[House Report 113-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-370
======================================================================
NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT OF 2014
_______
February 28, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2259]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2259) to withdraw certain Federal land and
interests in that land from location, entry, and patent under
the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and
geothermal leasing laws and to preserve existing uses, 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 ``North Fork Watershed Protection Act of
2014''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible federal land.--The term ``eligible Federal
land'' means--
(A) any federally owned land or interest in land
depicted on the Map as within the North Fork Federal
Lands Withdrawal Area; or
(B) any land or interest in land located within the
North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal Area that is
acquired by the Federal Government after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the Bureau of Land
Management map entitled ``North Fork Federal Lands Withdrawal
Area'' and dated June 9, 2010.
SEC. 3. WITHDRAWAL.
(a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the eligible
Federal land is withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining
laws; and
(2) disposition under all laws relating to mineral leasing
and geothermal leasing.
(b) Availability of Map.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Map shall be made available to the public at
each appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management.
(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section violates the rights
of existing leaseholders or prohibits the Secretary of the Interior
from taking any action necessary to complete any requirement under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) required
for permitting surface-disturbing activity to occur on any lease issued
before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXISTING USES NOT AFFECTED.
Except with respect to the withdrawal under section 3, nothing in
this Act restricts recreational uses, livestock management activities,
or forest management activities allowed on the date of the enactment of
this Act on the eligible Federal land in accordance with applicable
law.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2259 is to withdraw certain Federal
land and interests in that land from location, entry, and
patent under the mining laws and disposition under the mineral
and geothermal leasing laws and to preserve existing uses.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The North Fork of the Flathead River extends approximately
90 miles from its headwaters in southern British Columbia south
into Montana, where it forms the western boundary of Glacier
National Park. While the North Fork itself is protected under
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Canadian portion of the
river and the river's watershed are not protected. Several
mining or oil and gas development projects throughout the years
have raised concerns about the potential impact on the river's
water quality.
In February 2010, the Province of British Columbia and
Montana signed a Memorandum of Understanding to preclude
mining, oil and gas development, and coalbed methane extraction
in the Flathead River Basin. Under the agreement, mining, oil
and gas, coalbed methane and coal development would be
prohibited within the basin. However, much of the North Fork's
watershed in Montana is federal land.
In 1982, the Department of the Interior issued several oil
and gas leases on national forest lands within the North Fork
watershed. Those leases were later suspended in 1988 when the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department had
failed to comply with applicable environmental laws prior to
issuing the leases. The federal agencies were enjoined from
allowing any activity on the issued leases. Since that
decision, no action has been taken on these leases, and there
is currently no oil and gas development on federal land within
the area proposed to be withdrawn by H.R. 2259. Several lease
holders have voluntarily relinquished oil and gas leases within
the area withdrawn under H.R. 2259, although a number of
outstanding leases remain.
Since there is no development taking place in this area,
and the Ninth Circuit Court has enjoined federal agencies from
allowing activity on this land, H.R 2259 would withdraw
approximately 362,000 acres of the Flathead and Kootenai
National Forest from all forms of location, entry, and patent
under the mining laws, as well as disposition under all laws
relating to mineral leasing and geothermal leasing. H.R. 2259
does specify that existing uses, including recreational use,
livestock management, and forest management, are not restricted
as a result of this bill.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2259 was introduced on June 5, 2013, by Congressman
Steve Daines (R-MT). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittees on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation and
Energy and Mineral Resources. On October 3, 2013, the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation held
a hearing on the bill. On January 28, 2014, the Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittees
on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation and Energy and
Mineral Resources were discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Daines offered an amendment designated .024 to the
bill; the amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The bill
as amended was then adopted and ordered favorably reported to
the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2014
H.R. 2259 would withdraw 430,000 acres of federal lands in
Montana from programs to develop geothermal and mineral
resources. The affected lands, which lie adjacent to Glacier
National Park, are already protected for wilderness values, and
the proposed designation would not significantly affect the way
they are managed. Based on information provided by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), CBO estimates that implementing the
legislation would have no significant impact on the federal
budget. Enacting H.R. 2259 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
The bill would not affect valid, existing rights on the
affected lands, including the rights of private entities to 39
oil and gas leases that have been suspended since 1985 because
of litigation. BLM has not offered any new oil and gas leases
on the affected lands since that litigation, and CBO does not
expect any such leases to be offered in the next 10 years. In
addition, based on information provided by BLM, CBO expects
that no income would be derived from other activities on the
affected lands over that period; therefore, we estimate that
enacting H.R. 2259 would not affect direct spending.
H.R. 2259 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.
On June 26, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
255, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on June 18, 2013. The two bills are similar, and the
CBO cost estimates are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of 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. Based on the
information provided by the Bureau of Land Management, CBO
estimates that implementing the legislation would have no
significant impact on the federal budget.
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 withdraw certain federal land and
interests in that land from location, entry, and patent under
the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and
geothermal leasing laws and to preserve existing uses.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
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.