PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 157.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Sep 20, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Denali National Park Improvement Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for specified microhydro projects in the Kantishna Hills area within the Denali National Park and Preserve (the Park) in Alaska. Defines "microhydro project" as a hydroelectric power generating facility with a maximum power generation capability of 100 kilowatts and includes any distribution or transmission lines required to serve such area.
Requires the Secretary, within 180 days after submission of a permit application, to complete any analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 respecting any proposed or existing microhydro projects in the area.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to exchange Park land near or adjacent to land owned by Doyon Tourism, Inc., located at the mouth of Eureka Creek for approximately 18 acres of land owned by Doyon Tourism within the Galena patented mining claim. Instructs the Secretary to seek to complete such exchange by February 2015. Permits an equalization of any unequal values of the tracts proposed for exchange by adjusting the quantity of the acreage owned by Doyon Tourism.
Requires the land acquired by the Secretary to be administered as part of the Park.
Authorizes the Secretary to issue right-of-way permits, subject to certain terms and conditions, for: (1) a high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline (including appurtenances) in nonwilderness areas within the boundary of the Park within, along, or near the approximately seven-mile segment of the George Parks Highway that runs through the Park; and (2) any distribution and transmission pipelines and appurtenances that the Secretary determines to be necessary to provide natural gas supply to the Park.
Designates the Talkeetna Ranger Station that is on B Street in Talkeetna, Alaska, and that is approximately 100 miles south of the entrance to the Park, as the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 157.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-217.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-217.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Nov 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.586 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.586 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.586 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.586 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.