![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.302083333333333in" height="1.125in"}

# 

# Legislative Bulletin.................................................April 9, 2008

**Contents:**

**H.R. 2016---**National Landscape Conservation System Act

H.R. 2016---National Landscape Conservation System Act (*Grijalva,
D-AZ*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered today, April 9, 2008, subject to a structured rule ([H.Res.
1084](http://www.rules.house.gov/110/rept/110_hr2016rpt.pdf)), making
eight amendments in order. The RSC will send a forthcoming document
summarizing every amendment made in order.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2016 would require the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to permanently lock 26 million acres of land into the
National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Land managed by the NLCS
under this bill would include any land that is currently designated as:

-   A national monument;

-   A national conservation area;

-   A wilderness study area;

-   A National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail designated as a
    component of the National Trails System;

-   A component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

-   A component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; or

-   Any area designated by Congress to be administered for conservation
    purposes.

The purpose of NLCS' management of these lands would be to conserve,
protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes. The NLCS would
be required to manage the system in accordance with any applicable laws
and in accordance with the "values" of each particular unit.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: Land-use on the vast majority
of land managed by the BLM includes such activities as grazing, mining,
hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, off-road vehicle use, horseback
riding and much more. According to their Website, the BLM is mandated to
manage lands in a manner that allows multiple public uses of the land.
To that effect, the BLM administers over 18,000 grazing permits, 13
million authorized livestock on 160 million acres of rangeland, and
57,000 wild horses and burros. The BLM also manages over 700 million
acres of underground mining surfaces, 117,000 miles of fisheries
habitat, and 57 million acres of commercial timber forests.

Unlike the National Park Service (NPS), the BLM's purpose is not to
protect, conserve, and restore especially significant public lands.
Rather, the BLM is required to manage over 258 million acres of
mixed-use land owned by the federal government (mostly in the West) in a
way that supports a wide variety of activities. Additionally, BLM land
differs from NPS land in that it is much more intermingled with private
property, especially in the Western U.S., where the federal government
owns vast tracts of territory.

The NLCS was established administratively by former Secretary of
Interior Bruce Babbitt in 2000. The system, which comprises some 10% of
all BLM land, includes over 850 federally recognized areas that are
considered more worthy of conservation and preservation than other BLM
land. H.R. 2016 would establish a new, two-tiered system of land
management within the BLM that would allow the NLCS to permanently
regulate land consider to be particularly significant in much the same
way as the NPS. Land regulated by the NLCS is often considered the
"crown jewel' of the BLM, and land-use within the NLCS is much more
carefully restricted to promote conservation.

Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee have expressed concerns
that the bill would significantly limit the types of land-use allowed on
public NLCS land by subjecting it to a new bureaucratic management
entity with seemingly unlimited regulatory power. Critics have asserted
that the NLCS management guidelines as provided in H.R. 2016 may cause
regulatory inconsistency and confusion. The bill would state that NLCS
land must be managed "in a manner that protects the values for which the
components of the system were designated." The term "values" also
appears in land management guidelines under the NPS Organic Act, and has
been interpreted in the past to constitute special federal protection of
land designated as "sound-scapes," "view-scapes," and "smell-scapes."
The use of such land has, in the past, lead to lawsuits filed by
conservation and environmentalist organizations against ranchers and
residents within these areas. According to Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT),
Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands, H.R. 2016 "uses language which has haunted National Park
Service managers, to the delight of trial attorneys." Opponents of H.R.
2016 argue that similar vague and subjective definitions have lead to
lawsuits and public disputes over land-use in the NPS, and may severely
limit the land-use activities that take place on BLM land.

In addition, concerns have been raised about violence on some NLCS land
as a result of illegal immigration and human trafficking. In February,
2007, an article in *Tucson Weekly* chronicled rampant illegal immigrant
activities in Arizona's Ironwood Forrest National Monument, an
180,000-acre preserve managed by the NLCS.[^1] The article reports that
"probably hundreds of illegals a week make it into the Ironwood along
this portion of the Amnesty Trail... it vividly shows the free-for-all
nature of human smuggling in the Ironwood." The story also quotes BLM
officials who acknowledge the problem of human smuggling within NLCS
land, stating, "The smugglers are bringing their people farther north
and giving them stimulants to keep them walking. Eventually, they
abandon those people, and those are the ones we find dead in the
monument." Though BLM officials acknowledge a problem, the "wilderness"
and "monument" status of NLCS land can reduce the number of regular
border patrols, restrict vehicular travel, and add another layer of
bureaucratic red tape for border patrol agents. H.R. 2016 has no
language regarding border patrol agents or activities along the hundreds
of miles of NLCS border-land.

