[House Report 107-653]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Rept. 107-653
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
GATEWAY COMMUNITIES COOPERATION ACT OF 2002
_______
September 11, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4622]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4622) to require Federal land managers to support, and to
communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with, designated gateway
communities, to improve the ability of gateway communities to
participate in Federal land management planning conducted by
the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the
Interior, and to respond to the impacts of the public use of
the Federal lands administered by these agencies, 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. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Gateway Communities Cooperation Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS AND GATEWAY
COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT COMPATIBLE LAND MANAGEMENT
OF BOTH FEDERAL AND ADJACENT LANDS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Communities that are adjacent to or near Federal lands,
including units of the National Park System, units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, units of the National Forest
System, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management, are vitally impacted by the management and public
use of these Federal lands.
(2) These communities, commonly known as gateway communities,
fulfill an integral part in the mission of the Federal lands by
providing necessary services, such as schools, roads, search
and rescue, emergency, medical, provisioning, logistical
support, living quarters, and drinking water and sanitary
systems, for both visitors to the Federal lands and employees
of Federal land management agencies.
(3) Provision of these vital services by gateway communities
is an essential ingredient for a meaningful and enjoyable
experience by visitors to the Federal lands because Federal
land management agencies are unable to provide, or are
prevented from providing, these services.
(4) Gateway communities serve as an entry point for persons
who visit the Federal lands and are ideal for establishment of
visitor services, including lodging, food service, fuel and
auto repairs, emergency services, and visitor information.
(5) Development in these gateway communities affect the
management and protection of these Federal lands, depending on
the extent to which advance planning for the local development
is coordinated between the communities and Federal land
managers.
(6) The planning and management decisions of Federal land
managers can have unintended consequences for gateway
communities and the Federal lands, when the decisions are not
adequately communicated to, or coordinated with, the elected
officials and residents of gateway communities.
(7) Experts in land management planning are available to
Federal land managers, but persons with technical planning
skills are often not readily available to gateway communities,
particularly small gateway communities.
(8) Gateway communities are often affected by the policies
and actions of several Federal land agencies and both the
communities and the agencies would benefit from greater
interagency coordination of those policies and actions.
(9) Persuading gateway communities to make decisions and
undertake actions in their communities that would also be in
the best interest of the Federal lands is most likely to occur
when such decisionmaking and actions are built upon a
foundation of cooperation and coordination.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to require Federal land
managers to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with gateway
communities in order to--
(1) improve the relationships among Federal land managers,
elected officials, and residents of gateway communities;
(2) enhance the facilities and services in gateway
communities available to visitors to Federal lands, when
compatible with the management of these lands; and
(3) result in better local land use planning and decisions by
Federal land managers.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Gateway community.--The term ``gateway community'' means
a county, city, town, village, or other subdivision of a State,
or a federally recognized American Indian tribe or Alaska
Native village, that--
(A) is incorporated or recognized in a county or
regional land use plan; and
(B) a Federal land manager (or the head of the
tourism office for the State) determines is
significantly affected economically, socially, or
environmentally by planning and management decisions
regarding Federal lands administered by that Federal
land manager.
(2) Federal land agencies.--The term ``Federal land
agencies'' means the National Park Service, United States
Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Bureau of Land Management.
(3) Federal land manager.--The term ``Federal land manager''
means--
(A) the superintendent of a unit of the National Park
System;
(B) the manager of a national wildlife refuge;
(C) the field office manager of a Bureau of Land
Management area; or
(D) the supervisor of a unit of the National Forest
System.
(d) Participation in Federal Planning and Land Use.--
(1) Participation in planning.--The Federal land agencies
shall provide for meaningful public involvement at the earliest
possible time by elected and appointed officials of governments
of local gateway communities in the development of land use
plans, programs, land use regulations, land use decisions,
transportation plans, general management plans, and any other
plans, decisions, projects, or policies for Federal public
lands under the jurisdiction of these agencies that will have a
significant impact on these gateway communities. To facilitate
such involvement, the Federal land agencies shall provide these
officials, at the earliest possible time, with a summary in
nontechnical language of the assumptions, purposes, goals, and
objectives of such a plan, decision, project, or policy and a
description of any anticipated significant impact of the plan,
decision, or policy on gateway communities.
(2) Early notice of proposed decisions.--To the extent
practicable, the Federal land agencies shall provide local
gateway communities with early public notice of proposed
decisions of these agencies that may have a significant impact
on gateway communities.
(3) Training sessions.--The Federal land agencies shall offer
training sessions for elected and appointed officials of
gateway communities at which such officials can obtain a better
understanding of--
(A) agency planning processes; and
(B) the methods by which they can participate most
meaningfully in the development of the agency plans,
decisions, and policies referred to in paragraph (1).
(4) Technical assistance.--At the request of the government
of a gateway community, a Federal land agency shall assign, to
the extent practicable, an agency employee or contractor to
work with the community to develop data and analysis relevant
to the preparation of agency plans, decisions, and policies
referred to in paragraph (1).
(5) Review of federal land management planning.--At the
request of a gateway community, and to the extent practicable,
a Federal land manager shall assist the gateway community to
conduct a review of land use, management, or transportation
plans of the Federal land manager likely to affect the gateway
community.
(6) Coordination of land use.--To the extent consistent with
the laws governing the administration of the Federal public
lands, a Federal land manager may enter into a cooperative
agreement with a gateway community to provide for coordination
between--
(A) the land use inventory, planning, and management
activities for the Federal lands administered by the
Federal land manager; and
(B) the land use planning and management activities
of other Federal agencies, agencies of the State in
which the Federal lands are located, and local and
tribal governments in the vicinity of the Federal
lands.
(7) Interagency cooperation and coordination.--To the extent
practicable, when the plans and activities of two or more
Federal land agencies are anticipated to have a significant
impact on a gateway community, the Federal land agencies
involved shall consolidate and coordinate their plans and
planning processes to facilitate the participation of the
gateway community in the planning processes.
(8) Treatment as cooperating agencies.--When a proposed
action is determined to require the preparation of an
environmental impact statement, the Federal land agencies
shall, as soon as practicable, but not later than the scoping
process, actively solicit the participation of gateway
communities as cooperating agencies under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(e) Grants To Assist Gateway Communities.--
(1) Grants authorized; purposes.--A Federal land manager may
make grants to an eligible gateway community to enable the
gateway community--
(A) to participate in Federal land planning or
management processes;
(B) to obtain professional land use or transportation
planning assistance necessary as a result of Federal
action;
(C) to address and resolve public infrastructure
impacts that are identified through these processes as
a likely result of the Federal land management
decisions and for which sufficient funds are not
otherwise available; and
(D) to provide public information and interpretive
services about the Federal lands administered by the
Federal land manager and the gateway community.
(2) Eligible gateway communities.--To be eligible for a grant
under this subsection, a gateway community may not have a
population in excess of 10,000 persons.
(f) Funding Sources.--
(1) General agency funds.--A Federal land agency may use
amounts available for the general operation of the agency to
provide funds to Federal land managers of that agency to make
grants under subsection (e).
(2) Other planning or project development funds.--Funds
available to a Federal land manager for planning, construction,
or project development may also be used to fund programs under
subsection (d) and make grants under subsection (e).
(3) Combination of funds.--Federal land managers from
different Federal land agencies may combine financial resources
to make grants under subsection (e).
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 4622 is to require federal land
managers to support, and to communicate, coordinate, and
cooperate with, designated gateway communities, to improve the
ability of gateway communities to participate in federal land
management planning conducted by the Forest Service and
agencies of the Department of the Interior, and to respond to
the impacts of the public use of the federal lands administered
by these agencies, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Communities that are adjacent to units of the National Park
System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System
and other units of our federal lands play a key role in
ensuring the successful management and maintenance of federal
lands, as well as helping to meet the public's expectations for
their use and enjoyment of these lands. The policies and
decisions made by federal land agencies can have a very
significant impact on ``gateway communities''. Moreover,
visitors to federal lands and employees of federal land
management agencies generally rely on the critical services and
infrastructure provided for and maintained by these
communities. These necessary services include schools, roads,
search and rescue, emergency and medical support, and drinking
water and sanitary systems.
There are many examples in which cooperation and
coordination between federal land agencies and gateway
communities have resulted in wise planning, good policy
choices, and real environmental benefits. However, it has also
often been the case that poor policy choices have been the
result, at least in part, of the failure to coordinate and
cooperate with gateway communities from the earliest stages of
planning. While this legislation would not allow gateway
communities to prevent agencies from taking whatever actions
they have the authority to take, it would ensure more informed
federal decision making, as well as enable locally elected
officials and decision makers to have an early and accurate
understanding of the goals, aims, and assumptions of the
agencies.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 4622 was introduced on April 30, 2002, by Congressman
George Radanovich (R-CA). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on
Agriculture. Within the Committee on Resources the bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands, the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and
the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and
Oceans. On May 7, 2002, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands held a hearing on the bill. On
July 18, 2002, that Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No
amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On July 24, 2002,
the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health and the Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans were discharged
from further consideration of the bill by unanimous consent.
