99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–613

AMERICA’S WILDERNESS PROTECTION ACT

JULY 25, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HANSEN, from the Committee on Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4620] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 4620) to accelerate the wilderness designation process by establishing a timetable for the completion of wilderness studies on 

Federal lands, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 

the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4620 is to accelerate the wilderness designation process by establishing a timetable for the completion of wilderness studies on Federal lands, and for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) established 

the national wilderness preservation system including a process 

under which wilderness areas are designated. That law specifically 

states that the Secretary of Agriculture (for the U.S. Forest Service) and the Secretary of the Interior (for the National Park Service 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) had ten years (and ten 

years only) to determine wilderness suitability or nonsuitability 

and then report these findings to the President. The President 

would then advise the House of Representatives and the Senate regarding that recommendation. After reviewing the recommendaVerDate Jul 25 2002 03:06 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR613.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR613
2

tion, Congress has the option to designate or not designate wilderness through legislation. It is noteworthy that the 1964 Wilderness 

Act has no specific mention of wilderness study areas and had the 

clear intent that all the reviews of all the land would be completed 

by September 3, 1974. In fact, the 1964 Act had defined timetables, 

all ending within ten years, for wilderness recommendations for 

which the President would advise Congress. 

In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) created Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). WSAs 

are lands solely administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

and subject to a review process that determines the suitability or 

nonsuitability of areas as wilderness. The term WSA has been used 

to describe any land area under study by any federal agency for 

wilderness designation, such as potential wilderness, proposed wilderness, or recommended wilderness, even though there is no general statutory authorization for the use of these substitute terms. 

These alternate terms have been infrequently used in specific wilderness authorizing legislation. 

Regardless of the term used, no provision of law has provided for 

WSA completion and the release of WSAs. WSAs are now studied 

and then held in that status in perpetuity—even after the actual 

studies are finished. This problem is exacerbated by a federal court 

decision which held that the character of the WSAs cannot be altered in any way. This is an even more restrictive status than an 

actual designated wilderness area. In practical terms all WSAs are 

de facto wilderness areas, are managed as such by the federal 

agencies, and, thus, not available for other multiple uses. This is 

both poor public policy and poor land management. 

H.R. 4620 would alleviate this problem by establishing a timetable for wilderness study area completion. Under H.R. 4620 all existing WSAs would be released from this status at the earlier of: 

10 years from enactment of H.R. 4620; the date the relevant Secretary determines that an area is unsuitable for designation as wilderness; or the date the area is designated by Congress. Land 

areas with subsequent WSA status would be released using the 

same criteria. H.R. 4620 also mandates that all land released from 

WSA status would revert to the land use status it had immediately 

before becoming a WSA. All areas released from WSA status could 

not be studied any further for wilderness designation. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4620 was introduced on April 30, 2002 by Congressman 

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter (R–ID). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands and to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. On June 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands held a 

hearing on the bill. On July 10, 2002, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health was discharged from further consideration 

of the bill. Congressman Mark Udall (D–CO) offered an amendment to change the short title of the bill. The amendment was defeated by voice vote. The bill was then ordered favorably reported 

to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

3

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 Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in 

the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 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, credit authority, or an increase 

or decrease in tax expenditures. According to the Congressional 

Budget Office, enactment of this bill could result in increased revenues to the United States as well as related increase spending, but 

any such effect on the federal budget would be less than $500,000 

per year. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does not 

authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply. 

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: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 22, 2002. 

Hon. JAMES V. HANSEN, Chairman, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4620, the America’s Wilderness Protection Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure.

4

H.R. 4620—America’s Wilderness Protection Act 

H.R. 4620 would establish a 10-year deadline for completing wilderness studies on federal lands and would authorize the Secretary 

of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to release wilderness 

study areas (WSAs) from that status. CBO estimates that enacting 

this bill would have no significant impact on the federal budget 

over the next 10 years. H.R. 4620 could affect direct spending (including offsetting receipts); therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 

would apply, but CBO expects that any such effects would not exceed $500,000 in any of the next several years. H.R. 4620 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. 

The Wilderness Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to establish WSAs on federal lands and to study 

those areas for potential designation as wilderness. Once a WSA is 

established by either Secretary, legislation is required to change 

the classification of the study area to either a wilderness or nonwilderness area. Until legislation is enacted to make that determination, the WSA is essentially managed as wilderness and remains closed to new income-generating activities. Currently, more 

than 50 million acres of federal lands are included in more than 

600 WSAs. According to the Department of the Interior (DOI) and 

the Forest Service, most of those WSAs were established well over 

10 years ago and probably will remain in that status for at least 

10 more years. 

H.R. 4620 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to allow nonwilderness uses on WSAs by 

releasing them from WSA status. In addition, under H.R. 4620, 

those existing WSAs that are not released from that status by the 

secretaries would be automatically released 10 years after enactment. Finally, under the bill, any new WSAs could be studied for 

a maximum of 10 years before being released from that status. 