In addition, questions about Second Amendment rights on lands managed by
the NLCS have also been raised. Unlike NPS land, the BLM has
historically allowed hunting and fishing throughout its system. However,
concerns have been raised that hunting, fishing, and the lawful
possession of firearms could be restricted on land managed by the NLCS.
In August the National Rifle Association (NRA) sent a letter to the
Natural Resource Committee stating that the NRA would support the bill
if it were to include language to clarify that access to hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting would be protected on appropriate
NLCS managed land, and that nothing in the legislation would supersede
states' authority to regulate hunting and fishing. However, H.R. 2016
passed through the Committee without ensuring that hunting, fishing, or
recreational shooting would be allowed on appropriate NLCS land. In
response, the NRA sent another letter on March 13, 2008, stating that
the bill does not ensure access to hunting or recreational shooting and
that "the National Rifle Association opposes H.R. 2016."

Because of these concerns, 18 of the Natural Resources Committee's 21
Republicans signed a letter of dissent from the majority's favorable
recommendation of H.R. 2016. The letter stated, among other things, that
"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." In addition to the 18 Republican signees,
the following land and gun rights organizations have publically opposed
H.R. 2016:

-   The Property Rights Alliance

-   The National Rifle Association

-   Americans for Responsible Recreational Access

-   The American Lands Rights Association

-   The Property Rights Project

-   The Land Rights Network

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
have multiple concerns with H.R. 2016, which permanently locks 26
million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land into the National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Below are a number of the possible
concerns.

-   *[Restricted land-use]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be
    concerned that the H.R. 2016 could potentially restrict land-use on
    26 million acres of federal land. BLM land has traditionally been
    used for multi-purpose recreational, farming, and industrial needs.
    H.R. 2016 locks 26 million acres into a system that is managed from
    a conservation---rather than a multiple-use---perspective.
    Conservatives may be concerned that public land-uses such as mining,
    grazing, hunting, fishing, off-roading, horseback riding, and
    shooting would be subject to NLCS restrictions.

-   *[Border Security]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be concerned
    that the bill would permanently place hundreds of miles of BLM land
    on and around the nation's southwest border under the control of the
    NLCS. Conservatives may be concerned that current NLCS lands have
    been difficult for U.S. Border Patrol Agents to monitor and this
    legislation may exacerbate the problem by adding an additional layer
    of bureaucracy near the border. Finally, some conservatives may be
    concerned that the bill does not require the NLCS to even consider
    illegal immigration or human trafficking in its management plans for
    units on or near the border.

-   *[Second Amendment Rights]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be
    concerned that hunting and gun rights that have been traditionally
    allowed on BLM land could be subject to restrictions if the land
    were permanently added to the NLCS. Further, conservatives may be
    concerned that H.R. 2016 omits language that would specifically
    protect hunting, fishing, or gun rights on NLCS land. Also,
    conservatives may be concerned that the National Rifle Association
    opposes H.R. 2016.

-   *[Unlimited Expansion]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be
    concerned that while the bill transfers permanent control of a
    limited amount of land (26 million acres) to the NLCS, it does not
    prohibit the BLM from drastically expanding the NLCS in the future.
    The conservationist nature of the NLCS differs greatly from the
    BLM's original mandate to allow a variety of public land-uses.
    Therefore, conservatives may be concerned that expansion of NLCS
    lands could continue unchecked under H.R. 2016 and infringe on
    land-use rights throughout the BLM's 258 million acre system.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 2016 was introduced on April
24, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. On April
26, 2007, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, which held hearings on June 7, 2007, and took
no further action. On March 12, 2008, the full Committee held a mark-up
and reported the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 24-13.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: Although a Statement of
Administration Policy (SAP) was not available at press time, the
President has indicated that he supports passage of H.R. 2016.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 2016 would
not have any effect on the BLM budget or annual authorization levels
because the BLM already has administrative control over the NLCS.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes, it statutorily authorizes the National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) within the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and permanently transfers 26 million acres of BLM land
to NLCS management.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** The Committee on
Natural Resources, in [House Report
110-561](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr561)),
states that "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."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee on Natural
Resources, in [House Report
110-561](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr561)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, and Article IV,
Section 3, but does not cite a specific clause. House Rule XIII, Section
3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain a statement citing
the *specific* powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact
the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. *\[emphasis added\]*

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

[^1]: Leo W. Banks, "Following the Amnesty Trail," *Tucson Weekly,*
    February 15, 2007.
    <http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:92554>