Okay, I wanted to be clear about that, because I think some people have an impression that the intent of some is to only be satisfied if it's a national park. And what I'm hearing you say is that we want to be practical about this and the outcome for everyone is to preserve the habitat, the use, and the legacy.
I'm really glad you mentioned the legacy, because it's in this book. Others have written about it. But there is a lot of history, of course, in the park. There is a lot of habitat that needs to be preserved, but those who have gone to the park, as I have and I'm sure everyone around this table has, note that we have a real legacy to protect in terms of the historical aspects.
Have you any concerns around that, in terms of the protection that is in the bill, to ensure that those historical facets are protected? Are there any concerns you have around that, or are you fine with what's in the bill?