Mr. Radanovich offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to: incorporate federally recognized Indian tribes
and Alaska Native Villages into the definition of a gateway
community; revise language regarding the federal land
management agencies' ability to actively solicit the
participation of gateway communities as ``cooperating
agencies'' under the National Environmental Policy Act; and to
make other minor and technical changes. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote and the bill, as amended, was then
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
voice vote.
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 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, September 4, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
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. 4622, the Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 4622--Gateway Communities Cooperation Act of 2002
Summary: H.R. 4622 would require federal land management
agencies to take certain steps to promote the involvement of
local communities in federal land-use planning. CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 4622 would cost $50 million over the
2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts. The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 4622 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. Enacting this bill could benefit those local
governments considered gateway communities.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this
estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 4622 will be enacted near the
start of fiscal year 2002 and that necessary funds will be
provided near the start of each fiscal year. Estimates of
outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar
activities. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4622 is
shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and
environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level...................................... 5 8 10 12 15
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 5 8 10 12 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: H.R. 4622 would require federal land
management agencies to take certain steps to involve gateway
communities--local or tribal governments that are significantly
affected by planning and management decisions regarding federal
lands--in federal land-use planning. According to the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture,
under current law, federal land management agencies generally
meet many of the bill's requirements to involve gateway
communities in planning processes. Thus, CBO estimates that
formalizing those requirements would not significantly affect
those agencies' costs.
H.R. 4622 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to small gateway
communities for the costs of participating in federal planning
processes, planning and implementing certain transportation and
infrastructure projects, and providing public information about
nearby federal lands. Because the secretaries do not have
authority to make such grants under current law, CBO expects
that providing such assistance would require additional
appropriations. Based on information from federal land
management agencies about the number of gateway communities
that might be eligible for grants under H.R. 4622, we estimate
that such grants would average $250,000 per community and that
about 200 communities would receive such grants over the next
five years for a total cost of about $50 million, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4622
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. Enacting this bill could benefit those
local governments considered gateway communities.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
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.
COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, September 10, 2002.
Hon. Larry Combest,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I ask your cooperation to help schedule
an early consideration by the House of Representatives of H.R.
4622, to require federal land managers to support, and to
communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with, designated gateway
communities, to improve the ability of gateway communities to
participate in federal land management planning conducted by
the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the
Interior, and to respond to the impacts of the public use of
the federal lands administered by these agencies, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4622 was referred primarily to the Committee on
Resources and additionally to your Committee. The Subcommittee
on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands held a hearing
on the bill on May 7, 2002. The Committee on Resources ordered
the bill reported with an amendment on July 24, 2002, by voice
vote. I have forwarded a copy of the reported text of the bill
to your staff for review.
Because of the small number of days remaining in the 107th
Congress, and because of the importance of this bill to its
author, Congressman George Radanovich, I ask that you allow the
Committee on Agriculture to be discharged from further
consideration of this bill to expedite Floor scheduling. Of
course, this action would not be considered as precedent for
any future referrals of similar measures. Moreover, if the bill
is conferenced with the Senate, I would support naming
Agriculture Committee members to the conference committee. I
would also be pleased to include this letter and your response
in the report on H.R. 4622.
Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased with the tremendous
degree of cooperation between our two Committees this Congress
on the many bills which affect our national forests. Your staff
has been responsive and thoughtful, and my staff very much
appreciates their support and teamwork. I hope that you will
give my request serious consideration and I look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
James V. Hansen,
Chairman.
------
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, September 11, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding a draft copy of
H.R. 4622, the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act of 2002, as
ordered reported by your Committee on July 24, 2002.
Under clause 1(a) of Rule X, the Committee on Agriculture
has jurisdiction over bills relating to forestry in general and
forest reserves other than those created from the public
domain. In exercising this jurisdiction, the Committee on
Agriculture has worked cooperatively in the past with your
Committee regarding general matters relating to forestry.
Aware of your interest in expediting this legislation, and
after conferring with Chairman Goodlatte of the Subcommittee on
Departmental Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I
will be glad to waive further consideration of this measure so
as to allow its timely consideration by the entire House of
Representatives during the remainder of the 107th Congress.
This action is not intended to waive this Committee's
jurisdiction over this matter for all purposes, and in the
event a conference with the Senate is requested, I would
appreciate your support in the naming of members from the
Committee on Agriculture to the conference committee.
Thank you once again for the extraordinary cooperation this
Congress in which our respective Committees have worked
together and I look forward to working with you in the future
on matters of shared jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Larry Combest,
Chairman.