[House Report 110-561]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-561
======================================================================
NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM ACT
_______
April 1, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2016]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2016) to establish the National Landscape
Conservation System, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Landscape Conservation System
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(2) System.--The term ``system'' means the National Landscape
Conservation System established by section 3(a).
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM.
(a) Establishment.--In order to conserve, protect, and restore
nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural,
ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future
generations, there is established in the Bureau of Land Management the
National Landscape Conservation System.
(b) Components.--The system shall include each of the following areas
administered by the Bureau of Land Management:
(1) Each area that is designated as--
(A) a national monument;
(B) a national conservation area;
(C) a wilderness study area;
(D) a National Scenic Trail or National Historic
Trail designated as a component of the National Trails
System;
(E) a component of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System; or
(F) a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
(2) Any area designated by Congress to be administered for
conservation purposes, including--
(A) the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Area, as designated under section 101(a) of
the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460nnn-11(a));
(B) the Headwaters Forest Reserve;
(C) the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area; and
(D) any additional area designated by Congress for
inclusion in the system.
(c) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the system--
(1) in accordance with each applicable law (including
regulations) relating to each component of the system included
under subsection (b); and
(2) in a manner that protects the values for which the
components of the system were designated.
SEC. 4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance, diminish, or
modify any law or proclamation (or regulations related to such law or
proclamation) under which the components of the system identified in
section 3(b) were established, or are managed, including, but not
limited to, the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (43
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the National
Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.), and the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2016 is to establish the National
Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) includes
approximately 26 million acres, or about 10% of the land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The System
includes more than 800 units, including all National Scenic and
Historic Trails, National Conservation Areas, National
Monuments, wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and
wilderness study areas managed by the BLM.
Each NLCS unit was established by Congress or Presidential
Proclamation and is managed according to its enabling
authority, as well as the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or other
laws applicable to specific units. Former Interior Secretary
Babbitt established the NLCS administratively as a framework to
tie each of these units together into a larger conservation
system. The NLCS has never been established by statute,
however.
NLCS units include significant natural resources, including
approximately 12% of the BLM-managed sage grouse habitat, as
well as important cultural and scientific resources. For
example, the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in
Colorado includes more than 6,000 archeological sites
significant to Native American cultures. NLCS units provide
unique recreational opportunities, with many located in or near
heavily developed urban areas.
H.R. 2016 establishes the NLCS, lists the components of the
system, and specifies that any future additions must be
authorized by Congress. The legislation makes clear that each
NLCS unit is to be managed in accordance with all laws
applicable to that unit and in ``a manner that protects the
values for which the components of the system were
designated.''
In addition to the support of the Bush Administration, this
legislation enjoys broad support from a diverse coalition which
includes the American Hiking Society, National Council of
Churches, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, National Wildlife Federation, and the Outdoor
Industry Association.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2016 was introduced on April 24, 2007, by National
Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Raul
Grijalva (D-AZ) along with a bipartisan group of 16 cosponsors.
The bill currently has 65 bipartisan co-sponsors. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the
Committee to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1ACompanion legislation (S. 1139) was introduced by Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman. The
Senate bill was ordered reported from the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on May 23, 2007 by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 6, 2007, the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on the bill, during
which a representative from the Department of the Interior
testified in support of the bill.
On March 12, 2008, the subcommittee was discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 2016 and the full Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. Subcommittee
Chairman Grijalva offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 2016. In addition to technical changes, the
substitute clarifies that enactment of H.R. 2016 will not alter
existing authorities under which units of the NLCS are
currently managed. Specifically, the substitute states that,
``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance, diminish,
or modify any law or proclamation (or regulations related to
such law or proclamation) under which the components of the
system identified in section 3(b) were established, or are
managed.''.
Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) offered an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Flake #1)
prohibiting additional appropriations for the NLCS. The
amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 12 yeas and
16 nays, as follows:
Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) offered an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Pearce #3) stating
that inclusion in the NLCS would not affect grazing permits.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 21 nays, as follows:
Representative Pearce then offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute (Pearce #1) stating
that inclusion in the NLCS would not affect eligibility for
wind and solar energy development. The amendment was not agreed
to by a roll call vote of 15 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Representative Pearce then offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute (Pearce #2) providing
that no funds can be expended on the NLCS until the Bureau of
Land Management Payment in Lieu of Taxes program is fully
funded at authorized levels for that fiscal year. The amendment
was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 yeas and 23 nays,
as follows:
Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT) offered an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Cannon #1) stating
that nothing in this Act creates a federal cause of action
based on inclusion within the NLCS. The amendment was not
agreed to by voice vote.
