[Senate Report 109-45]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 64
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-45
======================================================================
RIO GRANDE NATURAL AREA ACT
_______
March 30, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of March 17, 2005
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 56]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 56) to establish the Rio Grande Natural
Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
The purpose of S. 56 is to establish a 33-mile stretch of
the Rio Grande River between the Alamosa Wildlife Refuge and
the Colorado and New Mexico State line as a Natural Area, to be
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to promote the
protection and restoration of the riparian zone of the Rio
Grande.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
Federal, State, and local officials have looked for a way
to restore and protect the riparian zone of the Rio Grande
River in southern Colorado without creating a management
structure that would conflict with the long-standing water uses
upstream and the agricultural uses in the San Luis Valley. This
group has worked together collaboratively to develop a proposal
for Federal designation that protects the resources of concern
and that protects property rights and existing uses. S. 56 will
establish a 33-mile Natural Area along the river consistent
with these goals.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 56 was introduced by Senators Allard and Salazar on
January 24, 2005. At the business meeting on February 16, 2005,
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 56
favorably reported. A similar bill (S. 1467) was introduced by
Senator Campbell in the 108th Congress. The Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests held a hearing on S. 1467 on November
18, 2003 (S. Hrg. 108-321). At the business meeting on June 16,
2004, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S.
1467 favorably reported (S. Rept. 108-303). S. 1467 passed the
Senate by unanimous consent, as amended, on September 15, 2004.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an open
business session on February 16, 2005, by a voice vote of a
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 56.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 entitles the bill the ``Rio Grande Natural Area
Act''.
Section 2 provides definitions used in the bill.
Section 3 provides for the establishment of the Rio Grande
Natural Area, defines its boundaries as including the river
from the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge to the Colorado-New
Mexico State line and extending \1/4\ mile on either side of
the river.
Section 4 establishes the Rio Grande Natural Area
Commission, which is to be made up of 9members, consisting of 2
officials of the Department of the Interior, 2 officials of the State
of Colorado, 1 representative of the Rio Grande Water Conservation
District, and 4 individuals representing the general public. The
section also provides guidance on how the Commission will operate.
Section 5 establishes the powers and duties of the
Commission.
Section 6 provides guidance on the preparation of
management plans, one for the non-Federal lands within the
Natural Area, prepared by the Commission, and one for the
Federal lands within the Natural Area, prepared by the
Secretary of the Interior. The section directs that the
Secretary and the Commission are to cooperate to ensure that
the two plans are consistent.
Section 7 provides self-explanatory direction for the
administration of the Natural Area. Paragraph 7(a)(2)(D)
prohibits the construction of water storage facilities in the
Natural Area. This paragraph is not intended to preclude the
continuing use and operation, repair, rehabilitation,
expansion, or new construction of water supply facilities,
water or wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater
facilities, public utilities, or common carriers along the Rio
Grande River and its tributaries upstream of the Natural Area.
Section 8 describes the effects on water rights, changes to
stream flow, and private lands.
Section 9 authorizes appropriation of funds.
Section 10 directs the termination of the Commission after
a period of 10 years.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
S. 56--Rio Grande Natural Area Act
CBO estimates that S. 56 would not significantly affect the
Federal budget. The bill could affect direct spending, but we
estimate that any such effects would be negligible. Enacting S.
56 would not affect revenues. S. 56 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
State, local, or tribal governments.
S. 56 would establish the Rio Grande Natural Area on
roughly 10,000 acres of Federal and nonfederal land surrounding
a 33.3-mile segment of the Rio Grande River in Colorado. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would manage Federal land
within the proposed natural area. S. 56 would establish a
commission to develop and implement a plan to manage nonfederal
land within the proposed area. Based on information from BLM,
CBO estimates that increased costs to operate that commission
and manage Federal land within the area would total less than
$500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated
funds.
The bill would withdraw Federal land within the proposed
area from programs to develop natural resources. According to
BLM, that land currently generates no significant receipts and
is not expected to do so over the next 10 years. Therefore, we
estimate that the proposed withdrawal could have a negligible
effect on offsetting receipts (a credit against direct
spending).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Megan Carroll
and Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H.
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
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. 56.
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. 56, as ordered reported.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The views of the Administration were included in testimony
received by the Committee at a hearing on S. 1467 during the
108th Congress on November 18, 2003, as follows:
Testimony of Jim Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1467, the
Rio Grande Outstanding Natural Area Act. The Administration
supports the purposes and goals of S. 1467. The Administration
could support the legislation with a number of modifications.
s. 1467
From its headwaters in Colorado's San Juan Mountains, the
Rio Grande flows south through Colorado, bisecting New Mexico,
then crossing into Texas where it forms the U.S./Mexico border
until emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. At 1,885 miles long,
the Rio Grande is the fifth longest river in North America (and
among the 20 longest in the world). Its flowing waters have
been essential to survival for prehistoric, historic, and
present day populations.
North from the New Mexico border into Colorado is a 33-mile
stretch of the Rio Grande River that is outstanding for many
reasons. Natural and undeveloped, this free flowing river is
home to extensive wildlife. Significant for its recreational,
scientific and educational uses, the area is dominated by
sweeping views and a long history. Through multiple land
acquisitions from willing sellers, the BLM has acquired a
continuous 20-mile stretch of lands along the western bank of
the Rio Grande now designated as the Rio Grande Corridor Area
of Critical Environmental Concern.
The people who live in the San Luis Valley have come
together in a collaborative fashion to find ways to further
protect and enhance this stretch of this historic river.
Discussions about protection of the corridor began following
completion of the BLM's 1991 San Luis Resource Management Plan.
As part of the plan, BLM conducted a wild and scenic rivers
eligibility and suitability analysis and ultimately recommended
that stakeholders interested in the river create ``some
enduring form of protection.'' The legislation being considered
today is a result of that stakeholder process.
S. 1467, the Rio Grande Outstanding Natural Area Act, was
introduced on July 28th of this year. The bill's stated purpose
is to conserve, restore, and protect this special resource. It
does this by establishing the Rio Grande Outstanding Natural
Area along a 33.3 mile segment of the Rio Grande from the New
Mexico border north to the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge in
a corridor about \1/4\ mile wide on either side of the river.
The overall area includes over 10,000 acres, approximately 35%
of which is BLM-managed public land. The remainder is private
land.
The bill establishes a commission whose purpose is to work
with Federal, State and local authorities to develop an
integrated resource management plan for the area. We support
this type of collaborative effort. The Secretary's 4Cs envision
just this type of endeavor. However, as currently drafted, we
have concerns about the bill's use of a commission as a means
of advising the Secretary on land management decisions
affecting this area. Specifically, the bill does not address
the funding source for the commission, does not make clear the
nature of the commission's advisory role, or its impact on
affected private property interests. Given these concerns, we
believe an advisory council is a more appropriate vehicle for
this collaboration. Chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), an advisory council would be able to fill
many of the same roles as the proposed commission. The BLM
currently works with 39 advisory councils. They range from our
23 Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), which provide advice on
multiple use management of public lands within a state or
region of a state, to area-specific advisory councils, such as
the Steens Mountain Advisory Council or the Canyons of the
Ancients National Monument Advisory Committee in southwestern
Colorado. All recommendations by advisory councils are
considered by the BLM's State/field offices and by the
Washington office when making decisions about the management of
public lands.
In addition, we would like to work on clarifications to
this section to ensure that the BLM continues to have final
responsibility for planning for the Federal lands. A single
plan covering the entire river corridor is still viable,
provided it is clear that the BLM has ultimate planning
authority for the Federal lands. It is our understanding that
the focus of this process would be restoration of the historic
riparian community along the river. Specifically, issues of
livestock movement through the largely unfenced river corridor,
designation of vehicle access routes to minimize impact on
riparian vegetation, and management of riparian habitat on BLM
lands are likely to be addressed.
Undertaking a management plan is a time-consuming task
requiring extensive resources and expertise. We believe the
time deadlines and other specifics of the planning sections
established in the bill may be overly optimistic. In order to
ensure a fully cooperative, collaborative, and consultative
process that is consistent with the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) and other laws and regulations, we would
urge longer timeframes. We would be pleased to work with the
sponsor and the Committee to address this concern.
While the southern Colorado stretch of the Rio Grande is
truly outstanding, we would recommend that the sponsor of the
bill consider whether a different designation for this area
might be preferred. Currently, the BLM manages only one
``Outstanding Natural Area'' (ONA), the Yaquina Head ONA,
located on the Oregon coast. Yaquina Head ONA is a tourist
destination with an emphasis on visitation. Because visitation
is not a stated goal in this area, we are concerned that using
the same terminology could result in confusion. Possible
alternatives would be a ``cooperative management and protection
area,'' such as exists in eastern Oregon in the Steens
Mountains, or ``cooperative river management area.'' We would
be pleased to work with the sponsor and the Committee to
resolve this concern.
There are additional technical issues we would like to work
on as well. For example, we would like the opportunity to work
with the sponsor and the Committee on an accurate map of the
proposed area.
Additionally, Section 11(a) of the bill calls for the
revocation of any existing reservations on the public lands
within the area. There are two such reservations. The first is
a 1949 administrative withdrawal of approximately 2,700 acres
for the purpose of future hydroelectric development (this
withdrawal covers lands both in southern Colorado and northern
New Mexico.) The second is a 1939 Executive Order creating
public water reserves for the purpose of livestock and domestic
access. These reservations are no longer necessary, because in
the former case, hydroelectric development has been rejected as
a viable option for this section of the river and in the later
case because access to the Rio Grande now exists due to
subsequent BLM land acquisitions. As written, the language only
revokes the portion of the reservation within the \1/4\ mile
river corridor, and could result in unnecessary management
confusion. As all of these reservations are river-based, we
advocate a complete revocation of the reservations in lieu of a
partial revocation.
Section 11(c) of the bill withdraws the public lands within
the newly designated area from a host of public laws and
provisions. To avoid confusion, we would recommend a standard
withdrawal from location, entry, appropriation and/or patent
under the public land laws and mining laws as well as from
operations of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and
geothermal leasing laws. Such a standard withdrawal will foster
clear understanding and, we believe, reflects the intent of the
sponsor.
The Administration supports section 9(c), 13, and 14
regarding water rights. This language makes clear that the
designations in this Act shall not be construed to constitute
an express or implied water right.
Mr. Chairman, we believe the goals of this legislation are
worthy and we support them wholeheartedly. The local support
for this proposal is just the kind of effort that this
Department and this Administration encourages. We believe that
by working together cooperatively, this area of the Rio Grande
can be a model for responsible stewardship of the land.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, I would be happy
to answer any questions.
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 S. 56, as ordered
reported.