29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–119 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

SIKES ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013 

JUNE 24, 2013.—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. 910] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 910) to reauthorize the Sikes Act, 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. 910 is to reauthorize the Sikes Act. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Department of Defense (DOD) controls over 28 million acres 

of valuable fish and wildlife habitat at 511 military installations 

nationwide. These lands contain a wealth of plant and animal life, 

wetlands for migratory birds and 420 endangered and threatened 

species. Enacted in 1960, the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a–670o) has 

been extended a number of times, with the most recent effort in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Under 

Public Law 111–84, Title I of the Sikes Act was extended until September 30, 2014, and the existing annual funding levels of $1.5 

million for DOD and $3 million for the Department of the Interior 

through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were retained. However, neither DOD nor FWS receives a direct appropriation for this 

program. Instead, the nearly $60 million that has been spent during the past ten fiscal years in support of Sikes Act activities has 

been consistently funded through general administrative funds. 

Prior to the Sikes Act Implementation Act of 1997 (P.L. 105–85), 

DOD was able to enter into voluntary ‘‘cooperative plans’’ with the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate state fish and wildlife 

agency to carry out a program to plan, develop, maintain and coordinate fish and wildlife conservation efforts on military lands. In 

addition, the cooperative plans could allow for the issuance of special hunting and fishing permits with the proceeds used for such 

things as habitat improvement. These plans were neither uniform 

nor comprehensive in their requirements and DOD was not required to implement them. 

Under current law, DOD is required to complete a comprehensive 

Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for each 

of its installations. These plans must be updated annually by the 

base commanders and FWS and the affected State must re-confirm 

these documents no less than every five years. The only exception 

involves those bases that do not have any significant fish, wildlife 

or natural resources. DOD believes 341 military installations are 

required to complete INRMPs. The Department also has noted that 

it defines an INRMP as ‘‘an integrated plan based, to the maximum extent practicable, on ecosystem management that shows the 

interrelationships of individual components of natural resources 

management to mission requirements and other land use activities 

affecting an installation’s natural resources.’’ These plans include 

the following components: fish and wildlife management and wildlife-oriented recreation; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement; wetland protection; establishment of specific management goals; public 

use of natural resources; enforcement of all natural resource laws; 

and how a ‘‘no net loss’’ of military lands would be ensured. The 

law allows for a public comment period for each INRMP, requires 

that each plan be completed within two years, stipulates that a sufficient number of professional trained natural resource management personnel complete these plans, and requires an annual report to Congress. 

The fundamental goals of INRMPs are to assist installation commanders in their efforts to conserve and rehabilitate natural resources and to balance the use of air, land and water resources for 

military training and testing with the need to conserve wildlife resources for future generations. They are a comprehensive approach 

to ecosystem management in a holistic, proactive way that protects 

endangered species and their habitats. In fiscal year 2011, 92 

INRMPs were reviewed at a cost of $3.9 million, or approximately 

$42,800 per plan. 

On November 24, 2003, the National Defense Authorization Act 

(P.L. 108–136) was signed into law and it modified a number of 

Sikes Act provisions. Among the changes was one to the Endangered Species Act which precluded the designation of critical habitat on DOD lands subject to an INRMP under the Sikes Act. This 

was an important modification because an increasing amount of 

military lands were being designated as ‘‘critical habitat’’ which restricted an increasing number of military training activities. To 

date, 51 military installations have been exempted from critical 

habitat designation without any significant impact on the listed 

species residing on those bases. This measure also extended the 

Sikes Act until September 30, 2008. 

During the 112th Congress, the Sikes Act was further revised by 

a provision stipulating that 47 State-owned National Army Guard 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

facilities would come under the jurisdiction of the DoD for developing and implementing an INRMP. 

The fundamental goal of H.R. 910 is to extend the authorization 

of appropriations for Title 1 of this highly successful conservation 

law until September 30, 2019. However, the DOD needs to do a 

better job of implementing the provisions of the Disabled Sportsmen’s Access Act of 1998. While base commanders have a difficult 

job, efforts should be made to provide improved access and adaptive equipment to those brave Americans who have been severely injured in the service of this country. It is understood that 174 military installations provide ‘‘at least some degree of access to disabled persons for hunting, fishing and/or other outdoor recreational 

opportunities.’’ However, the key is not access but accessibility. 

Based on this criteria, it is unacceptable that only 55 installations 

out of 511 military bases have such adaptive equipment. This is especially concerning based on the likelihood that this equipment is 

many times provided to base commanders at no cost to the federal 

government. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 910 was introduced on February 28, 2013, by Congressman 

John Fleming (R–LA). The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. 

The bill was also referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On 

March 21, 2013, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On 

May 15, 2013, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and 

Insular Affairs was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered, and the bill 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: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

H.R. 910—Sikes Act Reauthorization Act of 2013 

H.R. 910 would reauthorize the Sikes Act through 2019. That act 

requires the Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to develop and implement plans to manage natural resources on certain military lands. For those activities, the bill 

would authorize the appropriation of up to $4.5 million a year for 

2015 through 2019. Under current law, that amount is authorized 

to be appropriated through 2014. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 910 would cost $18 million over the 

2015–2018 period and $4.5 million after 2018. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, payas-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 910 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. 

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 credit authority or an increase 

or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 910 would cost $18 million over the 2015–2018 period and 

$4.5 million after 2018. 

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 reauthorize the Sikes Act. 

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 reauthorize a 

program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program. Such program was identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance publish pursuant to 

the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, as 

amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

More specifically under the general category of Fish and Wildlife 

Management Assistance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Sikes Act was grouped with seven other federal laws that provide 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

funding for this activity, including the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 

1980, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 

Act of 1990, and the Lacey Act. Related programs were identified 

as Sport Fish Restoration Program and the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife. In addition, under the category of Recovery Act Fund— 

Habitat Enhancement, Restoration and Improvement by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Sikes Act was grouped with nine 

other statutes. In addition to many of the laws listed for Fish and 

Wildlife Management Assistance, this list also included the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Great Lakes Fish 

and Wildlife Restoration Act, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Related programs for this activity were identified as Sport Fish Restoration program, Fish and 

Wildlife Management Assistance, Coastal Program, Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife and Pollution Prevention Grants Program. However, as explained in the background and need portion of this report, Congress does not provide specific appropriations to implement the Sikes Act, but rather the Fish and Wildlife Service takes 

general funds for these activities, from other statutes and programs 

described in this section, and uses to meet the goals of the Sikes 

Act. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SIKES ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON MILITARY 

INSTALLATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 108. APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES. 

(a) EXPENDITURES OF COLLECTED FUNDS UNDER INTEGRATED

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS.—The Secretary of Defense shall expend such funds as may be collected in accordance 

with the integrated natural resources management plans agreed to 

under sections 101 and 102 and cooperative agreements agreed to 

under section 103a of this title, and for no other purpose. All funds 

that are so collected shall remain available until expended. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SECRETARY OF DE- FENSE.—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 

Secretary of Defense not to exceed $1,500,000 for each of the øfiscal 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

years 2009 through 2014¿ fiscal years 2015 through 2019, to carry 

out this title, including the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and the development of public recreation and other facilities, 

and to carry out such functions and responsibilities as the Secretary may have under cooperative agreements entered into under 

section 103a. The Secretary of Defense shall, to the greatest extent 

practicable, enter into agreements to utilize the services, personnel, 

equipment, and facilities, with or without reimbursement, of the 

Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of this section. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SECRETARY OF THE IN- TERIOR.—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior, there are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary of the Interior not to exceed $3,000,000 for each 

of the øfiscal years 2009 through 2014¿ fiscal years 2015 through 

2019, to carry out such functions and responsibilities as the Secretary may have under integrated natural resources management 

plans to which such Secretary is a party under this section, including those for the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and the 

development of public recreation and other facilities. 

(d) USE OF OTHER CONSERVATION OR REHABILITATION AUTHORI- TIES.—The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior 

may each use any authority available to him under other laws relating to fish, wildlife, or plant conservation or rehabilitation for 

purposes of carrying out the provisions of this title. 

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 HR119P1.001

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS 

June 19,2013 

The Honorable Howard "Buck" McKeon 

Chainnan, Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

2120 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D,C 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On 15,2013, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered reported a slate of 

included as part ofH.R, 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act 

were rcfened primarily to the Committee on Natural 

Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on Anned Services. 

Specifically. these bills are ILR. 910. Sikes Act Reauthorization Act of2013; H,R, 1299, 

White Sands Missilc Enhancement Act; H,R. 1672, Limestone Hills Training 

for the transfer of certain land cLUTently 

lvumagelllellL to the ofthe 

consideration 

your jurisdiction over the 

referrals, In addition, a conference on any of the bills be 

request to have the Committee on AImed Services rq"e"en.ted 

committee, I would be to include response in the bill reports 

filed by the on 

Thank you for your consideration of my request. 

Chairman 
8 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 HR119P1.002

Chairman Doc 

House Committee on Resources 

1324 Longworth I-louse Offic~ Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chail'lnan Hastings: 

June 19,2013 

bills that were 

Resources, an Committee on Armed included as 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This includes RH.. 910, Sikes 

Act of2013; H.R. 1299, White Sands Missile Enhancement Act; H.R. Limestone Hills 

Training Area Withdrawal Act; H.R. 1673, To public 

administered of Land of the 

the importanct~ of these bi!1s, and the need for the 

we have valid claim these 

cOJ1lsideraition of the bills, the Services 

matters contained in the bills which fall within its 

should a conference on any bills be necessary, I request that 

be represented during any confercnc~ Ht!gotiations. 

Thank you for your attention to these I1latt!.;fS, 

cc: The Honorable John A, Bochner 

TIle Honorable Adam Smith 

The Honorable Edward r The Honorahle Thomas 1. 

Chairman 

o