```

[House Report 109-108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    109-108

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

 
      ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

  June 8, 2005.--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

                        [To accompany H.R. 774]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 774) to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National 
Park in the State of Colorado, 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. 774 is to adjust the boundary of Rocky 
Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 774 authorizes a land exchange between the National 
Park Service (NPS) and a private landowner. The exchange is 
necessary so the NPS can relocate a road and parking area for a 
popular visitor use area in the Rocky Mountain National Park. 
The current road crosses a portion of the MacGregor Ranch and 
was originally designed to serve a single residence and is 
inadequate for the increasingly popular area. The federal land 
to be exchanged is suitable for grazing and is needed by 
MacGregor Ranch.
    The MacGregor Ranch will receive 70 acres in return for its 
5.9 acres because its land is suitable for residential use and 
therefore of higher per acre value than the NPS land. The NPS 
will retain a conservation easement on the land transferred to 
the Ranch which allows grazing, but prohibits construction of 
buildings.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 774 was introduced on February 10, 2005, by 
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). The bill was referred to 
the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on National Parks. On May 12, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on H.R. 774. On 
May 18, 2005, the Full Committee on Resources met to consider 
the bill, at which time the Subcommittee was discharged from 
further consideration by unanimous consent. No amendments were 
offered and H.R. 774 was ordered favorably reported to the 
House by unanimous consent.

            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 grant 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 thatthis 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:

H.R. 774--Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005

    H.R. 774 would direct the National Park Service (NPS) to 
convey to a private landowner about 70 acres of federal land 
within the boundaries of the Rocky Mountain National Park in 
exchange for about 6 acres of property adjacent to the park. 
Once acquired by the NPS, the new property would be added to 
the national park and developed as an access site.
    Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 774 would cost about $1 million over the 
next year or two, subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds. This amount would be used to complete the required land 
exchange and construct facilities such as a parking lot, access 
road, and a rest area on the newly acquired property. Enacting 
H.R. 774 would not affect revenues or direct spending. For this 
estimate, CBO assumes that the properties to be exchanged would 
be determined by NPS to be roughly equal in value.
    H.R. 774 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act and 
would have no significant impact on the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
This estimate was 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.

                                  

```