39–006 

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withdrawn from— 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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

(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, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Mar 04, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR370.XXX HR370

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

cluding 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, payas-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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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. 

Æ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING