[House Report 108-605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-605
======================================================================
PROVIDING FOR NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITIES AT YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
July 14, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2715]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2715) to provide for necessary improvements to facilities
at Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes, 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. 2715 is to provide the necessary
improvements to facilities at Yosemite National Park.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
On December 29, 2000, the National Park Service signed a
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Yosemite Valley Plan/Final
Environmental Impact Statement, which provides for managing
natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor
experiences in Yosemite National Park for the next decade.
Congressman George Radanovich (R-CA) has continued to voice his
displeasure with the ROD as it relates to the number of
campsites and day-use parking spaces in the Yosemite Valley. On
April 22, 2002, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation
and Public Lands held an oversight hearing at Yosemite National
Park on the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The
National Park Service presented the Subcommittee with a status
report on the number of ongoing projects associated with the
Yosemite Valley Plan. Meanwhile, prior to the hearing,
Congressman Radanovich requested that the National Park Service
develop engineering estimates for rebuilding some of the
campgrounds in Yosemite Valley that were damaged by the January
1997 flood of the Merced River. The study assessed
reconstructed campsites in the Lower Pines and Upper River and
Lower River campground areas. The report concluded that based
on a 150-foot River Protection Overlay as mandated by the
Merced River Plan, three campground areas could accommodate
approximately 144 campsites compared with the 361 campsites
that were in existence prior to the 1997 flood. The Yosemite
Valley Plan calls for only 50 additional campsites to be
reconstructed. During the course of the hearing, Congressman
Radanovich asked the National Park Service if it could reopen
the Yosemite Valley Plan to address only the campsite and day-
use parking issues. The Service responded that it could not. It
would be required to reopen the entire Plan.
In response, Congressman Radanovich introduced H.R. 2715 to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to plan and restore
limited camping at Upper and Lower River campgrounds and
construct the maximum number of parking spaces (day use) in and
around Camp 6. Congressman Radanovich remains very concerned
that without reinstating low-impact campsites, overnight stays
in the Valley will become an option only for the more affluent
visitor. In addition, H.R. 2715 also would: (1) allow essential
park facilities to be located outside Yosemite National Park,
including administrative and visitor use facilities, and to
cooperate and participate with local governments during the
process, for which the Administration expressed its support;
(2) provide for contracting with Yosemite Area Regional
Transportation System for employee and concession employee
transportation to and from the park; (3) remove the LeConte
Memorial Lodge from the park and restore the grounds of the
Lodge site; and (4) prohibit the implementation of an out-of-
valley shuttle system using remote parking facilities.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2715 was introduced on July 14, 2003, by Congressman
George Radanovich (R-CA). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to
theSubcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. On July
22, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On October 21,
2003, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were
offered and the bill was then forwarded to the Full Resources Committee
by voice vote. On October 29, 2003, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was then
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll
call vote of 21 to 20, as follows:
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII 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 grants Congress the authority
to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
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 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 9, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2715, a bill to
provide for necessary improvements to facilities at Yosemite
National Park.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2715--A bill to provide for necessary improvements to facilities
at Yosemite National Park
Summary: H.R. 2715 would establish development priorities
for the Yosemite National Park in California. The bill would
direct the National Park Service (NPS) to use funds made
available through donations, user fees, or appropriations
(including previously appropriated amounts) to carry out
specified development priorities. Finally, H.R. 2715 would
encourage the NPS to use public-private partnerships to provide
housing for park and concessionaire employees, a major priority
under both current park policy and the legislation.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2715 would have no
significant net impact on the federal budget over the next 10
years. Most of the projects specified in the bill are already
considered park priorities by the NPS and are authorized to be
implemented using previously appropriated funds or amounts that
may be made available in future appropriation acts.
Implementing three new projects specified by the bill could
cause the NPS to reprogram about $15 million of funds
previously appropriated for other Yosemite priorities, but we
expect that this would cause little or no change in the timing
of expenditures.
H.R. 2715 would not have a significant effect on revenues
or direct spending (including offsetting receipts). CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would have no impact on the
spending of park donations or fees because such collections are
already available for expenditure without further
appropriation.
This legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: H.R. 2715 would
address development needs for Yosemite National Park, including
the construction of visitor and employee facilities and the
restoration of park resources damaged by severe flooding in the
late 1990s. In order to accomplish these and other park goals,
the most recent versions of the Yosemite general management
plan (GMP), the Yosemite Valley Plan, and other policy
documents call for more than 200 separate projects to be
accomplished over 20 years at a cost of more than $400 million.
Because of continuing controversy and litigation over the level
of development acceptable to local groups and environmental
organizations, there has been little progress on these plans,
and recent court decisions in the debate may delay
implementation of these plans indefinitely. CBO estimates that
enacting the bill would have little or no impact on the level
or timing of federal expenditures to develop Yosemite.
