[House Report 116-134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress   }                                     {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                     {       116-134

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



 
                       BIG BEAR LAND EXCHANGE ACT

                                _______
                                

 June 27, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

        Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 255]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 255) to provide for an exchange of lands with 
San Bernardino County, California, to enhance management of 
lands within the San Bernardino National Forest, 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. 255 is to provide for an exchange of 
lands with San Bernardino County, California, to enhance 
management of lands within the San Bernardino National Forest.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    San Bernardino County is the largest county in the 
contiguous United States and is home to a large portion of the 
San Bernardino National Forest. Like many counties in the 
western United States, almost 80% of the entire county is 
federal public land.
    This bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange of 73 
acres of federal land in the San Bernardino National Forest for 
71 acres of non-federal land. The non-federal land is currently 
owned by Oso Grande, a local disposal corporation, and is 
surrounded by U.S. Forest Service land.
    The federal parcel contains a less-than-0.5-mile section of 
the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, which the bill 
proposes to relocate to adjacent land before the land exchange 
is finalized.
    San Bernardino County plans to use the 73 acres to build a 
resource conservation and recovery facility to increase the 
efficiency and safety of timber processing and recycling in the 
national forest. Currently, timber from the forest is driven 
down the mountain through a narrow and winding pass to a 
processing facility in the valley, leading to multiple traffic 
accidents a year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\H.R. Rep. No. 115-996 (2018), https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/
hrpt996/CRPT-115hrpt996.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 255 was introduced on January 4, 2019, by 
Representative Paul Cook (R-CA). The bill was referred solely 
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee 
to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public 
Lands. On May 1, 2019, the Natural Resources Committee met to 
consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous 
consent. No amendments were offered. The bill was ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous 
consent.

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 255: full committee markup held on May 1, 2019.

            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 AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 8, 2019.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 255, the Big Bear 
Land Exchange Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani 
Shankaran.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    H.R. 255 would direct the Forest Service to exchange, at 
the request of San Bernardino County, California, 73 acres of 
federal land in the San Bernardino National Forest for 71 acres 
of land owned by the county. The bill would require the county 
to pay any administrative costs associated with the land 
exchange.
    H.R. 255 also would direct the Forest Service to relocate a 
portion of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail that is 
currently located on the federal lands to be exchanged. Using 
information from the Forest Service, CBO estimates that 
relocating the trail would cost less than $500,000; such 
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds. Most of those costs would be for environmental reviews 
and trail construction.
    Enacting H.R. 255 could affect direct spending; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO expects that the value of 
the federal lands to be conveyed would exceed the value of the 
county lands. Under the bill, the county would be required to 
adjust the acreage of the land exchange or to make a cash 
equalization payment. Any payments would be recorded in the 
budget as offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions 
in direct spending, and would be available to the Forest 
Service to spend without further appropriation for acquiring 
land within the San Bernardino National Forest. CBO estimates 
that any such payment would be offset by subsequent direct 
spending; thus, the net effect on direct spending would be 
negligible.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani 
Shankaran. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this bill is to provide for an exchange of lands 
with San Bernardino County, California, to enhance management 
of lands within the San Bernardino National Forest.

                           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.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the federal government known to be duplicative of another 
program.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

        SUPPLEMENTAL, MINORITY, ADDITIONAL, OR DISSENTING VIEWS

    None.

                                  [all]