59–010 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

*Indicates vote by proxy. 

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*

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(7) 

1Statement 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). 

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

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

2Letter 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. 

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. 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(9) 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

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. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS