[House Report 112-309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-309

======================================================================



 
TO FACILITATE A PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE LOWER ST. CROIX WILD AND SCENIC 
                     RIVER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

December 1, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 850]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 850) to facilitate a proposed project in the 
Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT.

  Notwithstanding section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
U.S.C. 1278(a)), the head of any Federal agency or department may 
authorize and assist in the construction of a new extradosed bridge 
crossing the St. Croix River approximately 6 miles north of the I-94 
crossing, if the mitigation items described in paragraph 9 of the 2006 
St. Croix River Crossing Project Memorandum of Understanding for 
Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items, signed by the Federal 
Highway Administration on March 28, 2006, and by the National Park 
Service on March 27, 2006 (including any subsequent amendments to the 
Memorandum of Understanding), are included as enforceable conditions.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 850, as ordered reported, is to 
facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and 
Scenic River.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Built in 1931, the Stillwater Lift Bridge serves about 
18,000 vehicles daily, connecting Stillwater, Minnesota, and 
Houlton, Wisconsin. The bridge's location and inadequate 
capacity cause severe gridlock in Stillwater. Furthermore, the 
bridge has been found ``structurally deficient.'' In 1972, 
Congress included the Lower St. Croix River, over which the 
lift bridge crosses, into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
    In the 1980s, work began to plan a replacement to the old 
lift bridge, and in 1995, a Record of Decision by the Federal 
Highway Administration spurred action on a final design, rights 
of way, and site preparation work. In 1996, the Sierra Club 
sued over the lack of evaluation by the National Park Service 
(NPS), who administers the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic 
River. Subsequently, NPS found the bridge would have adverse 
impacts on the river's values. In 2005, after years of work and 
collaboration with 28 stakeholders, NPS approved a plan that 
included mitigation work along the river. The Sierra Club sued 
again and in 2010, the courts ruled that the 2005 decision was 
arbitrary and capricious. NPS did not challenge the decision, 
but instead did another evaluation, this time finding that 
despite the planned mitigation, the project was not consistent 
with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
    H.R. 850, which has the bipartisan support of both states' 
senators and governors, allows the project to move forward, but 
requires implementation of a mitigation package agreed to by 
the stakeholders in 2006.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 850 was introduced on March 1, 2011 by Congresswoman 
Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. On 
May 4, 2011, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 
Public Lands held a hearing on the bill. On October 5, 2011, 
the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 
was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Rob Bishop (R-
UT) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered an amendment to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute designated .085; the 
amendment was not adopted by a record vote of 16 to 28, as 
follows:


    The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
Bishop was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was 
then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives 
by a bipartisan vote of 30 to 14, 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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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:

H.R. 850--A bill to facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. 
        Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes

    H.R. 850 would waive section 7 of the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act to permit the construction of a bridge over the St. 
Croix River between Minnesota and Wisconsin. Allowing 
construction of the bridge would permit those states to spend 
Federal-Aid Highway funds appropriated and designated 
exclusively for construction of that bridge. As a result, CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct spending 
by $8 million over the 2012-2021 period; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not affect 
revenues.
    Under section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the 
National Park Service has determined that construction of a 
bridge over the St. Croix River between Minnesota and Wisconsin 
would have an adverse effect on the river. As a result, federal 
agencies are prohibited from obligating any additional funds or 
providing any necessary permits to construct that bridge. By 
waiving section 7, H.R. 850 would permit construction of the 
bridge and would allow Minnesota and Wisconsin to use Federal-
Aid Highway funds designated exclusively for that purpose. 
Based on information from the states involved, CBO estimates 
that those federal funds total about $8 million.
    H.R. 850 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting 
direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that 
are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the 
following table.