Development priorities
H.R. 2715 would direct the NPS to allocate funds available
for Yosemite (including previously appropriated amounts) for
specific priorities: constructing certain campgrounds and
employee housing, removing an existing facility, developing
parking, transportation, and traffic management services, and
assisting in local land planning efforts. Most of these
projects have already been established as park priorities under
the GMP and Yosemite Valley Plan and will be carried out under
existing authority using funds provided by previous or future
appropriations.
Three of the specified projects, however, represent new
legislative priorities that would otherwise not be implemented
under existing authority (because those projects have been
found to be inconsistent with existing park plans). We estimate
that carrying out these projects--rebuilding the upper and
lower river campgrounds and removing the Le Conte Memorial--
would cost about $15 million. Under H.R. 2715, the NPS could
reprogram previously appropriated development funds for these
new purposes. CBO expects, however, that implementing the new
projects would occur at the same pace as spending on existing
priorities, so any net effect on federal spending over the next
10 years would be negligible.
Employee housing provisions
H.R. 2715 also would address the ongoing shortage of
housing for concessionaire staff and federal employees at
Yosemite, primarily by directing the NPS to enter into
partnerships with private entities whenever possible. To
facilitate the execution of such agreements withoffsite
developers, the bill would waive an existing statutory limitation on
the value of occupancy guarantees that the agency may offer. CBO
estimates that enacting these provisions would have no significant
impact on the federal budget because they would not change the agency's
ability to use public-private partnerships.
Current NPS plans for Yosemite call for constructing or
renovating more than 2,000 housing units (beds) for federal and
concessionaire employees. CBO estimates that building the
necessary units within or near the park will cost over $200
million over the next 10 years, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts. (Of this amount, $27 million has already
been appropriated for a dormitory within park boundaries.)
The NPS is already authorized to construct needed housing
or acquire it through lease-purchase, rental agreements, and
other arrangements with private partners--subject to
appropriation in advance of the amounts necessary to cover all
federal contractual obligations. In conjunction with these
partnerships, the agency may also guarantee the occupancy of up
to 75 percent of the units provided under contract, provided
that the total value of all outstanding NPS guarantees does not
exceed $3 million. This guarantee is also subject to the
availability of appropriated funds for the full cost of any
federal commitment. The NPS has been unable to use these
financing mechanisms at Yosemite because market conditions and
other factors--most notably the limited scale of individual
projects, scarcity of appropriated funds, and constraints on
potential rental rates--make it unlikely that any partnership
would be profitable for a private developer.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: This
legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Patrice Gordon.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We are strongly opposed to H.R. 2715. This legislation
would make significant and controversial changes to the
approved plans for the preservation and use of Yosemite
National Park, one of the crown jewels of our National Park
System.
H.R. 2715 is micro management at its worst. The bill would
dictate campsite locations and parking spaces and direct the
removal of a National Historic Landmark from the park. Even the
Bush Administration has recognized the shortsighted and
divisive nature of these provisions and has testified against
them.
The Yosemite Valley Plan is a far-reaching public document
that was developed over a long period of time with considerable
public input. Adhering to legislative and legal requirements,
the National Park Service (NPS) held numerous public hearings
and meetings, undertook all necessary National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, and completed a plan for the Valley
that has withstood legal challenges from all sides.
It should come as no surprise that H.R. 2715 has generated
significant interest and concern from numerous individuals and
organizations. Many of the provisions of the bill run directly
counter to the Yosemite Valley Plan.
The Administration testimony on H.R. 2715 pointed out the
numerous problems with the legislation, none of which were
addressed by the Resources Committee. The legislations's
passage by a single vote in Committee is evidence of its
controversial nature.
As an example of the problems with H.R. 2715 is the bill's
direction to remove the LeConte Memorial, a National Historic
Landmark, from the park. This provision is opposed by the
Administration and numerous individuals and organizations see
it as a misplaced attempt to send a message to the Sierra Club,
which offers public programs in the building.
We in Congress can do many good things but dictating
parking spaces and campsites and moving National Historic
Landmarks are not among them. As NPS Director Mainella has
noted, you cannot reopen portions of the plan without affecting
other aspects. If we were to go down this road, the end result
would be to unravel the Yosemite Valley Plan, with the Valley
being no better off than when we started.
Instead of proceeding with controversial and divisive
legislation, we should be focusing our efforts on seeing that
the approved Yosemite Valley Plan is carried out in a careful
and deliberate manner. H.R. 2715 will hinder what is in the
long-term interest of both the park and its visitors and we
must therefore oppose the legislation.
Nick Rahall.
Edward J. Markey.
Mark Udall.
Raul M. Grijalva.
Betty McCollum.
Jay Inslee.