U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–282 2016

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 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

BILL CASSIDY, Chairman 

ROB PORTMAN 

JOHN BARRASSO 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

MIKE LEE 

JOHN HOEVEN 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

RON WYDEN 

BERNARD SANDERS 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

ANGUS S. KING, JR. 

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 

(III) 

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 

Page

IV 

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-businessmeetings?ID=ADC24424-9343-4273-BAC7-5C8752E38D11. 

(1) 

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:] 

2 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95282.001
3 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95282.002
4 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95282.003
5 

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. 

6 

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. 

7 

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. 

8 

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 someVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:41 Sep 14, 2016 Jkt 095282 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95282\D95282.TXT D95282
9 

times 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:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95282.004
11 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95282.005
12 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95282.006
13 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95282.007
14 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95282.008
15 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95282.009
16 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95282.010
17 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95282.011
18 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95282.012
19 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95282.013
20 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95282.014
21 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95282.015
22 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95282.016
23 

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 

24 

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:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95282.017
26 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95282.018
27 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95282.019
28 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95282.020
29 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95282.021
30 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95282.022
31 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95282.023
32 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95282.024
33 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95282.025
34 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95282.026
35 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95282.027
36 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95282.028
37 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95282.029
38 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95282.030
39 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95282.031
40 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95282.032
41 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95282.033
42 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95282.034
43 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95282.035
44 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95282.036
45 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95282.037
46 

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 

47 

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. 

48 

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 

49 

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 operVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:41 Sep 14, 2016 Jkt 095282 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95282\D95282.TXT D95282
50 

ation 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. 

51 

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. 

52 

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. 

53 

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. 

54 

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 

55 

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 

56 

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. 

57 

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:] 

58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95282.038
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95282.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95282.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95282.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95282.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95282.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95282.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95282.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95282.046
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95282.047
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95282.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95282.049
70 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95282.090
71 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95282.091
72 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95282.050
73 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95282.051
74 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95282.052
75 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95282.053
76 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95282.054
77 

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. 

78 

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.] 

(79) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

80 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95282.055
81 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95282.056
82 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95282.057
83 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95282.058
84 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95282.059
85 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95282.060
86 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95282.061
87 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95282.062
88 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95282.063
89 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95282.064
90 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95282.065
91 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95282.066
92 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95282.067
93 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95282.068
94 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95282.069
95 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95282.070
96 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95282.071
97 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95282.072
98 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95282.073
99 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95282.074
100 


Insert offset folio 75 here 95282.075
101 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95282.076
102 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95282.077
103 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95282.078
104 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95282.079
105 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95282.080
106 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95282.081
107 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95282.082
108 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95282.083
109 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95282.084
110 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95282.085
111 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95282.086
112 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95282.087
113 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95282.088
114 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95282.089