[House Report 105-113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-113
_______________________________________________________________________


 
       WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, COLORADO, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

                                _______
                                

  June 3, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1020]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1020) to adjust the boundary of the White River National 
Forest in the State of Colorado to include all National Forest 
System lands within Summit County, Colorado, which are 
currently part of the Dillon Ranger District of the Arapaho 
National Forest having considered the same report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 1020 is to adjust the boundary of the 
White River National Forest to include all National Forest 
System lands within Summit County, Colorado, which are 
currently part of the Dillon Ranger District of the Arapaho 
National Forest.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    This legislation adjusts the boundary of the White River 
National Forest to include all National Forest System lands 
within Summit County, Colorado, which are currently part of the 
Arapaho National Forest. These lands are known as the Dillon 
Ranger District. The White River National Forest has 
administered these lands for a number of years, and therefore, 
the inclusion of the Dillon Ranger District within the White 
River Forest will more accurately depict the administration of 
these lands. Furthermore, the inclusion should reduce confusion 
within the general public as to who administers the Dillon 
Ranger District. The legislation will not alter the current 
distribution of forest receipts to the affected county 
governments.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 1020 was introduced on March 11, 1997, by Congressman 
Scott McInnis (R-CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Forests and Forest Health. On May 6, 1997, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing on H.R. 1020, where the Administration testified 
in support of H.R. 1020. On May 8, 1997, the Subcommittee met 
to mark up H.R. 1020. No amendments were offered and the bill 
was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee. On May 
21, 1997, the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 
1020. No amendments were offered. The bill was ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice 
vote.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    H.R. 1020 specifies the boundary adjustments necessary to 
include the Dillon Ranger District within the White River 
National Forest. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the 
boundary adjustment shall not affect valid existing rights of 
persons holding any authorization, permit, option, or any other 
form of contract prior to enactment of this legislation. 
Furthermore, the legislation provides that the distribution of 
receipts from the Arapaho National Forest and White River 
National Forest to affected county governments shall be based 
upon the present National Forest boundaries, thus protecting 
the status quo of the distribution of receipts.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact H.R. 1020.

                        COST OF THE LEGISLATION

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1020. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
1020 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1020.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1020 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                       Congressional Budget Office,
                                             U.S. Congress,
                                      Washington, DC, May 28, 1997.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representative, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1020, a bill to 
adjust the boundary of the White River National Forest in the 
state of Colorado to include all National Forest System lands 
within Summit County, Colorado, which are currently part of the 
Dillon Ranger District of the Arapaho National Forest.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria V. 
Heid.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1020--A bill to adjust the boundary of the White River National 
        Forest in the State of Colorado to include all National Forest 
        System lands within Summit County, Colorado, which are 
        currently part of the Dillon Ranger District of the Arapaho 
        National Forest

    CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. Because H.R. 1020 
would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply. H.R. 1020 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and would have no impact 
on the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 1020 would adjust the boundary of the White River 
National Forest to include all National Forest System lands 
located in Summit County, Colorado. Those lands form the Dillon 
Ranger District, which is within the Arapaho National Forest. 
According to the Forest Service, the Dillon Ranger District is 
legally designated as part of the Arapaho National Forest but 
is currently administered as part of the White River National 
Forest. Thus, enacting this bill would continue existing 
management practices.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Victoria V. 
Heid. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    H.R. 1020 contains no unfunded mandates.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, H.R. 1020 would make no changes in existing 
law.