OutdoorWire

Extreme Terrain



New on Access Central
People and Public Lands Essays
by outdoorwire. 05/08/19 03:31 PM
Support OutdoorWire...
More News on the 'Wire

4x4Voice
4x4Wire
MUIRNet-News
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics1,647
Posts1,707
Members45
Most Online277
Apr 12th, 2019
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 118 guests, and0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
Federal Legislation
05/15/19 02:46 AM
S. 1429: A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication on the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened species, and for other purposes.

Introduced: May 13, 2019
Status: Introduced on May 13, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on May 13, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.


Source: GovTrack
0 182 see more
Federal Legislation
05/10/19 04:47 PM
H.R. 2607: To expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested ...

... lands, and for other purposes

Introduced: May 8, 2019
Status: Introduced on May 8, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on May 8, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Source: GovTrack
0 135 see more
Federal Legislation
05/10/19 04:41 PM
H.R. 2532: To protect grizzly bear populations, and for other purposes

Introduced: May 7, 2019
Status: Introduced on May 7, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on May 7, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

This bill is scheduled for the following committee meetings:
May 15, 2019 2 p.m. — House Committee on Natural Resources: Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife

Source: GovTrack
0 144 see more
Legal Issues
05/08/19 05:01 PM
Update:

Justia Opinion Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Forest Service in an action brought by environmental groups challenging travel management plans permitting limited motorized big game retrieval in three Ranger Districts in the Kaibab National Forest. The panel held that the plans did not violate the Travel Management Rule where the new restrictions constitute a "limited" use of motorized vehicles; the Forest Service complied with the rule by limiting motor vehicle use to a defined set of roads in each District; and the Forest Service did not violate the plain terms of the Travel Management Rule.

Determining that plaintiffs have standing, the panel held that the Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), because the Forest Service's determination that no environmental impact statements (EIS) were needed as to the Districts' travel management plans was reasonable. Finally, the Forest Service did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), because the Forest Service conducted the required prefield work, consulted with the appropriate entities, and reached a determination consistent with the evidence before it.
1 489 see more
Socio-Ecomonics
05/08/19 03:31 PM
What is the economic impact of America’s public lands and waters? How can we quantify how these remarkable resources contribute to our quality of life? And how are our valuation methods and public policies changing?

This diverse collection of essays addresses questions related to the economic impact of America’s public lands.

Written by some of the most prominent and respected scholars of public lands, these essays represent the state of the knowledge of the economics of America’s vast natural resources. The authors were selected to submit essays because they have exhibited high research standards over the course of their careers and, in many cases, have generated data-driven analyses that have impacted public policy. They offer a wealth of insight based on decades of experience.

Our intention is that this collection will inspire the next generation of researchers to thoughtfully and creatively address the challenges of informing public lands policy with credible data and transparent methodology.

Source: Headwaters Economics
0 143 see more
Federal Legislation
05/06/19 04:47 PM
S. 1311: A bill to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System.

Introduced: May 2, 2019
Status: Introduced on May 2, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on May 2, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Source: GovTrack
0 466 see more
Federal Legislation - Firearms
05/06/19 04:38 PM
H.R. 2443: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.

Introduced: May 1, 2019
Status: Introduced on May 1, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on May 1, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Source: GovTrack
0 122 see more
All About Water
05/03/19 02:38 PM
This month California’s State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) announced the adoption of new regulations defining California wetlands subject to state regulation. The regulations create a more expansive permitting scheme for developers, public agencies and others proposing to discharge to state waters.

The regulations result from a decade-long effort to increase protections for episodic bodies of water that provide ecological and economic benefits. Their timing, however, was prompted by the Trump Administration’s recent proposed roll back of federal jurisdiction over “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the federal Clean Water Act and supporting litigation seeking to invalidate the Obama Administration’s expansive 2015 WOTUS Rule. They are intended to ensure that California is largely insulated from any new latitude that Washington provides for watershed development.

California’s Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code, Section 13000, et seq.) broadly defines “waters of the state” to cover “any surface or groundwater … within the boundaries of the state” and includes all “waters of the United States” under the federal Clean Water Act. The SWRCB notes in the new definition and procedures that “wetlands that meet the current definition, or any historic definition, of waters of the U.S. are waters of the state.” As a result, waters subject to state regulation will not change even if federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is narrowed.

Further, the new regulations go beyond what the Clean Water Act presently requires under the 2015 WOTUS Rule by capturing a wide range of state wetlands, including “natural wetlands,” “wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state,” and even certain artificially created wetlands. Significantly, the new regulations support jurisdiction even over wetlands found in arid regions of the state that do not normally support vegetation, like desert playas. The policy does, however, include a discretionary exclusion for routine and emergency operation and maintenance activities for public agencies, water utilities and special districts.

The SWRCB adopted the new wetlands definition during a public hearing on April 2, 2019. While it did not make any substantive changes from those proposed after its March 5 workshop, it did make minor revisions that could increase monitoring and reporting requirements by those receiving permits. The wetlands policy will now go to the Office of Administrative Law for a 9-month review period before it goes into effect. The policy contains a grandfathering provision that excludes project applications pending before the effective date.

The SWRCB has underscored that the new rules will provide much-needed clarity and predictability to the regulated public. Even so, the rules likely will result in greater instances of state “wetland” regulation, translating into greater permitting burdens and costs.

Source: Lexology
0 138 see more
Federal Legislation
05/02/19 03:48 PM
S. 1262: A bill to designate certain land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in the State of Oregon as wilderness and national recreation areas, to withdraw certain land located in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon, from all forms of entry, appropriation, or ...

... disposal under the public land laws, location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, and for other purposes.

Introduced: May 1, 2019
Status: Introduced on May 1, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on May 1, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Source: GovTrack
0 225 see more
Legal Issues
04/26/19 02:59 PM
After ONDA challenged the BLM's Recreation Plan, which involved the route network for motorized vehicles in the Steens Mountain Area, the Interior Board of Land Appeals approved the related Travel Plan under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Steens Act). Harney County then intervened to defend the Board's approval of the Travel Plan and cross-claimed against the BLM, challenging the Recreation Plan. The district court upheld both the Recreation Plan and the Travel Plan.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the BLM satisfied its obligation to consult the Steens Mountain Advisory Council before issuing the Recreation Plan, so its action was not arbitrary and capricious in that respect; the BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by changing its definition of "roads and trails" without providing a reasoned explanation for the change; the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by affirming the BLM's issuance of the Travel Plan; and the BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the Recreation Plan. Finally, the court vacated the cost award to the BLM and remanded.

Primary Holding
The BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by changing its definition of "roads and trails" without providing a reasoned explanation for the change, and by affirming the BLM's issuance of the Travel Plan and Recreation Plan regarding the route network for motorized vehicles in the Steens Mountain Area.

Source: Justia - US Law
0 250 see more
All About Water
04/25/19 02:41 PM
Whether a discharge to groundwater that results in pollution of jurisdictional surface waters is regulated under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) is the subject of much debate, conflicting decisions from the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and a pending case in the United States Supreme Court.

The Environmental Protection Agency has now staked out its position—that a discharge to groundwater is never subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act—in a guidance document signed April 12, 2019 and posted on its website April 15. The guidance document is available here and will be published in the Federal Register.

The issue has widespread potential impact, as the conduit theory has been asserted to require CWA regulation of discharges into groundwater from ash ponds, landfills, septic tanks, land application systems, and even accidental releases, so long as the pollutants eventually make their way to surface waters.

Recent Cases Split on the “Conduit Theory”; the Supreme Court is set to settle the issue

In 2018 the Ninth Circuit held that a discharge of wastewater into groundwater that was demonstrated to flow into the Pacific Ocean violated the Clean Water Act. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2018)(“County of Maui case”). The Fourth Circuit also adopted the “conduit theory” of liability, holding that the CWA covers an accidental release of petroleum to groundwater with a direct hydrological connection to jurisdictional surface waters. Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P, 886 F.3d 637 (4th Cir. 2018). On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit squarely rejected the conduit theory of liability under the CWA. Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 905 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2018).

Petitions for certiorari were filed in both the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit cases. As urged by the amicus brief filed by the United States at the request of the Court, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the County of Maui case, and the case will be heard next term.

EPA Reconsiders Its Position, Now Rejects the “Conduit Theory”

EPA has a history of mixed and conflicting positions on the conduit theory. As recently as 2017, in its amicus brief in the County of Maui case, EPA advocated in favor of this theory. EPA acknowledges in the new guidance document that this has generated confusion in the courts and uncertainty for EPA regional offices, states, the regulated community, and the public.

In February 2018, after the Ninth Circuit decision in the County of Maui case, EPA sought public comment on the question: “whether the NPDES permit program applies to releases of pollutants to groundwater and whether [EPA] should revise or clarify its position on this issue.” After considering the comments received and reviewing the legislative history and subsequent interpretations and case law, EPA has issued its interpretive statement.

EPA now concludes that “the best, if not the only, reading of the CWA is that Congress intentionally chose to exclude all releases of pollutants to groundwater from the NPDES [CWA permit] program, even where pollutants are conveyed to jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater.” In EPA’s view, Congress intended for states to have the discretion whether to regulate such releases, or not. EPA’s interpretation is based on its consideration of the text of the statute as well as its extensive legislative history. The guidance document reviews and acknowledges EPA’s prior assertions that discharges to groundwater are regulated under the CWA where there is a direct hydrologic connection to jurisdictional surface waters but now concludes that the statute does not support that theory.

The guidance document is just that—guidance, not a rule adopted after notice and public comment. As a result, it does not have the force of law. Rather, the document is explicit in its intent to provide the Supreme Court with an extensive explanation of EPA’s interpretation of the CWA—more extensive than could be set forth in an amicus brief—as the County of Maui case proceeds to briefing and then consideration by the Court. After the Supreme Court decision in that case, EPA intends to proceed to formal notice and comment rulemaking.

Source: Lexology
0 141 see more
Access Roundtable
04/25/19 02:38 PM
Effectively restarting a contentious listing process, on April 12, 2019, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service reopened public comment on 2013 proposed rules listing the Bi-State distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse as threatened with a 4(d) rule and esignating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service also announced it is initiating a new status review of the Sage-Grouse to determine whether it is endangered or threatened. Potentially affecting mining, utility, agriculture, energy, and other interests, this do-over is the first step towards much-needed certainty on the Sage-Grouse’s status under the ESA. The public comment periods close June 11, 2019.

This saga dates back several years. On October 28, 2013, the Service published two proposed rules:

1. Listing the Sage-Grouse as threatened, but providing 4(d) rule exemptions from the take prohibition for certain conservation activities.
2. Designating Sage-Grouse critical habitat along the California and Nevada border.

Eighteen months later, the Service withdrew them, concluding that extensive multi-stakeholder and multi-agency efforts to conserve the Sage-Grouse were working in lieu of ESA listing. Environmental groups successfully sued, requiring the Service to reverse course and re-propose the rules it previously withdrew.

Now, the Service is again accepting public comment on the 2013 proposed rules and initiating a new status review to determine whether the Sage-Grouse meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species. With a nod to the listing decision’s long history, the Service asks the public to provide any newly available information about the species, its habitat, and threats (or the lack thereof). The Service also requests information related to the success of Sage-Grouse conservation efforts and public comment on whether the 4(d) rule should exempt additional activities from the take prohibition.

While this redo will require affected project-proponents to again make certain the Service has the best available information as it makes the Sage-Grouse listing decision, this years-long process may soon reach an end. As mandated by court order, the Service states that it will publish a final listing decision for the Sage-Grouse by October 1, 2019. Whether this date actually brings closure remains to be seen, as the latest proposal is also reevaluating the status of the species and alludes to the potential for additional public comment periods in response to any “significant new scientific information” received.

Lexology
0 223 see more
Climate Change
04/25/19 02:30 PM
A federal district court has ruled that the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) failed to adequately consider climate change when approving a set of oil and gas leases on public lands in Wyoming. The ruling should be of broader interest to developers and energy companies because it offers guidance on how to properly analyze a project’s effects on climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The law in this area remains unsettled –especially since President Trump rescinded the Obama Administration’s formal guidance on NEPA and climate change in 2017. Future developments are likely, and project sponsors should monitor them closely.

At issue in the case are oil and gas leases covering 300,000 acres of public lands in Wyoming. For each lease sale, BLM prepared an environmental assessment to comply with NEPA. The environmental assessments discussed climate change on a “conceptual level,” without quantifying and analyzing the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the lease sales. The court found the analysis inadequate under NEPA, and it halted drilling under the leases and sent the matter back to BLM for additional environmental review. In its lengthy ruling, the court offered concrete guidance to BLM on how to fix its analysis of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and climate change on remand, including that:

BLM should quantify GHG emissions that would result from drilling oil and gas wells on the leased parcels.
BLM should provide more detail about “downstream” GHG emissions that would result from the consumption of oil and gas produced under the leases.
BLM should better evaluate the “cumulative” effect of the leases together with other projects, including by comparing GHG emissions from the leases against available emissions forecasts and other BLM programs.

This guidance may also serve as a useful roadmap to NEPA compliance for other projects, particularly other energy projects. And development opponents are likely to use the court’s reasoning to challenge future NEPA documents. Below we break down the court’s direction on three categories of GHG emissions, each requiring a different level of detail.

I. Direct GHG Emissions from Drilling

The court found that BLM should have quantified the GHG emissions that would result from drilling oil and gas wells on the leased parcels. The court acknowledged that BLM was not required to conduct a site-specific analysis at the leasing stage, as the precise number and locations of wells were unknown. But, per the court, BLM should have forecasted the aggregate GHG emissions from the approved leases, based on the available data. This data included estimates of the number of wells to be drilled, the GHG emissions to be produced by each well, and the GHG emissions being produced by existing wells within the region and the state.

Under this court’s analysis, NEPA documents should provide a quantitative analysis of GHG emissions whenever possible. Even if specific project details have not been determined, the agency should make reasonable forecasts and projections based on the available data. As appropriate, the agency may express the forecasts as ranges and explain any underlying uncertainties. But the agency may not, as the court put it, “simply throw up its hands and ascribe any effort at quantification to a ‘crystal ball inquiry.’”

II. Indirect GHG Emissions from Oil and Gas Consumption

The court also found that BLM should have provided more detail about “downstream” GHG emissions that would result from the consumption of oil and gas produced under the leases. Although BLM was not required to analyze downstream emissions at the same level of detail as drilling emissions, it should have provided more than the “sparse discussion” it did. The court did not “require” BLM to quantify the downstream emissions on remand, but it ordered BLM to consider whether doing so is reasonably possible, and if not, to thoroughly explain its decision.

Under this court’s analysis, NEPA documents should provide a robust analysis of all reasonably foreseeable indirect or downstream GHG emissions. If possible, the analysis should be quantitative, and if not, the agency should thoroughly explain on the record why it is not. In addition, if third parties or project opponents provide their own quantitative emissions estimates, the agency should assess them and, if it decides not to use them, explain why they are unreliable or otherwise inappropriate.

III. Cumulative Effects of GHG Emissions

Finally, the court found that BLM had failed to adequately analyze the “cumulative” effect of the leases together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. In particular, BLM should have compared the GHG emissions from the leases against available state, regional, and national emissions forecasts, as well as other regional and national BLM programs. The court, however, disagreed with environmental groups that BLM was required to use any specific methodology, such as the “social cost of carbon” or “global carbon budget” protocols.

Under this court’s analysis, NEPA documents should evaluate project emissions in the context of regional and national emissions. This analysis should specifically account for any relevant emissions forecasts or climate plans, and for the agency’s other related projects. For now, NEPA documents need not use the carbon protocols favored by environmental groups, although project sponsors should monitor for future developments in this area.

Source: Lexology
0 184 see more
Climate Change
04/25/19 02:03 PM
The contentious and partisan debate in Washington over climate change policy may be shifting in a new direction—one that is driven not by partisanship but by a group of bipartisan members of Congress and the engagement and leadership from the private sector.

While the Green New Deal has dominated the political news with much fanfare and minimal results, there has been a much less publicized discussion in the House of Representatives between Republicans and Democrats on key committees about the causes and impact of climate change and what prudent steps need to be taken to address the issue.

Shell and ExxonMobil along with Chevron, British Petroleum and other fossil fuel companies are taking the lead within the industry in recognizing the problem and working toward a realistic solution. These companies are pushing for a more aggressive approach to combating climate change, including their support for the Paris Climate Agreement, carbon pricing, fuel mandates and the need to reduce methane gas emissions.

Shell has announced that it would base in part their executives’ pay on reducing the company’s carbon emissions. Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden has written, “The need for urgent action in response to climate change has become more obvious since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015. As a result, society’s expectations in this area have changed, and Shell’s views have also evolved.”

Shortly after the November election, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods met with Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the new chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, to discuss several climate change initiatives, including ExxonMobil’s endorsement of the Paris Climate Agreement; funding research into advanced biofuels; and spending $1 million to support a carbon tax. ExxonMobil has announced that the company has invested $8 billion on energy efficiency and emissions reduction. Mr. Woods personally urged President Trump to keep the U.S. a party to the Paris Accord.

During the past twenty years, oil and gas companies and their trade associations have largely opposed climate change legislation. The debates before the Congress have been intense with no interest at compromise.

After years of opposition, environmental activists have been skeptical and quick to aggressively challenge the industry’s commitment. In late October of 2018, the New York Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, accusing the company of misleading investors on how it applied internal proxy carbon costs for evaluating oil and gas projects.

It is not surprising that with Democrats now in the majority, climate change will be a significant issue in the House of Representatives. On various committees, Democrats have already held more than a dozen hearings that focused on the impact of climate change. Chairwoman Johnson has made the issue one of her highest priorities. Her first committee hearing examined the scientific causes of climate change and possible solutions.

What is surprising has been the engagement of Republican members of the Science Committee. After years of largely partisan debates over climate science, there is a growing bipartisan consensus that supports the scientific findings and considers meaningful steps to address the issue, including investments in new technologies and encouraging partnerships between industry and the federal government.

A new bipartisan Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has been formed in the House to investigate climate change, hold hearings and issue findings on how climate change is impacting the nation’s economy. Senate Democrats have announced a companion committee without Republican support.

While the debate over climate change has not been a high priority for the Republican leadership in the Senate, funding research for energy innovation has gained support. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced to fund new technologies to promote the capture, utilization and storage of carbon dioxide emissions.

What may be the most significant change in the debate over climate change has been the response of the of the private sector, including the business community. One of the strongest players to emerge has been The Climate Leadership Council, whose membership includes many of the country’s most important corporate and intellectual leaders. Led by two former secretaries of state, two former heads of the Federal Reserve and multiple major corporations, The Council supports a carbon tax on carbon dioxide emissions in exchange for eliminating greenhouse gas regulations and protecting fossil fuel companies from climate liability lawsuits. Most economists have endorsed a carbon tax as the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

While it is never wise to underestimate the harsh partisanship that has taken hold in Washington, the congressional debate over climate change, at least in the House, may be entering a new chapter, one that is less partisan, more inclusive and hopefully more productive.

Source: Lexology
0 204 see more
Legal Issues
04/24/19 02:40 PM
Western Watersheds Project v. Grimm, No. 18-35075 (9th Cir. 2019)

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by conservationist groups to enjoin the federal government's participation in the killing of gray wolves in Idaho pending additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The panel held that the conservationist groups had Article III standing because declarations from members described how USDA Wildlife Services's wolf-killing activities threatened their aesthetic and recreational interests. Therefore, the members established that the interests fell within the scope of NEPA's protections and they established an injury-in-fact. The panel noted that causation was established under the relaxed standard for procedural injuries. Finally, the panel held that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs' injuries were not redressable and in relying on an unpublished opinion that lacked precedential value.

Read complete opinion in Justia - US Law
0 197 see more
Legal Issues
04/23/19 11:47 PM
WildEarth Guardians v. Conner, No. 17-1334 (10th Cir. 2019)

WildEarth Guardians appealed after the United States Forest Service published a 2014 environmental assessment (“EA”) to the Tennessee Creek Project, and subsequently issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. The Service undertook the project for a stated purpose of protecting from insects, disease, fire, improvement of wildlife habitat and to maintain watershed conditions. One of the conclusions in the EA determined none of these actions would adversely impact the Canadian lynx. WildEarth Guardians alleged the EA failed to adequately assess the Project’s effects on lynx and by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The district court upheld the agency action. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Agency’s actions, finding the Service satisfied its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations when it reasonably concluded in its EA that under a worst-case scenario the lynx would not be adversely affected by the Project and reasonably concluded that an EIS was not necessary.

Read the decision at: Justia - US Law
0 192 see more
Federal Legislation
04/23/19 11:28 PM
To designate certain Federal land in the State of California as wilderness, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Apr 10, 2019
Status: Introduced on Apr 10, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on April 10, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.
Read proposed bill text on GovTrack

Bill history:
Oct 16, 2017 - Earlier Version — Introduced. This activity took place on a related bill, H.R. 4072 (115th).
0 97 see more
Federal Legislation
04/23/19 11:25 PM
To establish as a unit of the National Park System the San Gabriel National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Apr 10, 2019
Status: Introduced on Apr 10, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on April 10, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed bill text on GovTrack

Bill history:

Oct 23, 2015 - Earlier Version — Introduced. This activity took place on a related bill, H.R. 3820 (114th).
May 3, 2017 - Earlier Version — Introduced. This activity took place on a related bill, H.R. 2323 (115th).
0 90 see more
Federal Legislation
04/23/19 11:17 PM
A bill to designate certain Federal land in the State of California as wilderness, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Apr 10, 2019
Status: Introduced on Apr 10, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on April 10, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed text on GovTrack
0 109 see more
Federal Legislation
04/23/19 11:15 PM
A bill to establish as a unit of the National Park System the San Gabriel National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Apr 10, 2019
Status: Introduced on Apr 10, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on April 10, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed text GovTrack
0 85 see more

OutdoorWire Websites

OutdoorWire

OutdoorWire

Portal page for OutdoorWire Access and Landuse Central Read More
4x4Voice

4x4Voice

California off road recreation news and information Read More
MUIRNet News

MUIRNet News

News and information about issues affecting outdoor recreation Read More
4x4Wire

4x4Wire

Off road recreation and 4x4 Technical news and information Read More
TrailTalk

TrailTalk

4x4Wire TrailTalk Forums for a variety of 4x4 tech information Read More

4x4Wire Tech Section

Jeep 4x4 Tech

Jeep 4x4 Tech

Jeep Tech from JeepWire - Mods, Maintenance, Tech and more... Read More
Isuzu 4x4 Tech

Isuzu 4x4 Tech

Isuzu Tech from 4x4Wire - Mods, Maintenance, Tech and more... Read More



4x4Wire Social:

| 4x4Wire on FaceBook | Google+4x4Wire on Google+|


OutdoorWire, 4x4Wire, JeepWire, TrailTalk, MUIRNet-News, and 4x4Voice are all trademarks and publications of OutdoorWire, Inc. and MUIRNet Consulting.
Copyright (c) 1999-2018 OutdoorWire, Inc and MUIRNet Consulting - All Rights Reserved, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without express written permission
You may link freely to this site, but no further use is allowed without the express written permission of the owner of this material.
All corporate trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Page Time: 0.008s Queries: 6 (0.004s) Memory: 1.0086 MB (Peak: 1.0421 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2019-05-20 11:21:37 UTC