Overview
Title
To sustain economic development and recreational use of National Forest System land in the State of Montana, to add certain land to the National Wilderness Preservation System, to designate new areas for recreation, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 2149 is a plan to make the forests in Montana more fun and healthy by adding new special nature areas and creating places for people to play, while also making sure the forests stay strong and safe.
Summary AI
S. 2149 aims to boost economic growth and enhance recreational opportunities on National Forest System land in Montana. It proposes adding specific areas to the National Wilderness Preservation System and establishing new recreation areas like the Otatsy and Spread Mountain Recreation Areas. The bill also outlines measures for forest restoration, including landscape assessments and collaborative restoration projects, and safeguards Tribal treaty rights. Additionally, it ensures the management of wilderness areas and facilitates trail-based recreation, emphasizing public health, safety, and environmental protection.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act," aims to manage and preserve designated areas in Montana's National Forest System lands. It seeks to promote both economic development and recreational use, while adding lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill includes four main sections: Forest Restoration, Recreation, Conservation, and Effect. These sections propose various projects such as conducting landscape assessments, establishing recreation management areas, designating wilderness areas, and protecting treaty rights for Native American tribes.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues within the bill could potentially impact its effectiveness and clarity:
Timeframes and Accountability: The bill sets a maximum period of three years to complete a landscape assessment without detailing what a successful assessment should encompass. This lack of clarity could delay necessary restoration actions in the ecosystems.
Transparency and Inclusivity: The bill uses the term "interested parties" without specifying who these might be. Similarly, it relies on external programs and regulations unfamiliar to the general public, possibly limiting transparency and inclusivity.
Vague Terminology: Key sections give broad discretion to the Secretary of Agriculture, potentially leading to varied interpretations. For instance, determining "adequate snow cover" or managing ecological threats lacks explicit guidelines.
Legal Clarity: The bill's language about "valid existing rights" might cause legal ambiguities. Additionally, the reference to maps not included in the text could hinder understanding of specific geographic changes.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill could be seen as both a protective measure for natural resources and a development opportunity for local economies through enhanced recreation. Implementations from the bill may result in more job opportunities related to conservation and tourism. However, potential delays and ambiguities within the bill might result in public confusion or frustration if expected outcomes in ecosystem restoration or recreational enhancements are not met timely.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For local communities, the bill represents an opportunity to balance conservation efforts with economic growth driven by outdoor recreational activities. However, local businesses might face uncertainty regarding the timeline and scope of these projects, influencing financial and operational decisions.
For Native American tribes, the bill assures protection of treaty rights, which is crucial for maintaining land sovereignty and access for traditional practices. However, they might need to ensure their interests and rights are consistently considered in management decisions.
Environmental groups may appreciate the focus on expanding wilderness areas but could be concerned about the lack of specificity in ecological assessment processes and collaboration initiatives.
In conclusion, while the bill sets ambitious objectives for conserving national forests and promoting recreation, it faces several challenges that could affect its implementation and overall impact. Careful attention will be required to ensure that legal, financial, and environmental considerations are addressed effectively for the benefit of all stakeholders.
Issues
The timeframe of 'not later than 3 years' for completing the landscape assessment in Section 101 may lead to delays in implementing necessary restoration actions, potentially impacting forest and watershed health over an extended period.
The vague definition of 'interested parties' in Section 101 raises concerns about transparency and inclusivity in the collaboration process for landscape assessments, which might lead to a lack of public trust.
The unspecified standards for using existing assessments in Section 101 could result in varied quality and relevance of the data used for landscape assessments, potentially affecting the accuracy and effectiveness of restoration plans.
The lack of specific criteria or metrics for assessing the 'ecological condition' in Section 101 could lead to inconsistent or subjective evaluations, impacting the consistency and effectiveness of restoration strategies.
The lack of a specified review or approval process for the 10-year schedule of restoration projects in Section 101 may lead to a lack of accountability or oversight, potentially affecting the quality and execution of the projects.
The reliance on external program eligibility requirements to define 'collaboratively developed restoration projects' in Section 102 may create confusion for those unfamiliar with the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, affecting understanding and compliance.