Releasing lands with WSAs to nonwilderness uses could open 

them to new income-generating activities, particularly new mineral 

leasing and development, that otherwise would be prohibited under 

current law. According to DOI and the Forest Service, however, 

federal lands with the highest leasing potential generally lie outside of WSAs. Thus, we expect that any increase in offsetting receipts from mineral leasing and development under H.R. 4620 

would be negligible relative to the amounts generated from such 

activities on all federal onshore lands, which we estimate will total 

about $1.2 billion in 2002. Any increase in offsetting receipts would 

be partially offset by a corresponding increase in direct spending 

for payments to share those receipts with local jurisdictions. Hence, 

we estimate that the net impact on direct spending under H.R. 

4620 would not exceed $500,000 in any of the next several years. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. This 

estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

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.

(6)

1See the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

‘‘The idea of wilderness needs no defense; only more defenders.’’—

Edward Abbey 

The title of this legislation is disingenuous. If enacted, H.R. 4620 

will destroy tens of millions of acres of potential wilderness and we 

oppose it. 

While the Majority’s justifications for this legislation are muddled, the facts underlying the wilderness debate are straightforward. Congress directed 1 the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to recommend ‘‘primitive’’ areas within our National Forests, 

Parks, Wildlife Refuges and Public Lands suitable for permanent 

designation as wilderness. The Secretaries complied with this directive and, between 1974 and 1991, recommended tens of millions 

of acres for designation and tens of millions of acres for release 

from further study. 

Congress also specified that, ‘‘during the period of review of such 

areas, and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary 

shall continue to manage such lands * * * in a manner so as to 

not impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness,’’ (emphasis added). The Secretaries have complied with this 

directive as well and tens of millions of acres are currently being 

managed as if they were wilderness while Congress considers 

whether they should be formally designated. 

The Majority claims to be concerned that consideration of these 

proposed wilderness areas is taking too long and offers H.R. 4620 

as the solution. The only problem with this position is that any and 

all fault for a lack of progress on wilderness designations lies 

squarely with that same Majority and the solution they propose 

would only make matters worse. Their position here is like that of 

an arsonist who shows up at a fire he started and offers to extinguish it with gasoline. 

Attempts by the Majority to blame environmental organizations 

or the land management agencies for the slow pace of wilderness 

designations are simply not credible. The agencies made their recommendations years ago and are constrained by law to manage 

these areas to preserve their wilderness characteristics until Congress tells them to do otherwise. As for environmental organizations, while we are sure they would like the authority to designate 

wilderness, they don’t have it, so it is unclear how this can be 

blamed on them. 

The ball is squarely in the Majority’s court. There are at least 

a dozen major wilderness proposals pending before this Committee, 

potentially affecting Colorado, Utah, Washington, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Wyoming and California, and the Majority has refused 

7

even to hold hearings on any of them. The fact is, we have seen 

the enemy of wilderness designation and that enemy is the Majority. 

Further, the solution to this manufactured problem proposed by 

H.R. 4620 would facilitate the release of wilderness study areas, 

while simultaneously retarding progress on wilderness designations. While the Majority consistently opposed granting the previous Secretary even the most basic authority to manage public 

lands without Congressional involvement, H.R. 4620 would transfer 

to the current Secretary sweeping new power to release millions of 

acres of wilderness study areas without Congressional approval. In 

this way, such releases could be accomplished quickly and without 

bothersome accountability. 

In addition, this legislation creates an arbitrary, ten-year time 

limit, after which any wilderness study area not already released 

by the Secretary would be released automatically. Thus, the Majority could destroy these remaining study areas by creating a powerful disincentive for wilderness opponents to enter into any negotiations over the next decade. 

We oppose H.R. 4620 because the only way Congress can address 

wilderness issues responsibly is through more work, not less. Any 

Member who opposes a wilderness study area should have the 

courage to introduce legislation to release that area and allow a 

full public debate of that proposal. Likewise, the Majority should 

allow a full public debate of the many proposals to designate wilderness pending before this Committee and allow those measures 

to be considered by the full House. 

The language of the 1965 Wilderness Act is eloquent in its definition of the resource we are trying to protect. ‘‘A wilderness * * * 

is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community 

of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor 

who does not remain * * * an area retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation.’’ The number of acres meeting this definition is small 

and ever shrinking and while the work required to offer permanent 

protection to these areas is difficult, it is also our responsibility. 

That responsibility should not be shirked and so H.R. 4620 should 

not be approved. 

NICK RAHALL. GEORGE MILLER. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN. 

DALE E. KILDEE. 

RUSH HOLT. 

HILDA L. SOLIS. 

MARK UDALL. 

BETTY MCCOLLUM. 

PETE DEFAZIO. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. FRANK PALLONE, Jr. 

ANI ́BAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́. ED MARKEY. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD. 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA. 

8

RON KIND.

Æ