House debates Democratic bid to restore NEPA in sportsmen's bill

E&E News
By Phil Taylor
February 5, 2014

Democrats made their case yesterday that the House should nix language in a sportsmen's package that they argued would gut the National Environmental Policy Act on wildlife refuges, but their plea met a stiff rebuttal from Republicans.

The House yesterday adopted by voice vote eight amendments to H.R. 3590, a package of several hunting, angling and gun rights bills, but it saved votes on Democratic amendments to sustain NEPA and to ensure consideration of climate change in land management decisions.

Votes on those amendments and the bill's passage are expected today.

A flashpoint in yesterday's debate was language in the sportsmen's package designed to exempt the Fish and Wildlife Service from having to do extensive NEPA reviews in order to expand hunting and angling access on national wildlife refuges.

That language, authored by Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), was included, in part, to ensure that anti-hunting groups would have less legal leverage to block hunting rights in court.

But Democrats and conservation groups yesterday argued that the provision unnecessarily exempts the agency from analyzing and disclosing the impacts of decisions both to expand and reduce refuge access, as well as permit a panoply of other activities, including mineral development.

The amendment by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) would have simply nixed the NEPA language.

"If they want an increase in hunting, no NEPA analysis; if they want to decrease hunting, no NEPA analysis, no opportunity for the public to be involved in the process," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), in support of the Ellison amendment. "Why do we need to cut the public out?"

The National Wildlife Federation, a pro-hunting conservation group that opposes H.R. 3590, last week issued a legal memo arguing that the language is both ambiguous and potentially broad.

"It is difficult to state with certainty what actions would be covered, but the act's broad language suggests that it could include any action that opens or closes a road or trail or modifies the management of lands that provide fish or wildlife habitat or recreation opportunity," the group's analysis said.

House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said the bill was written to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service spends less time defending its decisions in court and more time conserving wildlife habitat.

"We know these provisions are important because they fix a court-created problem regarding the implementation of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act," he said. "We have seen the clear track record that anti-hunter groups will use to tie up hunting and fishing access to federal lands with endless lawsuits. This bill reverses this trend."

The House yesterday also postponed a vote on an amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) to clarify that the bill does not inhibit the Interior secretary from considering climate change in decisions involving conservation and recreation on public lands.

Passage of both Democratic amendments is unlikely.

But the underlying sportsmen's package carries broad support from the sportsmen's community and will likely pick up a fair number of Democratic votes today. It is backed strongly by the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, among dozens of others.

At its core, the bill would require the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to consider ways to promote hunting, angling and target shooting access on federal lands, a mandate that sportsmen say is lacking in those agencies' core statutes.

Separate provisions protect the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle and Second Amendment rights, and promote the online sale of duck stamps and the importation of polar bear trophies, among other titles.

The House yesterday adopted by voice vote eight amendments making technical corrections, requiring reporting on jobs impacts, promoting diverse representation on a federal advisory council and sustaining motorized access to public lands, among other relatively noncontroversial provisions.

Also yesterday, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) introduced a larger sportsmen's package that contains many elements of the House package but has strong bipartisan support (see related story).