Representative Cannon then offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute (Cannon #2) providing
that no county would be included in the NLCS if the county
elects not to be included through passage of a resolution or
similar statement. The amendment was not agreed to by voice
vote.
Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) offered an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Bishop #24)
stating that existing multiple uses of the areas in the NLCS
remain a high value. The amendment was not agreed to by voice
vote.
The Grijalva amendment in the nature of a substitute was
then agreed to by voice vote.
The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 24 yeas
and 13 nays, as follows:
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 entitles this Act ``The National Landscape
Conservation System Act.''
Section 2. Definitions
Section 2 defines the terms in this Act.
Section 3. Establishment
Section 3(a) establishes the National Landscape
Conservation System within the Bureau of Land Management in
order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant
landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and
scientific values, for the benefit of current and future
generations.
Section 3(b) identifies and lists the components,
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, which shall be
included within the National Landscape Conservation System:
Subsection (1) provides that the NLCS shall include each
area that is designated as: (A) a national monument; (B) a
national conservation area; (C) a wilderness study area; (D) a
National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail designated as
a component of the National Trails System; (E) a component of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; or (F) a component
of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Subsection (2) provides that the NLCS shall also include
any area designated by Congress to be administered for
conservation purposes, including: (A) the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Area as designated under
section 101(a) of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management
and Protection Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460nnn-11(a)); (B) the
Headwaters Forest Reserve; (C) the Yaquina Head Outstanding
Natural Area; and (D) any additional area designated by
Congress for inclusion in the system. These areas are listed
specifically because they are currently part of the NLCS but
are not covered by the broad categories in subsection (1).
Section 3(c) provides that the Secretary of the Interior
shall manage the NLCS, (1) in accordance with each applicable
law (including regulations) relating to each component of the
system included in this Act; and (2) in a manner that protects
the values for which the components of the system were
designated.
Section 4. Statutory construction
Section 4 ensures and guarantees that nothing in this Act
shall be construed to alter, enhance, diminish or modify any
law or proclamation (or regulations related to such law or
proclamation) under which the components of the NLCS,
identified in section 3(b), were established, or are managed.
This specifically includes, but is not limited to, the Alaska
National Interest Land Conservation Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the National
Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.), and the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.).
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3, of the
Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority
to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to establish the National Landscape
Conservation System.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
H.R. 2016--National Landscape Conservation System Act
H.R. 2016 would provide a statutory basis for the National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which was established
administratively in 2000. The NLCS encompasses about 20 million
acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). Based on information provided by that agency, CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 2016 would have no effect on the
BLM budget (which currently includes about $50 million a year
for the NLCS) because BLM already has permanent authority to
manage the lands in the system, subject to amounts provided
annually in appropriations acts. Enacting H.R. 2016 would not
affect direct spending or revenues.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
On June 6, 2007, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
1139, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on May 23, 2007. S. 1139 and H.R. 2016 are similar,
and the CBO cost estimates for the two pieces of legislation
are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 2016 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS ON H.R. 2016
We strongly oppose H.R. 2016. The true purpose of H.R. 2016
is to prevent many locally popular, wholesome family
recreational opportunities and almost all economic activities
from taking place on 26 million acres of BLM land. H.R. 2016
will create a two-tiered system within the BLM under which some
BLM land can be carefully managed for multiple use while other
vast tracts would be walled off from almost all human use and
managed for ``preservation'' or in layman's terms, no use.
While well- meaning, few supporters of this bill live in the
areas most affected by the legislation and fewer still ever
truly get know first hand the rural communities of farmers,
ranchers, and others whose ability to provide for their
families can be devastated by decisions we so cavalierly make
from afar. More that one third of the land in the United States
is federally managed, but in much of the West, that ratio is
reversed and doubled. To those of us who live in the public
land states, multiple use means having the opportunity to
practice conservation as it was defined by Teddy Roosevelt's
mentor, Gifford Pinchot, ``conservation means the wise use of
natural resources.'' It means having the opportunity to obtain
the many compatible esthetic and economic benefits well managed
resources can provide. Properly managed, public lands can
simultaneously contribute to energy independence, timber for
affordable housing, needed food and fiber, wildlife
conservation, outdoor recreation and the advancement of science
and technology. We can choose to remove land from multiple us,
but that choice is not cost-free; indeed, it will be impossible
to meet any of these vital needs domestically if more and more
public land is locked up every year.
Rep. Grijalva has contended both during the hearing that
took place in June of 2007 and during the March 12, 2008 markup
session of H.R. 2016 that this legislation just codifies the
existence of a division within the BLM that has already been
administratively created. Putting aside for a moment our
objections to ``just,'' the language in H.R. 2016 goes well
beyond a codification of what already exists. Section 3(c)(2)
states the Secretary (of the Interior) shall manage the system
(NLCS) ``in a manner that protects the values for which the
components of the system were designated''. The term ``values''
is a wholly new concept to the BLM and this would be the first
time legislation directing the management and operation of BLM
interjects this nebulous, malleable term. This is not an
accidental or trivial insertion of verbiage in the legislation;
it was specifically plucked from the National Park Service's
organic act in order to purposefully mandate broad and vague
new management practices. What are some ``values'' to the
National Park Service that allow the iron-fisted ``no-
impairment standard'' of enforcement to protect them? They
include such things as ``viewscapes,'' ``soundscapes,'' and
``smellscapes.'' It happens that many times these wonderfully
indefinable concepts are enforced laxly within the park but
used with draconian severity against the park's neighbors. This
is a particularly poor model for BLM lands which, unlike
National Parks, are more often part of a mixed checkerboard of
private, state and federal land.
When asked how the term ``values'' is defined, proponents
point to the assortment of declarations made when the units
were added to the NLCS system. What happens when it is unclear
if the Secretary is managing the system in a manner that
protects the values for which a component was designated? Many
of the designations of units within the NLCS consist of
wonderful prose and lofty platitudes but have very little in
the way of management direction or substance. The Secretaries
of the Interior who make these declarations range from Bruce
Babbitt to James Watt and it may be noted that their values and
the language they used to describe the ideal use of federal
land have not always coincided exactly. Are we in Congress not
then abdicating our responsibility as the policy setting branch
of government if we simply punt this issue to whatever team is
currently at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? NLCS
Director Elena Daly testified that today ninety percent of NLCS
lands are potentially open to grazing with much currently
taking place. How does grazing fit into the concept of
``smellscapes''? Not too well we suspect, based on our
observations of city folks experiencing their first encounter
with the grand smellscape provided by cattle. How do shooting
ranges and hunting activities, which are currently part of
several NLCS units, fit into the concept of ``soundscapes''?
How does OHV use, mining, oil exploration, horseback riding,
camping, and numerous other activities that are currently part
of most NLCS units square with the new concept of ``values''?
The fact that this is even debatable shows that the ultimate
arbiter will be the Courts. Far-fetched? Not hardly. Take for
example one of the strongest advocates of this bill, The
Wilderness Society, who testified in support of H.R. 2016 and
has a history of using litigation to stop activities on federal
lands. The Wilderness Society in its 18 page packet in support
of the NLCS lists road building, energy exploration and mining,
recreational use, off road vehicle use and boundary adjustments
as ``immediate threats to the units of the NLCS'' that must be
stopped. The Wilderness Society and their contingent of special
interest allies, who are disdainful of people who work
outdoors, and have sued federal land management agencies
several times before to stop such activities on federal lands
and this vague new management directive of ``values'' is a
perfect entree for more lawsuits. Not to just single out The
Wilderness Society, numerous other supporters of H.R. 2016 such
as the Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks
Conservation Association and the Defenders of Wildlife have
used the courts to drive off ranchers and destroy the
livelihood of timber workers in the United States. We also view
the inclusion of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) in H.R. 2016 as a
way to congressionally lock in the administratively created and
released WSA, turning them into de facto wilderness areas. This
is especially problematic given the fact that over half of
BLM's WSA's do not meet even the minimum acreage requirement
and should be released immediately.
H.R. 2016 at best would codify a division of BLM (NLCS)
that performs work that can better be performed by other agency
officials and creates a duplicative agency without a clear
mission or structure. H.R. 2016 would also bestow Congressional
recognition on over a dozen BLM monuments that we still cannot
identify as having met the three criteria that must be met in
the Antiquities Act. We remain unsatisfied and troubled with
the Administration's answers when asked about the scope,
structure and powers of the NLCS and specifically its
Washington, D.C. office. It is even fair to say that something
mischievous is afoot when one compares what has been said
before the Committee with what has been reported in the press
and proclaimed in BLM's own documents. In testifying before the
Committee (in two separate hearings) NLCS Director Daly and
Deputy Director (BLM) Henri Bisson gave the impression that the
NLCS had no binding authority, no ability to supersede or
interfere with the longstanding BLM organizational structure at
any level, and had no real way to implement policy or
management changes or recommendations and ability to appoint
staff. ``The NLCS is more or less a policy office, is what it
is. It doesn't exactly manage the system,'' is what Deputy
Director Bison stated during a budget hearing. Yet according to
the BLM's own organizational structure chart located on their
website the NLCS office is one of four departments directly
underneath the Director and above the state offices.
Former Secretary of the Interior Babbitt was forthright
from the beginning when he by fiat created the NLCS and set
forth what he envisioned it to be: a new way of managing BLM
lands (he estimated up to 100 million acres someday) through
the NLCS system so that ``the old bureaucratic mule will awaken
to a new future as an environmental steward right up there with
the National Park Service and the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The day is coming, I believe, when the BLM so often
stereotyped and dismissed as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining
will be better known as the Bureau of Landscape and
Monuments.'' Rep. Grijalva, when asked if H.R. 2016 would lead
to NLCS lands receiving more regulation stated candidly,
``You've got to establish the system.. .and then you go to step
2.'' NLCS Director Daly, not exactly invoking images of a
policy shop, was quoted in the Arizona Republic stating, ``This
is like being part of a birthing. I think we are all about to
witness the next major conservation system in the United
States.'' BLM's 2007 ``National Landscape Conservation System
Science Strategy'' clearly sets up a system for the NLCS apart
from the rest of the BLM. Despite assurances that the field
offices (overseen by BLM State Directors) will continue to
operate freely and will only get guidance from the NLCS, the
Science Strategy document directs the NLCS to develop and
implement (using ``leverage'' i.e. the millions in subactivity
budget accounts the Administration is proposing the NLCS
control). NLCS official Jeff Jarvis outlined very clearly in a
report titled ``National Landscape Conservation System: A New
Approach to Conservation'' that the purpose behind the NLCS is
to shed the old, burdensome role of ``developing commodities''
that Congress gave the BLM and to move into conservation,
assuming the two concepts were incompatible. We find this
troublesome given how much and how irreplaceably BLM lands
contribute to our nation's economy and security. Many of us
have districts whose viability is dependent on ongoing multiple
uses of BLM land. And the country as a whole has a continuing
vital need to ensure that our local and national economies grow
stronger, more resilient and have access to vital resources
from secure domestic sources. One thing is certain: there are
no more zealous and knowledgeable guardians of environmental
and recreational ``values'' of these lands than the local
people who hunt, fish, ride, hike, camp, raise their kids and,
yes, try to earn a living on and around these lands.
Many and imperfect are the federal laws that set the course
for the management of our public land. But they are duly
enacted laws passed by Congress and signed by a President and
they can be changed the same way they were adopted. For us to
pass legislation delegating to the Secretary of the Interior of
the moment and unelected bureaucrats within a federal land
management agency a mandate to create a management regime to
enforce legislatively undefined ``values'' on a vast, resource
rich part of the country is an unacceptable abdication of our
responsibility as the policy setting branch of the government.
Don Young.
Rob Bishop.
Steve Pearce.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
Henry Brown.
Bill Sali.
Jeff Flake.
Doug Lamborn.
Louie Gohmert.
Jimmy Duncan.
Adrian Smith.
Tom Tancredo.
Chris Cannon.
Mary Fallin.
Tom Cole.
Luis Fortuno.
Elton Gallegly.
Bill Shuster.