Position on the LOCAL Act

NPCA is opposed to the current discussion draft of the “Locally-elected Officials Cooperating with Agencies in Land Management Act” (LOCAL Act). The LOCAL Act purports to better engage local communities in the management and oversight of our public lands, but instead frequently elevates one group of citizens over all Americans, limits implementation of key conservation funds, and creates a system that seeks to potentially minimize agency expertise when making decisions about our nation’s natural resources.

Title I — Improved Cooperation and Coordination with Local Communities

Section 102.

• The federal land management agency must coordinate with the governing body of the affected community regarding relevant management activities.
• Further, the federal land management agency must extend an offer for affected communities to be designated as a “cooperating agency,” a status which is typically offered only to another federal agency with jurisdiction over the pending action (see 40 CFR 1501.6).

NPCA supports coordination of land management agencies with local communities; however, we are concerned with the requirements of Section 102 that would unnecessarily create a hierarchy in the governance over our public lands—which are owned by all Americans. Elevating single communities or populations to allow them more control over and engagement in land management decisions is inconsistent with the purpose of scope of our federal lands—which are supported by all taxpayers.

Sec. 104.

• Requires the Secretary, prior to land acquisition, to study and evaluate the potential impacts of acquisition on lost property tax revenue and other economic impacts, and “such other factors as are agreed to” in consultation with local governments.
• As a condition of acquisition the Secretary must consult with local governing bodies soliciting community input and request a written response from the local government to include with a report to be submitted to Congress.
• The decision to proceed with land acquisition rests on the Secretary, however he/she “shall give considerable deference” to the position of the local governing body.

NPCA supports local input and consultation regarding land acquisition. However, we are concerned with the required consultation purposed in Section 104, and oppose section 104© that requires the Secretary to considerably defer to the position of local governments on whether or not to proceed with an acquisition. Land acquisition projects go through a rigorous process of internal review, one that considers factors such as threats to significant cultural and natural resources. These projects are critical for protecting these resources, as well as public access and other public values important to the American people who collectively own these lands. All Americans have a stake in the future of national park units and other public lands, elevating one group of citizens’ viewpoint over others is unfair and unreasonable.

Title II—Agency Management Improvements

Sec. 203

• Amends Section 100506©(5) of title 54, US Code to apply more broadly to revise park unit boundaries regardless of the method by which acreage is added to a unit of the National Park System.

NPCA opposes Sec. 203 as it would significantly limit the number of acres and appraised value of land that the National Park Service is able to acquire by donation, purchase with donated funds, or transfer from any other Federal agency.

Title IV—Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

Sec. 401

• (a)(3)(A) Requires no less than 33% of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) shall be used for projects that enhance hunting, fishing and recreational shooting access;
• (a)(4) may use LWCF funds to cover costs related to land exchanges;
• (a)(4)(b)(2) requires that acquisitions using appropriated funds abut federal land and water on no less than 75% of its border. It makes this provision applicable to areas in the refuge system under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and “any other provision of law”;
• (a)(4)(b)(3) limits acquisitions to no more than 15% of federally acquired acreage west of the 100th meridian on any given appropriations bill.

NPCA strongly opposes Title IV, which seeks to fundamentally gut the LWCF. Recreational opportunities are among the factors the National Park Service considers when prioritizing acquisition proposals; there are many forms of appropriate recreation that are considered, and we oppose prioritizing any particular uses at the expense of others. Additionally, mandating that a high percentage of funds to be directed towards these activities undermines the many other values considered as part of the acquisition process, such as threats to historic or cultural resources. Further, while the National Park Service and other federal land agencies have been prioritizing inholdings, mandating a percentage-based definition of an inholding ties the hands of agencies including the National Park Service from protecting parcels of national significance that may not meet these requirements. Finally, most National Park Service acreage is in the western United States, therefore limiting acquisitions in that region would strictly limit the ability of the National Park Service to secure protections for threatened parcels.

As an organization with over one million members and supporters, NPCA values public input and participation in our nation’s federal land management decisions. Fortunately, this can be done through a number of existing legal mechanisms, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, current Resource Advisory Committees, and additional committees formed through the Federal Advisory Committee Act. In contrast, the discussion draft LOCAL Act often elevates one group of citizens over others in the federal decision making processes—this is unfair and unwise. In its current form, NPCA opposes the LOCAL Act and urges members of the subcommittee to consider these and like concerns when moving forward on the bill.