The ambiguous reference to 'within the District' in Section 102 could lead to confusion regarding the specific geographic area involved or impacted by restoration projects.
The broad discretion given to the Secretary for determining 'adequate snow cover' and for managing wildfire, insect, and disease threats in Sections 201 and 202 could lead to inconsistent enforcement and management practices, potentially impacting ecological and recreational values.
The lack of specific cost or budget figures for management and enforcement within the Otatsy and Spread Mountain Recreation Management Areas in Sections 201 and 202 makes it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending or financial impact.
The open-ended language regarding 'valid existing rights' and legal withdrawals in Sections 201, 202, and 301 may lead to legal challenges or disputes, impacting the stability and clarity of land use rights.
The heavy reliance on references to external maps and legal documents in Sections 301 and 302 without providing specific explanations within the text makes understanding the designated wilderness areas difficult for the general public, impacting transparency and informed public discourse.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the short title and table of contents for the "Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act." The Act is organized into four main titles: Forest Restoration, Recreation, Conservation, and Effect, each containing specific sections that detail various projects and initiatives related to landscape assessment, recreation management areas, wilderness designations, and the protection of Tribal treaty rights.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides definitions for specific terms used in the Act: "District" refers to the Seeley Lake Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest; "Map" refers to a specific map titled and dated February 22, 2017; "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of Agriculture; and "State" refers to the State of Montana.
101. Landscape assessment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Secretary to conduct an assessment of the ecological health of forests and watersheds in the District within three years, in collaboration with interested parties. The assessment will evaluate the current conditions and identify necessary actions for restoring the ecosystems, with an option to use existing assessments, followed by the development of a 10-year restoration project schedule.
102. Environmental review of collaboratively developed restoration projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, a "collaboratively developed restoration project" is defined as a project meeting specific criteria under a particular law, and such projects can follow certain environmental review procedures meant for reducing hazardous fuels. Additionally, the Secretary can meet with individuals who have objections to these projects within the District.
201. Otatsy Recreation Management Area Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Otatsy Recreation Management Area is established within 2,013 acres of the Lolo National Forest to protect its natural and recreational values. The area prohibits permanent roads and timber harvest, allows snowmobile use under specific conditions, and authorizes necessary measures for managing wildfire, insects, and diseases, while also withdrawing the land from mining and other forms of development.
202. Spread Mountain Recreation Area Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Spread Mountain Recreation Area is a designated area within the Lolo National Forest that covers about 3,835 acres. It is managed by the Secretary to protect its scenic and natural resources, with restrictions on road building, timber harvesting, and motorized vehicles, but allows for pedestrian, horse travel, and mechanized vehicles. The area is also off-limits to mining and leasing activities, although measures can be taken to manage wildfires, insects, and diseases.
203. Trail-based recreation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, the term “collaboratively developed” refers to proposals created through a transparent process involving various stakeholders. It allows local groups to submit plans to improve trail recreation, which the Secretary must review, possibly build, and can use volunteer help for, while ensuring compliance with relevant laws.
301. Designation of wilderness areas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the designation of wilderness areas in the State, expanding the Bob Marshall, Mission Mountains, and Scapegoat Wilderness areas through specific land additions in the Lolo National Forest. These areas, depicted on a map and measured in acres, become parts of the National Wilderness Preservation System as outlined by relevant public laws.
302. Administration of wilderness areas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the management rules for new wilderness areas, specifying that the Secretary will oversee these areas according to the Wilderness Act and other laws, while maintaining access to private land and allowing certain activities like firefighting, livestock grazing, and commercial guiding to continue under set regulations. It also clarifies that non-wilderness activities visible or audible from the wilderness areas are permitted outside their boundaries.
303. Maps and legal descriptions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes the process by which the Secretary is required to file maps and legal descriptions for specific recreation and wilderness areas. These documents must be submitted to certain Senate and House committees, hold the same legal weight as if they were included in the law, can be corrected for typos by the Secretary, and must be made available for public inspection.
401. Protection of Tribal treaty rights Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section ensures that nothing in the Act changes or affects the existing treaty rights of any Indian Tribe.