[House Report 106-648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-648
======================================================================
CLARIFICATION OF BOUNDARIES OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM UNIT
NC01
_______
June 6, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4435]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4435) to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating
to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, 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. 4435 is to clarify certain boundaries
on the map relating to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier
Resources System.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Coastal barriers are landscape features that protect
sensitive areas from the full force of wind, wave and tidal
energy. The Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of
undeveloped coastal barrier units delineated on maps adopted by
Congress. The System was created by the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, Public Law 97-348) and greatly
expanded by the CBRA amendments adopted in the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-591). The 1990
amendments added, among other areas, ``otherwise protected
areas'' to the System. These are areas which are already
protected under federal, State or local law, or held for
conservation purposes. Land included in the System is not
acquired by the government, and CBRA does not prevent or
regulate development on private lands. CBRA does prohibit the
use of federal development assistance, including federal flood
insurance, on property included in the System. Since 1990,
Congress has enacted legislation on several occasions to amend
the boundaries of System units. See Public Law 106-128; Public
Law 106-116; Public Law 105-277 (Section 101(e)); Public Law
104-333 (Section 220); Public Law 104-265 (Section 201); Public
Law 104-148; Public Law 103-461; Public Law 102-440 (Section
303); and Public Law 101-591 (Section 4).
Coastal barrier unit NC-01P was included in the System as
an ``otherwise protected area'' in 1990. The underlying
conservation area that was supposed to constitute the otherwise
protected area was a wildlife sanctuary owned by the National
Audubon Society. Unfortunately, a significant amount of
privately and publicly owned developed property was
inadvertently, and incorrectly, included within the boundary of
the otherwise protected area. In 1992, Congress directed the
Secretary of the Interior to redraw the boundary of the unit to
consist of the area ``owned by the National Audubon Society,
along with the associated aquatic habitat of Pine Island Bay
and Goat Island Bay.'' At the request of the Audubon Society,
the otherwise protected area designation was dropped and the
unit became NC-01. A new map was prepared. That map, however,
also failed to accurately portray the boundary of the wildlife
sanctuary, and again included privately owned developed
property. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the
System, recently discovered this error, and supports the
proposed correction. The correction embodied in H.R. 4435
removes the incorrectly labeled private property, and adds
associated aquatic habitat that was left out of the unit in
1992. This change leads to a net increase of 2,326 acres in the
System.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 4435 was introduced on May 11, 2000, by Congressman
Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On
May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing which discussed
boundary corrections to NC-01. The Administration testified in
support of the corrections. On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee
met to mark up the bill. There were no amendments and the bill
was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice
vote. On May 24, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. There were no amendments and the bill was
ordered favorably reported by voice vote to the House of
Representatives.
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 tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of this bill would increase offsetting collections
from flood insurance premiums by less than $50,000 per year.
These collections would be partially offset by spending for
administrative and underwriting expenses.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
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, June 5, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
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. 4435, a bill to
clarify boundaries on the map relating to Unit NC01 of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 4435--A bill to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating to
Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4435 would result in no
significant cost to the federal government. Because the bill
could affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would
apply, but we expect that net charges in direct spending would
be negligible. H.R. 4435 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.
H.R. 4435 would correct a map of the Coastal Barrier
Resources System in North Carolina. The proposed correction
would revise the boundaries of Unit NC01 to include 2,330 acres
of aquatic habitat and exclude about 4 acres of developed land.
This change would enable local property owners occupying the
excluded acreage to obtain federal flood insurance. Once
insurance policies have been written on the affected
properties, offsetting collections from premiums paid into the
national flood insurance fund would increase by less than
$50,000 per year. Collections would be partially offset by new
mandatory spending for underwriting and administrative
expenses. The federal government might also incur additional
costs for losses associated with any future floods that might
affect this land, but CBO has no basis for predicting such
floods or their resulting costs.
The CBO staff contact 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.