct 
the Secretary of the Interior to establish a bison management 
plan for Grand Canyon National Park.
    The Department opposes S. 782 because it would disrupt an 
ongoing planning effort for managing bison at Grand Canyon 
National Park, and may cause confusion about the National Park 
Service's existing authorities to manage wildlife populations 
through a variety of means, including the use of skilled 
volunteers.
    S. 782 would direct the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to publish a bison management plan for Grand Canyon 
National Park (park) no later than 180 days after the enactment 
of this legislation. The bill would require the plan to include 
reduction, through humane lethal culling by skilled public 
volunteers and by other nonlethal means, of the population of 
bison in the park that the Secretary determines are detrimental 
to the use of the park. The bill provides that notwithstanding 
the Act of March 2, 1929 (16 U.S.C. 198c), which is applicable 
only to Rocky Mountain National Park, or any other provision of 
law, a skilled public volunteer may remove a full bison 
harvested from the park. The bill also requires the Secretary 
to coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission 
regarding the development and implementation of the management 
plan, and that the Secretary comply with all applicable Federal 
environmental laws (including regulations), including the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). And, the bill 
clarifies that nothing in the Act applies to the taking of 
wildlife in the park for any purpose other than the 
implementation of the management plan.
    The National Park Service (NPS) has several tools available 
for directly managing ungulates to meet resource management 
objectives. These tools include both lethal and non-lethal 
methods for removing ungulates when the NPS determines that 
population numbers are too high. Under existing authorities, 
lethal removal of ungulates can be accomplished by using 
National Park Service employees, contractors, or skilled 
volunteers, or a combination of the above. Public hunting can 
also be used in parks where Congress has expressly authorized 
it, although hunting is not authorized at Grand Canyon National 
Park and S. 782 does not propose to do so. The appropriate 
means of culling is selected based the type of park unit, 
location, resource issue, conditions at the park, funding, 
public input, logistics and other concerns. For these reasons, 
the NPS has not established one method as preferred over any of 
the others, and analyzes the full suite of tools available for 
each situation. The preferred action is selected through a 
planning process that is accompanied by a NEPA review of 
reasonable and available alternatives.
    The NPS has typically used professional sharp shooters to 
cull whitetail deer in parks in the eastern United States, 
including at Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C., and Catoctin 
Mountain Park in Maryland. Professional sharp shooters were 
also used at Channel Island National Park in California to cull 
elk on Santa Rosa Island. In other cases, including Rocky 
Mountain National Park in Colorado and Theodore Roosevelt 
National Park in South Dakota, skilled volunteers have been 
used to cull elk.
    With regard to Grand Canyon National Park, the NPS is 
currently in the process of developing the alternatives for the 
Grand Canyon Bison Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS). We expect to have the DEIS out for public 
review and comment in the winter of 2016. As part of the 
alternatives development process with our cooperating agencies, 
including Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), we are 
considering lethal removal, or ``culling'', of bison as an 
option for reducing bison density in the park. The use of 
skilled volunteers in the culling operation would be part of 
the analysis. If the final plan includes the use of skilled 
volunteers in a culling operation, we would collaborate with 
AGFD on implementation including the requirements and protocols 
for selecting volunteers, and would follow applicable federal 
law and regulation with regard to disposition of carcasses. S. 
782 would disrupt this planning effort.
    Further, although S. 782 requires the Secretary to comply 
with NEPA in developing the bison management plan, the 
legislation is contrary to NEPA to several ways. For example, 
by directing the Secretary to put into place a plan to reduce 
bison using skilled volunteers, the bill appears to circumvent 
the NEPA process by predetermining a specific outcome or 
alternative. This approach is counter to NEPA, which requires 
Federal land managers to consider a range of reasonable 
alternatives, including no action, and to provide opportunities 
for public engagement during the NEPA process. Additionally, 
attempting to complete a plan in 180 days as proposed in the 
legislation also runs counter to NEPA, and our efforts to work 
collaboratively with our partners and neighbors, as it 
complicates our ability to adequately involve the public, 
tribes, other stakeholders, and cooperating agencies, including 
the AGFD.
    Finally, the Department is also concerned that by 
attempting to provide this duplicative authority to use skilled 
volunteers in culling operations, S. 782 may cause confusion 
about the NPS's existing authority to carry out culling 
operations using skilled volunteers. While the NPS's authority 
to manage ungulate populations through lethal reduction has 
been upheld in court, S. 782 seems to call that authority into 
question, which could cause unnecessary confusion and be 
counterproductive to wildlife management efforts across the 
National Park System.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you or the other members of the 
subcommittee may have.

                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM SENATOR FLAKE

    Contrary to the Minority Views, this legislation is 
necessary to preserve the natural and cultural resources found 
within Grand Canyon National Park (the ``Park'') from being 
destroyed by an invasive hybrid bison-cattle herd. What's more, 
this legislation does not open the Park to hunting as viewed by 
some members opposed to this legislation. In fact, the National 
Park Service testified, ``Public hunting can also be used in 
parks where Congress has expressly authorized it, although 
hunting is not authorized at Grand Canyon National Park and S. 
782 does not propose to do so.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, 
Facilities and Lands, National Park Service, Department of the 
Interior, Before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources, Concerning S. 782, to Direct the 
Secretary of the Interior to Establish a Bison Management Plan for 
Grand Canyon National Park (June 10, 2015) (Emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather, the culling of overpopulated invasive species 
inside park boundaries is not an uncommon practice for the 
National Park Service (``NPS'' or the ``Park Service''). The 
NPS and several conservation organizations have long 
acknowledged that the bison-cattle population must be reduced 
at Grand Canyon National Park for the sake of visitor safety 
and to prevent further damage to park resources.
    In 2008, the Department of the Interior initiated efforts 
to improve bison management within the Park. Later, in 2014, 
NPS began the public scoping process, working with the Arizona 
Game and Fish Department (``AGFD'') to consider management 
alternatives including the lethal removal, or ``culling'' of 
bison. Despite the ongoing resource degradation and the 
continuing herd growth, NPS still has not released a draft 
plan, even though it committed to do so by the fall of 2015. 
Deferring, as the minority would suggest, to the Secretary's 
unreasonable delay in addressing this issue, is more akin to 
slowly managing resource destruction rather than controlling 
invasive wildlife.
    At a cost to the American taxpayer, the federal government 
will occasionally engage with specialized marksman vendors to 
remove deer, elk, and other ungulates from National Parks. In 
the case of the Grand Canyon, this legislation proposes instead 
that the National Park Service coordinate with the AGFD to 
utilize licensed hunters as volunteers to remove a limited 
number of bison as a service to the federal government free-of-
charge. In exchange, such qualified volunteers would be allowed 
to take the bison meat with them. This legislation also eases 
federal regulations that restrict the removal of an animal 
carcass from inside a National Park, which is a key feature of 
this bill that is not found in the Sportsmen's Act of 2015 (S. 
556) as reported by the committee.
    The bill supports the idea of ``coordination'' among AGFD 
and the NPS regarding bison management within the Park. In 
fact, NPS has conceded for years that it has been working with 
AGFD as a cooperating agency to address this issue. 
Furthermore, NPS has stated that ``[i]f culling becomes part of 
the plan, we would collaborate with AGFD on implementation, 
including the requirements and protocols for selecting 
volunteers, and would follow applicable federal laws and 
regulations with regard to disposition of carcasses.''\2\ In 
light of the foregoing, we disagree with the minority's view 
that the state fish and game department should not be involved 
in any wildlife management decisions within national parks, or 
that it is unreasonable to require certain conditions for those 
volunteers, such as having a valid hunting license. That view 
simply does not comport with the NPS's own statements relative 
to managing the hybrid bison-cattle herd in the Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Letter from Jonathan B. Jarvis, National Park Service Director, 
to Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources (Apr. 13, 2005); see also Statement of Victor Knox, supra 
note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This legislation received bipartisan support during its 
consideration in the committee. It is also supported by the 
Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona Attorney General, 
the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, and the Arizona 
Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation on behalf of 14 other 
sportsmen and conservation organizations in Arizona. A similar 
bipartisan proposal was favorably reported by the House 
Committee on Natural Resources by voice vote as an amendment to 
Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreation Enhancement (SHARE) Act 
(H.R. 2406).
    The bison-cattle hybrid problem continues to grow at the 
Grand Canyon National Park and this legislation offers a 
solution that would cost-effectively remove excess bison under 
carefully regulated conditions.

                                                        Jeff Flake.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    I oppose S. 782 because it would open Grand Canyon National 
Park to hunting, contrary to long-standing precedent. The bill 
is unnecessary to address the management of bison within the 
national park and would overturn the National Park Service's 
determination about how to best manage the national park, 
consistent with the laws and policies applicable to the 
National Park System.
    The National Park Service provided testimony at the 
committee hearing that the agency is currently in the process 
of developing a draft environmental impact statement for its 
Grand Canyon Bison Management Plan, and that it would consider, 
as part of the alternatives to reduce the bison population 
within the park, the use of volunteers to cull the herd 
population that S. 782 would mandate.
    Instead of allowing the plan to be developed in accordance 
with applicable environmental laws, S. 782 would disrupt the 
ongoing bison management plan and require the National Park 
Service to use Arizona-licensed hunters and coordinate with the 
Arizona Game and Fish Commission for bison management within 
the national park.
    During the committee's consideration of the Sportsmen's Act 
of 2015 (S. 556), the committee included language authorizing 
the Secretary of the Interior to use qualified volunteers to 
assist in carrying out wildlife management on National Park 
System lands. However, the committee wisely included a 
requirement that the use of any volunteers be at the discretion 
of the Secretary of the Interior and be subject to any training 
requirements or qualifications established by the Secretary and 
subject to any other terms and conditions the Secretary might 
require.
    Significantly, the wildlife management language adopted by 
the committee did not require a qualified volunteer to have a 
state hunting license or involve the state fish and game 
department in any wildlife management decisions within national 
parks.
    Because S. 782 imposes state-licensed hunting as an 
unprecedented wildlife management requirement within Grand 
Canyon National Park and because the bill mandates policies 
which are opposed by the National Park Service and run contrary 
to long-standing national park system laws and policies, I 
strongly oppose the bill.

                                                    Maria Cantwell.
                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill as ordered 
reported.

                                  [all]