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 850, A BILL TO FACILITATE A PROJECT IN THE LOWER ST. CROIX WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
                                   AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON OCTOBER 5, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021   2012-2016  2012-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact....................       0       2       4       1       1       0       0       0       0       0         8          8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sarah Puro. The 
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. Section 308(a) of 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, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures. CBO estimates that enacting the 
bill would increase direct spending by $8 million over the 
2012-2021 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill, as ordered reported, is to facilitate a 
proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    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

    The 90th Congress designated the St. Croix National Scenic 
Riverway for study as part of the original Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). The River was 
subsequently designated pursuant to the Act in two stages in 
1972 and 1976.
    Since 1931, a lift bridge has crossed the St. Croix 
connecting Houghton, Wisconsin and Stillwater, Minnesota. When 
the lift bridge is raised to allow for boat passage, or closed 
due to high water, traffic backs up in Stillwater; a situation 
projected to worsen with population growth. Multiple plans to 
construct larger bridges, with significantly higher clearance, 
have been proposed at different points along the river. In each 
case, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has required the Secretary 
of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, to 
determine whether these bridge plans were consistent with the 
wild and scenic river designation.
    Different Administrations have reached different 
conclusions regarding the potential to mitigate the impacts of 
different bridge proposals. Not surprisingly, this resulted in 
the District Court of Minnesota finding the actions of the 
Department arbitrary and capricious. The most recent 
evaluation, ordered by the Court, concluded that the current 
bridge project would adversely impact the St. Croix in ways 
that cannot be mitigated.
    As a result, legislation will be required to allow a bridge 
construction project to move forward. A bridge designed to 
minimize potential impacts to the St. Croix would obviously 
lessen the controversy surrounding this proposal. H.R. 850 is 
not an example of a minimal impact project.
    Rather, H.R. 850 would authorize an exemption to the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act for the largest, most expensive bridge 
ever built in the state. The question before us is not whether 
to build a bridge in the middle of a Wild and Scenic River--the 
question is whether to allow construction of a monument in the 
middle of a Wild and Scenic River.
    According to figures from the Minnesota Department of 
Transportation, this enormous, ``signature,'' ``extradosed,'' 
bridge will cost $700 million and serve 18,000 cars a day. To 
provide some perspective, the complete reconstruction of the I-
35 bridge, which serves 145,000 cars per day, cost $234 
million. This gargantuan bridge--in the middle of a Wild and 
Scenic River--will cost three times as much and serve 1/8 the 
number of cars.
    The impacts from such an enormous project would be 
unprecedented. The Congress has made small changes to existing 
wild and scenic designations--for things like lamprey eel 
remediation or contouring of river banks--but never to 
authorize a massive transportation project that will 
permanently alter the designated stretch of the river.
    It is true that the river is not pristine--that is why the 
river was designated as a ``recreational'' river rather than 
wild or scenic. However, the National Park Service study found 
that this massive, record-breaking bridge will further degrade 
this river, destroying the values for which it was designated.
    Furthermore, it is ironic that the Majority has 
consistently opposed small National Park expansions or Forest 
land acquisitions based on fiscal concerns and yet would 
support legislation in this Committee that will result in the 
expenditure of more than half a billion dollars. In a time of 
severe budget cuts--to Medicare and Social Security for 
example--moving legislation for a half billion dollar highway 
project in Representative Bachmann's district is short sighted 
at best. Spending that amount to destroy a Wild and Scenic 
River is even worse.
    According to the estimate prepared by the Congressional 
Budget Office, enactment of H.R. 850 will increase federal, 
mandatory spending by $8 million in the first ten years alone.
    A reasonable bridge proposal could be developed in this 
case that might garner broader support; that is not H.R. 850. 
Representative Holt offered an amendment to authorize a 
reasonable bridge proposal to move forward but that amendment 
was rejected by the Majority. Instead, proponents are urging 
this Committee to make the first-ever transportation exemption 
to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on behalf of an oversized, 
under-used monument to fiscal irresponsibility.
                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Raul M. Grijalva.
                                   Rush Holt.
                                   Ben R. Lujan.
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   Niki Tsongas.
                                   Dale E. Kildee.

                                  
