It would be fair to characterize it almost as a legacy program, where there are properties that we own and are responsible for maintaining. Ensuring we have legislation that we've heard doesn't exist would be important in order to make sure those places are maintained. Then, moving forward, as new sites are designated but not owned by the federal government, there would need to be some sort of program in place to provide support. That may not mean legislative protections, but it could be—as was mentioned—financial support. That would be the kind of relationship you would see moving forward.
On September 19th, 2017. See this statement in context.