[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2437, H.R. 3415, H.R. 4385,
AND H.R. 5490
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, September 28, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-644 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, September 28, 2023..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 2
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Panel I:
Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 4
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 6
Kiggans, Hon. Jen, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia................................... 7
Murphy, Hon. Gregory F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina................................ 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Strickler, Matt, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC......................................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 16
Hein, Christopher, Associate Professor, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Lynn, Steve, Manager, Midvale Irrigation District, Pavillion,
Wyoming.................................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Leonard, Tom, Alderman, Town of North Topsail Beach, North
Carolina................................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Stiles, William ``Skip'' A. Jr., Senior Advisor, Wetlands
Watch, Norfolk, Virginia................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Statement for the Record on H.R.
3415 and H.R. 4385......................................... 57
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2437, TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES OF A UNIT OF
THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM IN TOPSAIL, NORTH
CAROLINA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 3415, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY TO THE MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT THE PILOT
BUTTE POWER PLANT IN THE STATE OF WYOMING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``PILOT BUTTE POWER PLANT CONVEYANCE ACT''; H.R. 4385, TO EXTEND
AUTHORIZATION OF THE RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF
1991, ``DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS ACT''; AND H.R. 5490, TO AMEND THE COASTAL
BARRIER RESOURCES ACT TO EXPAND THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``BOLSTERING ECOSYSTEMS
AGAINST COASTAL HARM ACT'', OR ``BEACH ACT''
----------
Thursday, September 28, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bentz, LaMalfa, Webster, Carl,
Kiggans, Hageman; Huffman, and Neguse.
Also present: Representatives Ciscomani and Murphy.
Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome Members,
witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Murphy, and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Ciscomani, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
H.R. 2437 to revise the boundaries of a unit of the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System in Topsail, North
Carolina, sponsored by Representative Murphy of North Carolina;
H.R. 3415, the Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act,
sponsored by Representative Hageman of Wyoming; H.R. 4385, the
Drought Preparedness Act, sponsored by Representative Neguse of
Colorado; and H.R. 5490, the BEACH Act, sponsored by
Representative Kiggans of Virginia.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Today, we are meeting to discuss four bills that
address a variety of regional issues, from transferring local
control of Western water infrastructure to updating coastal
barrier maps. The bills under consideration at the hearing
address issues of local importance, remove barriers created by
Federal processes and bureaucracy, and put communities back in
the driver's seat.
H.R. 3415, introduced by Congresswoman Hageman of Wyoming,
provides greater flexibility and autonomy to the Midvale
Irrigation District by conveying the Pilot Butte Power Plant to
the District. Reclamation places this power plant in the
mothballed status in 2008. And because it is considered a
reserved works, it requires an Act of Congress for this
transfer to occur.
H.R. 4385, introduced by Congressman Neguse, extends
authorization for emergency authorities that allow the Bureau
of Reclamation to mitigate the impacts of severe drought in
Western states. At its core, Reclamation was established to
provide water in the arid West. Dealing with drought conditions
was then and continues to be a significant part of
Reclamation's mission.
H.R. 2437, introduced by Congressman Murphy, would revise
the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit L06 in
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. I am aware this issue has
been ongoing for decades, and I hope we can provide some
finality on the issue.
H.R. 5490, introduced by Congresswoman Kiggans, enacts the
final recommended Coastal Barrier Resources System maps
transmitted to Congress in 2021. After Hurricane Sandy,
Congress mandated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
update the System maps. These maps will only become effective
if enacted into law by Congress. Additionally, the bill makes
improvements to the CBRA statute.
I thank the Members for their work on these bills, and I
thank the witnesses for testifying today.
I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the
witnesses.
When President Reagan signed the piece of legislation that
we call CBRA in 1982, he said that the Act would ``halt the
Federal subsidy spiral'' by discouraging Federal investments in
development on storm-prone coastal land, which, if developed,
would put human lives and property at risk and cost taxpayers
billions of dollars in disaster relief. It was a smart,
forward-looking law, and in the years since CBRA was enacted it
has saved the United States over $9.5 billion in disaster costs
alone, protected millions of acres of habitat, and probably an
awful lot of lives, as well.
Today, as we face stronger and more frequent storms and
rising sea level, the value proposition of CBRA is more
important than ever. Scientists estimate that CBRA will save
taxpayers up to $108 billion by 2068.
In 2012, as Hurricane Sandy hit the Atlantic coast, intact
barrier islands did their job. They absorbed the brunt of the
storm's energy, saving lives and protecting property. Still,
many coastal barrier islands and ecosystems were significantly
altered. As a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a
project to update the maps of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System. H.R. 5490 legislates the incorporation of these maps to
modernize CBRA, and that is a good thing.
It also makes additional updates to CBRA, including
requiring disclosure to prospective buyers that a property is
in the CBRA System, and clarifying Federal expenditures in
Otherwise Protected Areas, or OPAs.
The bill is a significant step in the right direction, but
it omits several important sea-level-related provisions
included in the Senate version. I look forward to hearing about
the value of those provisions from our witness, Mr. Skip
Stiles. Mr. Stiles is an expert in coastal and wetland
management, and has helped the state of Virginia prepare its
coastal zone for sea level rise and other climate change
impacts.
We have another CBRA-related bill on the agenda, H.R. 2437,
which removes areas in North Topsail Beach from the Coastal
Barrier Resources System.
Look, I empathize with the North Topsail Beach community.
They are struggling with the consequences of climate change.
But I also recognize their situation is an unfortunate example
of why it is important to modernize CBRA to further protect
coastal communities and prepare for imminent climate change
impacts. Removing parts of North Topsail Beach from the System
would endanger residents and increase costs to taxpayers. This
is not the precedent that we want to set right now for other
vulnerable coastal communities.
We will also discuss two bills today that fall under the
Bureau of Reclamation's authority.
H.R. 4385, the Drought Preparedness Act, introduced by Mr.
Neguse, it reauthorizes Reclamation's drought response program
through 2028. The current authorization is set to expire this
year. This program has provided invaluable assistance for
drought contingency planning and management. I appreciate Mr.
Neguse's leadership on this.
As many of our districts face near annual droughts, it is
critical that Congress act to ensure programs like this are in
place to mitigate climate-induced impacts of drought on our
water supply. So, I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure a
successful reauthorization of this program.
A final bill on our agenda is from Representative Hageman
of Wyoming. It would transfer ownership of the Pilot Butte
Power Plant, currently owned by Reclamation, to the Midvale
Irrigation District. This power plant is under Reclamation's
Riverton unit, it began operations in 1925. The facility was
operated seasonally until it was removed from service in 1973,
and ultimately again in 2008 due to high operation and
maintenance costs. This bill would allow Reclamation and the
District to negotiate a mutually beneficial transfer agreement.
I look forward to hearing more on that legislation from our
witnesses.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
Mr. Bentz. I will now introduce our first panel.
As is typical with legislative hearings, the bills'
sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their
bills. With us today are Congresswoman Harriet Hageman,
Congressman Joe Neguse, Congresswoman Jen Kiggans, and
Congressman Greg Murphy.
I now recognize Ms. Hageman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
everyone for being here today.
I am before the Committee to advocate for my bill, the
Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act, which requires the
Bureau of Reclamation to enter into good faith negotiations
with the Midvale Irrigation District for the conveyance of the
Pilot Butte Power Plant located in Pavillion, Wyoming.
This proposition is not merely an administrative change or
a conveyance of responsibilities, but a critical step toward
improving water use for communities in need and responsible
resource management. Transferring ownership of the power plant
to Midvale Irrigation District will provide for greater
flexibility and relieve administrative burdens for the Bureau
of Reclamation.
Local entities are often better equipped to understand the
unique needs and challenges of their communities, and that is
why the Bureau has been using its authority to transfer title
to local projects throughout the 17 Western states. By placing
greater control of the hydro plant in the hands of Midvale
Irrigation District, we empower it to make decisions that
directly impact its region. This promotes a sense of ownership
and accountability that can lead to more efficient operation
and responsive governance.
Secondly, this transfer can lead to significant economic
benefits. Hydroelectric plants have the potential to generate
substantial revenue. By allowing Midvale to control these
resources, it can reinvest the profits into the community. This
will ultimately mean improved infrastructure and more support
for local businesses. The economic ripple effect can be
profound and positively impact the lives of those living in the
District.
Moreover, Midvale Irrigation District is intimately
familiar with the intricacies of water management and
distribution in the area. Updating and repairing this hydro
plant will expand the state's portfolio, allowing for a more
holistic approach to resource management. This will help
Wyoming to optimize water usage, balancing the needs of
agriculture, industry, and the environment more effectively.
This holistic approach can be instrumental in mitigating water
scarcity issues that plague the West.
We have an obvious need to increase the amount of water
stored through surface infrastructure and groundwater storage
projects. According to the Pacific Institute, California's
urban areas are wasting between 7 and 70,000 and 3.9 million
acre-feet of water every year, depending on how dry or wet the
year is, simply because of a lack of infrastructure.
This is a year of extreme abundance. Many Westerners are
probably wondering why it is so difficult to capitalize off of
a year like this. For far too long, they have watched certain
leaders shrug their shoulders and say, ``It is not that
simple.'' But the reality is we need additional infrastructure.
It is taking important actions like conveying this power plant
to the Midvale Irrigation District that will allow us to more
effectively manage our water and provide power to our
communities.
Additionally, environmental stewardship is a critical
consideration. Wyomingites are more attuned to the ecological
nuances of their surroundings. By placing the hydro plant under
local control, we increase the practice of responsible
environmental practices. This includes measures to protect
aquatic life, maintain water quality, and ensure the
sustainable operation of the plant without compromising our
ecosystems.
Mr. Lynn will have the opportunity to talk about this
further in his testimony. I thank you for traveling from
Wyoming here today.
And in our line of questioning, he is an expert on this
topic and is able to provide an expansive background on the
preparedness of the irrigation district to assume
responsibility of ownership in addition to responsibilities to
maintain and operate this facility.
Transferring Pilot Butte Power Plant to Midvale Irrigation
District is a move that will empower Wyoming communities, boost
Wyoming economies, enhance resource management, and promote
responsible environmental practices. It is a decision that
reflects the values of decentralization, self-determination,
and self-reliance.
The Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act will certainly
bring about positive change and prosperity for both the local
community and the state of Wyoming as a whole.
Again, thank you for being here. I appreciate the support
on this particular bill. It is an important one for the state
of Wyoming.
With that, I yield back, and thank you.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Hageman. I now recognize Mr.
Neguse for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member
Huffman, for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on my
bill, the Drought Preparedness Act.
And I also want to say thank you to the Chairman and to the
Ranking Member for considering my bill. I very much appreciate
your indulgence in that regard.
As we know in the West, and Ranking Member Huffman
articulated this so well, despite a good moisture year for many
parts of my state of Colorado and other parts of the West this
year, we are still seeing continual drought conditions over the
past several years that are worsening as a result of climate
change. Scientists and agency experts predict that these
conditions will only continue through the coming years, and it
is critical that we provide our Federal agencies, state
governments, local partners with the resources that they need
to prepare for and respond to the conditions.
Let me just say very clearly, and perhaps stating the
obvious, the Colorado River, the headwaters of which are in my
district in western Colorado, is in crisis. The Bureau of
Reclamation, as we all know, is currently working with the
Colorado River Basin states, tribes, local stakeholders to
generate additional solutions and long-term reductions in usage
along the river that are more sustainable with the water levels
that we have been seeing.
This is an important time for the Colorado River and many
other rivers across the West. We need to make sure that we are
providing our states and agencies with every tool possible to
combat this crisis. And this is important because from my
perspective and for my constituents, Colorado has done its
part. Colorado's water users have done their part. It is time,
in our view, for our colleagues to step up to the plate.
And that is why I was proud earlier this year to start the
Colorado River Caucus, a bipartisan caucus with colleagues from
across the upper basin and lower basin states, Republicans and
Democrats, coming together to have candid conversations about a
way forward, partnering with the Bureau of Reclamation on
important initiatives and activities that they are pursuing,
and it is also why I was proud to introduce this particular
bill, which is bipartisan with my colleague, Representative
Ciscomani from Arizona.
And as the Ranking Member so well articulated, the bill is
a simple one. It reauthorizes the Bureau of Reclamation's
Drought Response Program, which is currently set to expire in
several days at the end of the Fiscal Year. The Drought
Response Program was established under the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act. It provides vital assistance for
drought contingency planning, authorizes emergency actions that
the Bureau can take, and supports drought resiliency projects
supported by drought contingency plans. All very important,
particularly given the moment we are currently living in.
The Drought Preparedness Act would reauthorize these
authorities, their appropriations, through 2028, would allow
for continued actions by the Bureau of Reclamation. I know that
the Bureau, in their written testimony, I suspect they will
talk more about this during their oral testimony, has stated
that they require an increased cost ceiling for the program in
order to continue operations through 2028. That is provided by
the bill before us, H.R. 4385.
I hope that I can work with members of the Committee on a
bipartisan basis to ensure that the Bureau continues to have
both the authorities and the funds that it needs to carry out
these critical programs. And again, I just want to say a note
of gratitude to the Chairman and to your staff, and look
forward to working with the Committee to move this bill across
the finish line.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Neguse. I now recognize Mrs.
Kiggans for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEN KIGGANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to speak
to my bill, the Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act.
We affectionately refer to it as the BEACH Act, an acronym my
team is very proud of, given the bill's significant role in
protecting our coasts and beaches.
The BEACH Act furthers the mission of the 1982 Coastal
Barrier Resources Act. This landmark conservation legislation,
spearheaded by bipartisan collaboration, aimed to conserve
barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, fostering
the protection of these ecologically sensitive regions. By
barring the use of Federal funds for commercial development,
CBRA sought to preserve the biodiversity and ecological balance
of our coastlines, safeguard habitats for countless species,
and protect human communities from storm surges and erosion,
all while being a thoughtful steward of taxpayer dollars.
The BEACH Act would enact the updated CBRA maps proposed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including almost 100,000
new acres added in Virginia. I represent Virginia's 2nd
District, including our Eastern Shore, almost the entirety of
which remains underdeveloped and protected by CBRA. CBRA
restricts the use of Federal funding for development in these
areas, keeping taxpayer dollars out of risky commercial
investments, and simultaneously protecting our most valuable
coastlines.
Virginia's coastal ecosystems play a crucial role in the
state's environmental, economic, and cultural identity. The
barrier islands and coastal wetlands acts as the first line of
defense against storm surges, protecting inland communities as
well as vital infrastructure. Moreover, our state's coasts are
home to all sorts of wildlife, all relying on the health and
longevity of these ecosystems. Updating the maps is essential
to reflect changes in barrier configuration, identify new areas
for inclusion, and ensure the optimal conservation of our
shoreline.
I wanted to thank the witnesses for being here and just for
being interested in our bills today, especially Dr. Hein. We
love working with VIMS, and we are excited to get down for a
tour one day. And we have a couple people from my district here
today, so thank you very much just for attending.
I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Kiggans. I now recognize Dr.
Murphy for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORY F. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am blessed to
introduce H.R. 2437 to revise the boundaries of a unit of the
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System in Topsail,
North Carolina, and for other purposes.
This is essentially a fairly clean bill that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service wrongly designated the north end of
Topsail Island. And this is going to essentially correct a 40-
year mapping error made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
My predecessor, Walter B. Jones, Jr., tried many years to get
this error corrected, and hopefully this will get done now.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly designated the
north end of Topsail Island, comprising the town of North
Topsail Beach, as being in the Coastal Barrier Resources
System, despite the fact it was already under development and
had a great deal of infrastructure actually in the ground at
the time of designation. My bill would correct this error by
taking out a small area from the Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
The town of North Topsail Beach has provided the
Subcommittee with extensive research documenting the existence
of that infrastructure. This error wrongly prohibited the town
of North Topsail Beach and many homeowners from accessing
Federal programs, including the FAIB, IP, the Veterans
Administration loans, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shore
protection projects.
Today, you will hear the testimony of one of my
constituents, Alderman Tom Leonard, who will give you a great
amount of detail on this matter.
This is just about fair treatment under the law. Areas that
were already under development when the Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resource System law was passed in 1982 were not supposed to be
designated within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The
Federal Government made an error with North Topsail Beach, and
I am asking that error be corrected.
Lastly, the staff director of the Subcommittee has actually
been on the ground and looked at the area in North Topsail
Beach firsthand.
Thank you again for your consideration. I look forward to
working with you and the members of the Committee to hopefully
move this bill forward. Thank you very much.
I will yield back my time.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Murphy.
I will now introduce our second panel: Mr. Matt Strickler,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks with
the Department of the Interior; Dr. Christopher Hein, Wakefield
Associate Professor of Marine Science at the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science in Gloucester Point, Virginia; Mr. Steve
Lynn, Manager for the Midvale Irrigation District in Pavillion,
Wyoming; Mr. William Stiles, Senior Advisor for Wetlands Watch
in Norfolk, Virginia; and Mr. Tom Leonard, Alderman for the
Town of North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button
on the microphone.
We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red,
and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning.
I now recognize Mr. Strickler for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATT STRICKLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Strickler. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. It is good to see you
again. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on two
bills related to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
Coastal barriers and associated natural features like
wetlands provide essential protection for communities against
storms and erosion. They also provide important spawning,
nursery, nesting, and feeding areas for fish and wildlife.
Coastal barriers are highly dynamic landscapes, and their
ability to absorb the impacts of strong winds, waves, and
currents is what makes them so effective at sheltering the
mainland behind them. It is also what makes them risky places
to build.
Congress understood this when it passed the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act, or CBRA, in 1982. While CBRA does not prevent
private property owners from developing their land, it does
prevent them from receiving subsidies from the Federal
Government that would encourage them to do so, or that would
expend taxpayer dollars to help them rebuild.
In passing CBRA and in reauthorizing and expanding the
System multiple times, Congress has sent a clear and fair
message: barrier islands are dangerous places; develop them at
your own risk.
This market-based approach to conservation and hazard
mitigation has been incredibly effective. A peer-reviewed study
published in the Journal of Coastal Research in 2019 estimated
that CBRA has saved more than $9 billion in Federal disaster
aid alone, and is projected to save billions more in the
future. Development rates within the System are about 75
percent lower than outside the System.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for
administering CBRA, which includes maintaining and updating the
official maps of the System, making recommendations to Congress
for changes to the boundaries, and consulting with Federal
agencies on CBRA compliance. It is up to Congress to consider
and adopt recommended map revisions into law.
The complete set of System maps was last comprehensively
revised in 1990, using now-antiquated techniques and base maps.
Since 2000, the Service has worked with Congress on a
comprehensive map modernization process that utilizes 21st
century mapping technology, includes public input, and is
underpinned by statutory development criteria and documented
objective mapping protocols. To date, the Service has produced
comprehensively revised and modernized maps for more than 30
percent of the System's acreage. Congress has adopted a subset
of these maps covering 9 percent of the System. The Service has
also digitized but not comprehensively revised the remaining
maps for the System.
H.R. 5490, the Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm
Act, would reauthorize CBRA and adopt comprehensively revised
maps prepared by the Service for more than 450 System units.
This would correct past mapping errors, including removing
hundreds of private properties that were accidentally included
in the System. Adopting these maps would also add areas to the
System, reducing development pressure and helping conserve
natural storm buffers and maintain habitat for fish and
wildlife. The bill includes a grandfathering clause for
existing structures within units included in the legislation.
It would also create a disclosure requirement for real estate
transactions.
The Administration strongly supports reauthorization of
CBRA, which has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and the
White House for more than four decades. We also strongly
support enactment of the recommended revised maps that the
Service has transmitted to Congress. The Administration
supports H.R. 5490 with some recommended changes, and we thank
Representative Kiggans for introducing this legislation.
While the BEACH Act takes important steps, the
Administration recommends additional amendments to revise the
definition of a coastal barrier to include areas that are and
will be vulnerable to coastal hazards in the future; assess the
application of CBRA to certain high-hazard coastal areas other
than barrier islands through a pilot project; and authorize
adequate funding for the Service to fully carry out its
mandates under CBRA.
We also look forward to working with the Subcommittee to
clarify a provision related to Otherwise Protected Areas, which
we believe has negative unintended consequences as currently
written.
The other bill under discussion related to CBRA, H.R. 2437,
would require the Secretary to propose a revised map for CBRA
Unit L06 on Topsail Island, North Carolina. The bill would
remove a substantial area from the System, including many
structures that were built after Congress put the land in the
System in 1982. The Administration opposes the bill.
The designation of this unit has been thoroughly reviewed
and reaffirmed multiple times by Congress, the Service, and the
courts. Most recently, in 2018, Congress adopted a
comprehensively reviewed and revised map. This map followed the
Service's objective mapping process to remove land and
structures that were included in error, and was subject to
public review and comment.
The Service does not recommend any further substantial
changes to the boundary, as it would be inconsistent with the
objective mapping criteria that the Service applies for any
recommended map revisions. However, the Service does support
the adoption of our 2021 map for Unit L06, which is included in
Title 2 of H.R. 5490, and this map would correct a small
mapping and technical error, removing about 2.5 acres and two
homes from the System.
We appreciate our long partnership with the Subcommittee in
administrating CBRA, and look forward to discussing our views
with the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
on H.R. 5490 and H.R. 2437
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
of the Subcommittee. I am Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks within the Department of the
Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
two bills related to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System (CBRS or System).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) mission is working
with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Congress' stated objectives in the bipartisan enactment of the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (CBRA or Act) in 1982 were to save lives; save
taxpayer dollars; and conserve coastal barrier habitat by restricting
new federal expenditures and financial assistance, as such expenditures
encourage development in these sensitive and dynamic areas. Coastal
barriers and the associated wetlands provide essential spawning,
nursery, nesting, and feeding areas for fish and wildlife, and also
serve to protect inland coastal communities from erosion and coastal
storms and support American jobs in the fishing, recreation and outdoor
tourism industries. I am proud of our work in administering CBRA to
achieve its objectives. These objectives align with our mission and
have been supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations
alike over the last four decades.
When President Reagan signed CBRA into law, he characterized it as
a program that meets a national problem with less federal involvement,
not more.\1\ The law leverages the free market to achieve its goals.
The law does not prohibit or regulate development, but reduces
federally funded incentives for new development in hurricane- and
erosion-prone areas, where building puts people in harm's way and may
otherwise not be economical. Recent studies have shown that CBRA has
been highly successful in achieving its objectives. The law is
estimated to have saved over $9 billion in federal disaster aid and is
projected to save billions more into the future as climate change
exacerbates existing hazards along our coasts.\2\ Urban development
rates within the CBRS are about 75 percent lower than those outside of
the CBRS, with density levels similar to parks and wildlife refuges.\3\
Parcels within the CBRS are significantly less likely to be armored
with hardened structures such as seawalls.\4\ These reductions in
development and shoreline armoring result in better habitat and more
resilient beaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ronald Reagan, ``Statement on Signing the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act,'' October 18, 1982, The Public Papers of President
Ronald W. Reagan, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, accessed August
29, 2023, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/statement-
signing-coastal-barrier-resources-act.
\2\ Andrew S. Coburn and John C. Whitehead, ``An Analysis of
Federal Expenditures Related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA) of 1982,'' Journal of Coastal Research 35, no. 6 (November
2019): 1358-1361, accessed August 29, 2023, https://doi.org/10.2112/
JCOASTRES-D-18-00114.1.
\3\ Jordan Branham et al., ``Removing federal subsidies from high-
hazard coastal areas slows development,'' Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 20, no. 9 (June 21, 2022): 500-506, accessed August 29,
2023, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2532; Kyle Onda et al., ``Does
Removal of Federal Subsidies Discourage Urban Development? An
Evaluation of the US Coastal Barrier Resources Act,'' PLOS ONE 15, no.
6 (June 2020): e0233888, accessed August 29, 2023, https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0233888.
\4\ Jordan Branham et al., ``How does the removal of federal
subsidies affect investment in coastal protection infrastructure?,''
Land Use Policy 102 (March 2021): 105245, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landusepol.2020.105245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bills under consideration today seek to reauthorize CBRA and
modify the boundaries of the CBRS. We offer the following background
information along with our views on the two bills. We look forward to
working with the Subcommittee as you consider these revisions to the
law and the maps.
Overview of the CBRS and the Service's Map Modernization Efforts
With the passage of CBRA (Pub. L. 97-348) in 1982, Congress
designated privately-owned areas along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts within the CBRS. Most new federal expenditures and financial
assistance, including federal flood insurance, are prohibited in
designated areas. In 1990, Congress reauthorized CBRA (Pub. L. 101-591)
and expanded the CBRS to include both additional private lands as well
as areas held for conservation and recreation. The CBRS now encompasses
870 geographic units spanning about 3.5 million acres along the
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto
Rico coasts. The law contains exceptions for certain activities and
allows pre-existing structures added in 1982 and 1990 to maintain their
federal flood insurance until such time that they are substantially
improved or damaged. The Service is responsible for administering CBRA,
which includes maintaining and updating the official maps of the CBRS,
making recommendations to Congress for changes to the boundaries, and
consulting with federal agencies that propose to spend funds within the
CBRS under the exceptions. Congress plays an important role in the
implementation of CBRA by considering and adopting the Service's
recommended map revisions into law.
The complete set of maps depicting the CBRS was last
comprehensively revised in 1990 using now antiquated manual
cartographic technologies and base maps. The 1990s-era maps are
imprecise, difficult to use, and in some cases contain errors affecting
property owners and project proponents. Congress recognized the
challenges associated with the maps, and in the 2000 reauthorization of
the Act (Pub. L. 106-514) directed the Service to conduct a Digital
Mapping Pilot Project (pilot project). At that time, Congress also
codified the development criteria that the Service must consider when
evaluating whether additions to or removals from the CBRS are
appropriate. The pilot project was transmitted to Congress in 2016.
In 2006, Congress reauthorized CBRA (Pub. L. 109-226) and directed
the Service to modernize all the CBRS maps and recommend qualifying
additions. Since then, throughout several Administrations, the Service
has worked in a bipartisan manner with Congress to make significant
improvements to the maps through a transparent ``comprehensive map
modernization'' process that utilizes 21st century mapping technology,
includes public input, and is underpinned by the statutory development
criteria and objective mapping protocols. In 2013, the Service was
provided Hurricane Sandy Supplemental funding to comprehensively
modernize the maps of the CBRS along the Mid-Atlantic and New England
coasts. Maps for all CBRS areas in the following nine states are
included in this project: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia,
covering 16 percent of the total existing acreage of the CBRS. The
Service transmitted these 176 final recommended maps to Congress on
April 5, 2022, as part of our Report to Congress: John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project.
To date, including the Hurricane Sandy maps, the Service has
produced comprehensively revised maps for more than 30 percent of the
CBRS acreage. Congress has adopted a subset of these maps, covering 9
percent of the CBRS (including most of the maps produced under the 2016
pilot project), through the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of
2018 (Pub. L. 115-358) and other technical correction legislation. The
Service has also digitized (but not comprehensively revised) the
remaining CBRS maps through the statutorily directed 5-year review that
accounts for natural changes affecting coastal barriers in the CBRS
such as erosion and accretion. There remains much work to do to
comprehensively revise the CBRS maps. However, the collaboration
between Congress and the Service, and the involvement of the public,
has helped bring the maps into the modern age, making them more
accurate and user-friendly and ensuring the long-term integrity of the
CBRS.
H.R. 5490, Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act
The Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act (BEACH Act)
would reauthorize CBRA and adopt comprehensively revised maps prepared
by the Service for more than 450 CBRS units, including those maps
prepared through the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project and other
technical correction reviews. This action would correct past mapping
errors, including removing hundreds of private properties from the CBRS
that, according to the Service's objective review, should not have been
included in the CBRS. Adopting these maps would also add areas to the
CBRS, reducing development pressure in coastal barrier habitats. This,
in turn, would serve to conserve natural storm buffers and maintain
habitat for many at-risk species of fish and wildlife. The bill would
also require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to establish a
disclosure requirement for real estate transactions, require all
affected agencies to revise or issue regulations and guidance as
necessary to ensure compliance with the updated Act, and make many
other minor and technical clarifications to the law. The Administration
supports H.R. 5490 with some recommended changes, as outlined below,
and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to clarify a
provision related to Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs).
Title I--Coastal Barrier Resources Act amendments
The Administration supports the reauthorization of CBRA and the
expansion of the CBRS, which will help to reduce future losses by
keeping people and infrastructure out of harm's way, while also
creating climate-resilient landscapes to conserve habitat for fish and
wildlife. While the BEACH Act takes important steps, in light of the
ever-increasing federal costs to supporting coastal development, the
Administration recommends additional amendments to: (1) revise the
definition of a ``coastal barrier'' to include areas that are and will
be vulnerable to coastal hazards, such as flooding, storm surge, wind,
erosion, and sea level rise; (2) assess the application of CBRA to
certain high hazard coastal areas along the coasts through a pilot
project; and (3) allow for adequate funding for the Service to fully
carry out its mandates under CBRA. The Service would also welcome the
opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and sponsor on certain
additional aspects of the legislation, including definitions.
Rising sea levels are exacerbating existing vulnerabilities,
exposing more coastal areas to chronic erosion, nuisance flooding, and
higher storm surges. This will cause emergency response and recovery
costs to skyrocket over the coming decades. Tropical storms are being
supercharged by record-high ocean temperatures caused by climate
change. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria all made landfall in the
U.S. as category four hurricanes within a 4-week span in 2017. By the
end of that year, the unprecedented hurricane season had resulted in
more than $383 billion in damage.\5\ Additional destructive storms have
caused hundreds of billions in damage since. In a 2019 report on
climate resilience, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated
that ``enhancing climate resilience means taking actions to reduce
potential future losses by planning and preparing for potential climate
hazards . . .'' \6\ We recommend that the Subcommittee consider making
further updates to the law to ensure consideration of the increasing
coastal hazards associated with climate change and reduce U.S.
taxpayers' financial exposure to these hazards. Taxpayers should not be
on the hook to provide federal financial incentives to unwisely build
in risky areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters,'' National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for
Environmental Information (NCEI), 2023, accessed August 29, 2023,
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions, DOI: https://www.doi.org/
10.25921/stkw-7w73.
\6\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Climate Resilience: A
Strategic Investment Approach for High-Priority Projects Could Help
Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127 (Washington, DC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 2019), 3, accessed August 29, 2023, https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To position the law to address current and future conditions, the
Administration recommends that CBRA be amended to enable the Service to
conduct a pilot project, in consultation with the Corps of Engineers,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and State coastal
zone management agencies, to examine application of the free market
CBRA approach to certain high hazard coastal areas that are not
currently a part of the CBRS. The purpose of this project is to better
address coastal hazards that are increasing, such as sea level rise and
storm surge. In the pilot project, the Service would examine including
within the CBRS certain vulnerable coastal areas, including coastal
mainland areas, and submit to Congress proposed definitions and
criteria and a subset of draft maps delineating those areas. This pilot
project could lead to future Congressional action to comprehensively
assess and identify such areas and add them to the CBRS under certain
conditions. This could be a key step for the nation to enhance coastal
resilience for the longer term.
The Administration supports Section 103 of the bill, which would
require the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, to issue regulations requiring the owner or
lessor of real property in communities affected by CBRA to disclose the
fact that the property is in a community affected by CBRA. Such a
disclosure requirement will significantly increase awareness of CBRA at
the time of real estate transactions. A CBRS designation can limit the
availability of federal flood insurance and other federal subsidies.
When prospective buyers are not aware of a property's inclusion in the
CBRS, they are unable to make informed decisions.
Additionally, the Administration supports the provision in Section
104 of the bill that grandfathers existing insurable structures in
areas newly added to the System by this and future bills, allowing
those existing structures to maintain access to federal programs. This
provision (which is broader than the grandfathering policy for
structures added to the CBRS in the past) will allow the approximately
90 privately-owned structures on the ground now in the recommended
additions to retain their eligibility for a variety of federal programs
such as flood insurance and disaster assistance. This provision also
accounts for the fact that there may be structures currently under
construction within the areas recommended for addition to the CBRS by
grandfathering any structure completed within one year of enactment of
this bill (when the restrictions on new federal funding and financial
assistance go into effect).
However, the Administration has significant concerns regarding part
of Section 104 of the bill that, as currently written, exempts OPAs
from all prohibitions on federal expenditures and financial assistance,
which would include flood insurance. We note that OPAs do in many cases
contain private inholdings and other private lands. Current law
prohibits new federal flood insurance for any structure within an OPA
that is not used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the
area is protected. For example, private residences built within an OPA
after the unit's designation are not eligible for flood insurance, but
park-related structures (e.g., a visitor center) are eligible. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee on technical changes to the
bill to maintain existing flood insurance restrictions within OPAs, as
well as the exemption for structures used in a manner consistent with
the purpose for which the area is protected.
Finally, the Administration suggests that the authorization level
in Section 106 be increased to $5,000,000. The increased authorization
level will allow the Service to increase its capacity to maintain and
update the maps, improve public awareness of CBRA, engage in
consultation with other federal agencies and update implementing
regulations to align with the BEACH Act, and conduct a pilot project to
better address increasing coastal hazards.
Title II--Changes to John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
maps
The BEACH Act would adopt all maps developed through the Hurricane
Sandy Remapping Project, as well as revised maps for certain CBRS units
in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
Congressional adoption of these maps, which were produced by the
Service, will help enhance coastal resilience by providing more
accurate and accessible CBRS data for planning coastal infrastructure
projects, habitat conservation efforts, and flood risk mitigation
measures. Adoption of the revised maps will also correct decades-old
mapping errors affecting more than 950 homes and other structures, and
will also add hundreds of thousands of acres of relatively undeveloped
areas that qualify for inclusion within the CBRS, consistent with
Congressional direction in Pub. L. 109-226.
It is important to note that the expansion of the CBRS will not
prohibit or regulate new development; rather, it will send appropriate
price signals to potential developers to convey the risk associated
with building on dynamic coastal barriers and ensure that the federal
taxpayer does not underwrite risky development. Additionally, to ensure
that existing homeowners are not adversely affected, Section 104 of
Title I of the bill, discussed above, would establish a grandfathering
provision for existing insurable structures in any areas added to the
CBRS by this or future bills.
The Administration supports the adoption of these maps through this
bill. However, we note that the maps were produced between 2016 and
2020, using the best available data and aerial imagery at the time.
Because development conditions on the ground are continually changing
and coastal barriers are dynamic landforms, the Service recently
conducted a review of the maps referenced in Title II and found that
some minor and technical updates (none of which are new additions) are
warranted to certain maps before they are adopted into law. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee on relevant updates.
We also note that the Service has prepared revised maps for eight
units in Alabama and North Carolina, transmitted to Congress in 2015
and 2016 respectively, that are not included in the draft bill. These
maps would correct mapping errors affecting property owners or add
eligible areas to the CBRS. The Administration recommends that Congress
adopt all of the final recommended maps that have been completed and
transmitted to Congress since 2015.
H.R. 2437, To revise the boundaries of a unit of the John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System in Topsail, North Carolina,
and for other purposes
Unit L06 of the CBRS is in Onslow County, North Carolina, and
includes much of the Town of North Topsail Beach. H.R. 2437 would
require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare, within 30 days of
enactment, a revised map for Unit L06 that removes from the CBRS
certain areas serviced by infrastructure located along North Carolina
Highway 210 and New River Inlet Road in 1982. The bill would also
require that the Service consider these roads to meet the statutory
infrastructure criteria used to evaluate changes to the CBRS
boundaries. The designation of this unit has been thoroughly reviewed
by the Service and Congress in the past. Congress has examined and
affirmed the boundaries of Unit L06 through the adoption of revised
maps in 1990 and, applying current technology, in 2018. The Service
does not recommend any further substantial changes to the boundary, as
they would be inconsistent with the objective mapping criteria that the
Service equitably applies for any recommended map revisions. For these
reasons, as explained in more detail below, the Administration opposes
H.R. 2437.
It appears that H.R. 2437 intends to remove much of the existing
development within Unit L06 from the CBRS. Nearly all of this
development occurred after the passage of CBRA, meaning various federal
subsidies, including federal flood insurance, are not available within
the unit. Property owners pursued this development without federal
subsidies. We note that as written, it is not clear exactly which areas
would be removed from the CBRS. For example, there are several
developed areas within the unit that were not serviced by these roads
at the time of designation (many homes are located along secondary
roads that were not on the ground in 1982).
The Department developed the original CBRS maps as directed by
Congress to identify qualifying relatively undeveloped coastal barrier
areas in 1982 following a years-long process involving reviews of
aerial photography, on-the-ground inspections, several public
information sessions, and two comment periods. When Congress first
included Unit L06 within the CBRS with the enactment of CBRA, there
were approximately 35 structures and a main road on the ground. We note
that when L06 was first mapped, the Department was guided by CBRS
designation criteria published in the Federal Register on August 16,
1982, which stated that ``the presence on a coastal barrier of a single
road . . . plus associated electric transmission and water and sewer
lines in this highway corridor does not constitute the necessary full
complement of infrastructure necessary to support development.''
After L06 was designated by CBRA in 1982, in 1983, developers and
landowners filed a lawsuit against the Department and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency over the designation of Unit L06. The
District Court decided in favor of the Federal Government in 1984; it
found that Congress' designation including the area within the CBRS was
rationally related to the goals of the CBRA. The case was appealed, and
the lower court's decision was upheld in 1985.
As part of a CBRA reauthorization effort, all the CBRS units,
including Unit L06, were reviewed again by the Department in the mid-
1980s. Part of that review included public comment periods held in 1985
and 1987. Congress then reaffirmed and expanded Unit L06 in 1990 when
it reauthorized CBRA. Construction continued in the area without
federal financial assistance in accordance with the free-market
principles of the Act. The unit currently contains approximately 700
structures, about 95 percent of which were built since the area was
designated. Today, more than four decades after its initial
designation, Unit L06 is one of the most developed units in the System,
and CBRA continues to shield the American taxpayers from subsidizing
construction on dynamic and low-lying barrier islands as Congress
intended when it enacted CBRA.
The Service comprehensively reviewed this area in response to
requests received over the years from private property owners, local
officials, and others who sought significant removals from Unit L06. We
prepared revised maps for Unit L06 as part of the pilot project, which
underwent public review in 2009. Our review found that, although there
were some structures on the ground and a main trunk line of
infrastructure that ran along the length of the unit in 1982, the area
still met the CBRA criteria for an undeveloped coastal barrier when it
was included within the CBRS. This review was summarized in our 2014
testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and
Insular Affairs on H.R. 187, and is also described on pages E-8 and E-9
of Appendix E of our 2016 Final Report to Congress: John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project. The
Service's comprehensive review was the basis for revised Unit L06 maps
(two maps) that were part of the pilot project that was finalized and
transmitted to Congress in 2016. These two maps were then adopted by
Congress via the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018 (Pub. L.
115-358) and signed into law by President Trump on December 21, 2018.
These maps made appropriate technical corrections to address mapping
errors (removing about 78 structures from the CBRS) and added
approximately 170 qualifying acres to the CBRS (mostly wetlands).
CBRA's legislative history states that ``it is in the intent of
this legislation that those who choose to develop within the CBRS after
enactment do so at their own risk. Recommending changes to such units
for this purpose would obviously not be consistent with the intent of
this legislation'' (House Report 97-841 Part 1). We note that any
significant removal from Unit L06 could serve to incentivize further
development and redevelopment, putting more people in harm's way and
costing the federal taxpayer millions in future federal flood insurance
and disaster assistance payouts.
The Service does support the adoption of a revised map that we
produced dated April 30, 2021, which is included in Title II of H.R.
5490. The map included in H.R. 5490 would correct one minor and
technical error in the map for Unit L06, removing about 2.5 acres and
two homes from the CBRS if adopted by Congress. We discovered this
error in 2020 after being asked to review the mapping of a specific
property. This error was primarily the result of challenges in
georeferencing the original CBRS maps, combined with the quality of
aerial imagery available to the Service in the early 2000s, when the
boundary for Unit L06 was first digitized from the 1990 paper maps. We
have determined that no further changes to the boundaries of Unit L06
are warranted.
Conclusion
The Service appreciates our long partnership with the Subcommittee
in administering CBRA. Through our collaboration, we have saved the
taxpayers billions of dollars, modernized the maps of the CBRS and made
them more accessible to the public, maintained the integrity of the
CBRS, and advanced the conservation of coastal habitat. The health of
our coastal ecosystems is central to the continued existence of many
species of fish and wildlife, and the Service is committed to
conserving these important resources for the continuing benefit of the
American people. We look forward to discussing these views with the
Subcommittee and the bills' sponsors.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Matthew Strickler, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Strickler did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Murphy
Question 1. Would Mr. Strickler be willing to meet with Alderman
Tom Leonard at North Topsail Beach to survey the 590 acres of land that
H.R. 2437 would take out of CBRS zone known as Unit L06?
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Strickler. I now recognize Dr.
Hein for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HEIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA
INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA
Dr. Hein. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to testify today.
I am an Associate Professor at the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science in William and Mary. I am also a coastal
geoscientist, which means my job is to study beaches, how they
grow, how they erode, how they respond to storms and sea level
rise. But beyond that, my expertise extends to the nearshore
sand dunes, wetlands, and lagoons that are all part of what we
call the Coastal Barrier Island System. I have studied coastal
barriers across the U.S. East Coast, and from the Arctic to the
Southern Hemisphere subtropics. For the last decade, most of
that work has been in Representative Kiggans' district on
Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The reason us in the scientific community are so drawn to
barriers is simple: they are nearly ubiquitous across the U.S.
East and Gulf Coasts, and they are one of the most dynamic
landforms on Earth. They are constantly changing and reshaping
in response to winds, waves, and currents. One can never visit
the same barrier twice, as with every new tide or every next
storm they will have changed in ways both subtle and profound.
Here I share with you a little about the Virginia Barrier
Islands as a way of exemplifying the importance of Coastal
Barrier Systems and the benefits of disincentivizing their
development through measures such as the BEACH Act.
The island chain stretching from southern Delaware to the
mouth of the Chesapeake Bay is one of the longest expanses of
nearly entirely undeveloped barriers in the world, home to
wildlife refuges, national seashore, state parks, and a nature
conservancy preserve. These islands and their associated waters
and wetlands are a conservation jewel. And it is the fact that
they are largely undeveloped that makes these barrier systems
just so profoundly important to the health and security of
nearby coastal communities and ecosystems.
One way in which they do so is serving as speed bumps to
storms approaching the coast, storms such as Hurricane Sandy in
2012 or Tropical Storm Ophelia, which struck the Mid-Atlantic
just this past weekend. Although such storms can be devastating
to communities and infrastructure built upon the barriers, the
physical landforms and the ecosystems themselves, they are
fully adapted to the waves, winds, and flooding. Dune and beach
configurations may change as waters rise and fall. Sediment is
moved from the beach and dunes to the rear of the barrier, and
tidal currents can carve new inlets, but the natural system
persists and recovers.
This process is, in fact, healthy and is, indeed, central
to the future resilience of coastal barriers and the lands that
they protect. And this is exactly what we witness along
Virginia's Eastern Shore. Here, barriers have been moving
landward at nearly 20 feet per year for over a century
unimpeded by seawalls, by homes, or grocery stores. With the
rare exception, they receive no costly beach nourishment and
have no cement or rock walls preventing their movement. Yet,
these islands, they remain miles offshore, where they provide
habitat, nesting, and feeding grounds for over 250 species of
raptors, shorebirds, and songbirds. And they sit in front of
more than 100,000 acres of marshes and wetlands, which are host
to oyster reef sanctuaries and the largest expanse of restored
eelgrass in the world, which together support shellfish
aquaculture and fisheries industries worth tens of millions of
dollars annually.
These barriers, they take the brunt of storms, leaving
behind them relatively quiet water, even in the worst of
weather. In doing so, they protect the mainland communities of
the Eastern Shore. Barriers slow water entering adjacent
lagoons and protect marshes, which themselves further reduce
wave energy and absorb flood floodwaters. In fact, marshes are
estimated to reduce annual storm damage by about $23 billion
nationally. Indeed, the back barrier wetlands of New York and
New Jersey likely reduced property damage from Hurricane Sandy
by nearly $600 million.
And what makes the coastal barriers such as those along
Virginia's Eastern Shore so indispensable is that they are not
built upon. By disincentivizing development of lands within the
Coastal Barrier Resources System, CBRA, with its network
improved and expanded through passage of the BEACH Act, not
only saves taxpayer dollars, but allows remaining undeveloped
barriers and wetlands to migrate and adapt naturally to sea
level rise. And it ensures their continued functionality for
supporting coastal economies, recreation, and tourism, for
providing habitat and myriad ecosystem services, for protecting
mainland communities and infrastructure, and offering vital
opportunities for scientific research and education.
On behalf of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
William and Mary, the coastal scientific community, and the
citizens of coastal Virginia, I am grateful for the
Subcommittee's interest in expanding protections for these
vital landforms based on the best available science, and
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Hein, Wakefield Associate Professor
of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary
on H.R. 5490
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
of the Subcommittee. I am a coastal geoscientist and associate
professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary.
It is an honor to testify this morning on the importance of coastal
barriers. These landforms and associated ecosystems are at the core of
my scientific expertise: I have been studying their physical evolution,
modern processes and dynamics, and sensitivities to projected increases
in storminess and rates of sea-level rise for nearly 20 years. My
research includes sites across the U.S. and beyond, including East
Coast barriers from Maine to Florida, with an emphasis in the last
decade on the largely undeveloped system of barrier islands of
Virginia's Eastern Shore.
My testimony serves to provide scientific background on coastal
barrier systems, the buffer between the coastal ocean and mainland
human population centers and infrastructure. These elongate, generally
shore-parallel bodies of sand (barrier spits and islands) protect the
mainland coast from coastal impacts of sea-level rise and devastating
storms. Coastal barriers are found along 15% of the world's
coastlines, and nearly the entire U.S. East and Gulf coasts; in fact,
nearly a full quarter of the world's barriers islands are found within
the United States, accounting for 6500 mi2 of land
area.\1\,\2\ Together with their backbarrier estuaries,
lagoons, tidal flats, and wetlands, coastal barriers serve as a natural
storm buffer; include some of the most popular tourist and recreational
destinations in the U.S.; provide habitat for a wide variety of
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, migratory
waterfowl, and juveniles of recreationally and commercially important
species; and sequester climate-altering carbon dioxide (CO2)
in the form of organic-rich ``blue carbon'' reservoirs. In short, as
noted in the 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act, coastal barriers
``contain extraordinary scenic, scientific, recreational, natural,
historic, archeological, cultural, and economic importance.''
Protection of these dynamic, yet sensitive, coastal systems yield
immense ecosystem, societal, and economic benefits, both measurable and
intangible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stutz, M.L. and Pilkey, O.H., 2011. Open-ocean barrier islands:
global influence of climatic, oceanographic, and depositional settings.
Journal of Coastal Research, v. 27, p. 207-222. https://doi.org/
10.2112/09-1190.1.
\2\ McNamara, D.E., & Lazarus, E.D., 2018. Barrier islands as
coupled human-landscape systems, In: Moore, L.J., and Murray, A.B.,
Barrier Dynamics and Response to Changing Climate, Springer, p. 363-
383. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-68086-6_12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unique Role of Undeveloped Coastal Barriers
The 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) defines undeveloped
coastal barriers ``as:
A. a depositional geologic feature (such as a bay barrier, tombolo,
barrier spit, or barrier island) that (i) consists of
unconsolidated sedimentary materials; (ii) is subject to
wave, tidal, and wind energies, and; (iii) protects
landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attack; and
B. all associated aquatic habitats, including the adjacent wetlands,
marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters;
but only if such feature and associated habitats (i) contain few man-
made structures and these structures, and man's activities on such
feature and within such habitats, do not significantly impede
geomorphic and ecological processes, and (ii) are not included within
the boundaries of an area established under Federal, State, or local
law, or held by a qualified organization as defined in section
170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, primarily for wildlife
refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation
purposes.''
These definitions largely follow those accepted within the
scientific community. What is missing from this legal designation is
the fact that coastal barriers are among the--if not the--most dynamic
landforms on Earth. In their natural state, they are constantly
undergoing reworking by waves, wind, and currents; they shape and
reform in response to, and following, storm impacts; and, at any time,
there are barriers undergoing long-term (decadal or longer) phases of
progradation (widening), elongation, accretion, erosion (narrowing),
breaching, or migration. Indeed, one can never visit the ``same''
barrier twice, as the landform and its associated habitats are
constantly adjusting to ever-changing conditions at the intersection of
land, ocean, and atmosphere. It is this dynamism that makes undeveloped
coastal barriers such environmental oases, and it is the resilience of
these systems--their ability to ``regenerate'' following major storm
impacts--that makes them so vital to the protection of mainland
communities and infrastructure.
Most barriers formed thousands of years ago, and often miles
offshore of their present locations. Sea-level rise since that time has
driven these landforms onshore, while during the same time the mainland
behind them has flooded. This process of barrier rollover (landward
migration) occurs largely through a process called ``overwash'', in
which storm waves and surge overtop the barrier and transport its beach
sand to the rear of the barrier and into the lagoon. It is this process
through which these barriers (whether mainland-attached spits or
offshore islands) maintain elevation above sea level. It is also what
allows these coastal barriers to preserve and protect adjacent
ecologically and economically rich backbarrier environments,
characterized by extensive estuaries, lagoons, tidal flats, submersed
aquatic vegetation, and intertidal wetlands (marshes and/or mangroves).
However, this is just one of myriad services of coastal barriers and
their associated backbarrier systems--particularly those which are
undeveloped and allowed to naturally adapt to changing atmospheric and
oceanographic forcings.
Coastal Barriers Provide Protection to Mainland Communities and
Infrastructure
In the U.S., approximately 40% of the population lives in coastal
counties,\3\ and there are 180 coastal municipalities along the coasts
of the continental U.S. with populations of >50,000 and land areas with
elevations at or below about 20 ft above mean sea level.\4\
Infrastructure within the coastal zone totals $3 trillion along the
East and Gulf Coasts alone. Total insured property values for coastal
states exceed $10 trillion.\5\ And globally, many of the densest
coastal population centers are within the world's six ``hurricane
belts'', with that spanning the U.S. East and Gulf Coast having
experienced the highest economic losses in the world due to storms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for
Coastal Management (NOAA-OCM), 2023. Fast Facts: Natural
Infrastructure. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/natural-
infrastructure.html accessed 24 September 2023.
\4\ Weiss, J.L., Overpeck, J.T. and Strauss, B., 2011. Implications
of recent sea level rise science for low-elevation areas in coastal
cities of the conterminous USA, Climatic Change, v. 105, p. 635-645.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0024-x.
\5\ Insurance Journal, 2013. Insured Property Values in Coastal
States Top $10 Trillion; Florida Has Most at Risk; Miami Ranks 2nd
Among Metros, online 17 June 2013, accessed 24 September 2023. https://
www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/features/2013/06/17/295207.htm
\6\ Martinez, M.L., Costanza, R. and Perez-Maqueo, O., 2011.
Ecosystem services provided by estuarine and coastal ecosystems: Storm
Protection as a service from estuarine and coastal ecosystems. In:
Wolanski, E., McLusky, D., Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science,
Academic Press, p. 129-146, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-
2.01207-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal barriers and their associated backbarrier lagoons and
wetlands serve as a ``speed bump'' to storms as they approach the
coast--storms such as Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, or Tropical
Storm Ophelia, which struck the Mid-Atlantic coast just this past
weekend. It was the devastation of Hurricane Sandy that initiated the
process of modernizing the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
(first established by the 1982 CBRA) along much of the U.S. East Coast
through funding provided by the January 2013 Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-2); these updated maps and
recommendations were presented in a comprehensive 2022 Report to
Congress authored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Hatch, K., Niemi, K., Wright, D., 2022. Report to Congress:
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Hurricane Sandy
Remapping Project, Washington, DC.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), 156 p. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
Hurricane-Sandy-CBRS-Remapping-Report-to-Congress-2022_0.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the worst damage from Hurricane Sandy (2012) was along the
coastal barriers that front the mainlands of New Jersey and New York.
However, the impacts were not to the physical system of sand, mud,
water, and wetlands that comprise the barrier systems: those are
resilient; configurations may change as flood waters rise and fall,
waves move sediment across the system, and tidal currents carve inlets,
but the natural system persists. Undeveloped coastal barrier systems
function under the rules of physics. Rather, the risk from these storm
impacts lies at the intersection with human communities and
infrastructure. And this is where coastal barriers and their associated
backbarrier aquatic habitats play an indispensable role in mainland
protection.
Coastal barriers and beaches bear the brunt of ocean storm waves
during hurricanes and nor'easters, leaving only small, locally formed
wind waves in backbarrier lagoons. Barriers greatly decrease wave
heights, protecting mainland communities and reducing erosion of
mainland and backbarrier marshes. By providing only narrow openings
through which water can flow (tidal inlets), coastal barriers
substantially retard the volume of water flooding adjacent
backbarriers, reducing storm surge and attendant mainland flooding.
Further, these coastal barriers support the presence of coastal
wetlands, which themselves reduce wave energy and absorb floodwaters:
they are estimated to hold an annual average storm-protective services
value of $4.6 million/mi2 (nationwide, $23 billion/year;
ref. 3), with higher protective benefits in states with weaker building
codes.\8\ To wit, it is estimated that backbarrier wetlands reduced
property damage from Hurricane Sandy by $567 million in New York and
New Jersey alone.\9\ The benefits were smaller but still profound
distant from the epicenter of the storm's landfall. In Members Kiggans'
and Wittman's homes of coastal Virginia, the protective value of
wetlands (not all located behind barrier islands) from Hurricane Sandy
is estimated at $10 million; and in Member Magaziner's district in
Rhode Island, the value is $300,000.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sun, F. and Carson, R.T., 2020. Coastal wetlands reduce
property damage during tropical cyclones. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, v. 117, p. 5719-5725. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1915169117
\9\ Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Wilson, P., et al., 2017. The value of
coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA.
Scientific Reports, v. 7, p. 9463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
09269-z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Barriers Provide `Ecosystem Services'
Beyond protective benefits for backbarrier and mainland
communities, undeveloped coastal barriers provide and protect important
habitats that sustain threatened and endangered species and maintain
recreational and commercial fisheries. By intercepting dissolved and
particulate matter from land and ocean, vegetation associated with
coastal barrier beach and dunes acts as natural biofilters and support
the breakdown of organic materials and pollutants. Those same dunes can
temporarily store storm water. Beach and dune sands provide habitat
that supports unique and diverse micro-, meso-, and macrofaunal
communities including significant habitat and nesting sites for
pinnipeds, sea turtles, shorebirds (including the endangered piping
plover), and songbirds; and enhances species richness and diversity. In
addition, coastal barriers protect wetlands and submersed aquatic
vegetation beds that in turn serve as long-term carbon storage
reservoirs, provide food resources to a wide variety of wildlife,
including threatened and endangered species, migratory waterfowl, while
at the same time serve as nursery habitat for larvae and juveniles of
economically important species, such as bait and commercial fishes.
A Contrast with Developed Barriers
With 2.3 billion tourists visiting annually, beaches (including
those on coastal barriers) are the most popular tourist and
recreational destinations in the country, contributing $357 billion
(in 2023 USD) annually to the U.S. economy. Coastal states such as
Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Oregon, Rhode
Island, and Virginia receive 85% of annual tourism-related revenues in
the U.S., supporting 2.5 million jobs and generating $45 billion in
taxes.\10\ However, coastal erosion--largely associated with storm
impacts--affects 85-90% of beaches in the U.S.\11\ and is responsible
for >$500 million per year in property damage, including land losses
and structure impairments.\12\ To counter this, developed barriers and
beaches have received 3600 sand nourishment projects, totaling 1.7
trillion cubic yards, and at a cost of nearly $9 billion (91% since
1960).\13\ The vast majority (>83%) of these projects have been to
beaches in California, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York,
and Louisiana. Combined with hard and soft engineering approaches
(e.g., installation of seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, etc.),
this approach has largely prevented the natural landward movement of
developed barriers towards the mainland, and migration of coastal
wetlands onto uplands in response to sea-level rise. In fact, in many
places, such as the New Jersey Shore, barriers have experienced net
progradation (growth) in recent decades, because of repeated
nourishments and shoreline hardening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Houston, J.R., 2018. The economic value of America's beaches--
A 2018 update, Shore & Beach, v. 86, p. 3-13. https://asbpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Houston_Spring-2018_86_2_color.pdf
\11\ Heinz Center, 2000. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. The H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, 253 p.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/erosion.pdf
\12\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013.
National Coastal Population Report, Washington, DC.: Department of
Commerce, 22 p., https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/
population-report.html.
\13\ Elko, N., Briggs, T.R., Benedet, L., et al, 2021. A century of
US beach nourishment. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 199, p. 105406.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105406
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, these shoreline-stabilization activities are racked with
problems, ranging from ecological impacts to ever-increasing costs of a
finite resource (sand), to racial and wealth inequities in application.
For example, development disrupts the connection between barriers and
their adjacent lagoons and wetlands, interrupting the natural, storm-
induced landward transfer of sand that helps to sustain wetlands in the
face of sea-level rise. Shoreline stabilization has been shown to
further promote larger and more extensive development.\14\ And, over
the long term, activities required to support continued development and
occupation of coastal barriers leave the barriers vulnerable to
wholesale drowning and deterioration.\15\ None of these challenges
exist for undeveloped coastal barriers. Indeed, in addition to placing
communities and infrastructure at risk, development on coastal barriers
can remove many of the protective, economic, and ecosystem values of
coastal barriers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Armstrong, S.B., Lazarus, E.D., Limber, P.W., et al., 2016.
Indications of a positive feedback between coastal development and
beach nourishment. Earth's Future, v. 4, p. 626-635. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2016EF000425.
\15\ Miselis, J.L. and Lorenzo-Trueba, J., 2017. Natural and human-
induced variability in barrier-island response to sea level rise.
Geophysical Research Letters, v. 44, p. 11,922-11,931. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2017GL074811.
\16\ Feagin, R.A., Smith, W.K., Psuty, N.P., et al., 2010. Barrier
islands: coupling anthropogenic stability with ecological
sustainability. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 26, p. 987-992. https:/
/doi.org/10.2112/09-1185.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Example from Virginia's Undeveloped Barrier Islands
Along the 70-mile-long seaside of the Eastern Shore of Virginia
(located within Representative Kiggans' 2nd Congressional District)
lies 13 largely pristine, undeveloped barrier islands. Only one of the
ocean-facing islands has experienced any significant development:
Wallops Island, home to the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, the Virginia
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, and the Navy's Surface Combat Systems
Center. Approximately 215 mi2 (including >68 mi of
beachfront) of these coastal barrier systems are protected from
development by state and federal agencies and non-governmental
organizations. These islands are home to The Nature Conservancy's
Virginia Coast Reserve; a National Science Foundation Long-Term
Ecological Research site; the Assateague National Seashore; and
National Wildlife Refuges on Wallops, Assawoman, Chincoteague, and
Fisherman islands.
These islands, along with the lagoons, wetlands, and mainland
Eastern Shore they support and protect contain $14 billion in coastal
infrastructure and $15 million/yr shellfish aquaculture and fisheries
industries.\17\ The total annual spending associated with tourism at
the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (largely located on the
undeveloped Assateague Island) is estimated at $315 million, supporting
3766 jobs.\18\ The local clam aquaculture industry exceeds $61 million/
year and supports nearly 700 jobs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission (A-NPDC),
2015. Commercial and Recreational Use Assessment Report--Seaside of
Virginia's Eastern Shore, 82 p. https://www.esvaplan.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/03/2013-Recreational-Use-Assessment-Report-ANPDC.pdf
\18\ Clower, T.L., and Bellas, D.D., 2017. Socio-economic Impacts
of Conserved Land on Virginia's Eastern Shore, Center for Regional
Analysis, George Mason University; Urban Analytics, Inc., 99 p. https:/
/www.dcr.virginia.gov/land-conservation/document/lc-es-econ-imp-
2014.pdf
\19\ Murray, T.J., 2014. Economic Activity Associated with
Commercial Fisheries and Shellfish Aquaculture in Northampton County,
Virginia, VIMS Marine Resource Report No. 2014-12, Gloucester Point,
VA: Virginia Sea Grant, Communications, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, 12 p. https://www.vims.edu/research/units/centerspartners/map/
_docs/docs_aqua/MRR 2014_12.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The undeveloped coastal barriers of the Virginia Eastern Shore
provide ample protective and ecological benefits to the communities,
ecosystems, and economy of the Eastern Shore. As one of the last
remaining expanses of coastal wilderness on the Atlantic, the coastal
barriers of the Eastern Shore are a conservation and restoration jewel.
This region boasts recognition as a United Nations International
Biosphere Reserve, a U.S. Department of the Interior National Natural
Landmark, a Western Hemisphere International Shorebird Reserve Network
Site, and an Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Focus Area. The islands
themselves provide habitat, nesting, and feeding grounds to over 250
species of raptors, shorebirds, and songbirds.\20\ The adjacent lagoons
are host to approximately 60 acres of restored oyster reef; 2000 acres
of oyster reef sanctuaries; 5000 acres of restored eelgrass meadows
(the largest seagrass restoration project in the world); and the
reintroduced bay scallop. Additionally, saltmarshes and seagrass beds
protected by the fronting barriers reduce the volume of water moving
towards the mainland by up to 15% during normal tidal cycles, and more
during storms.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 2023. Places We Protect: VVCR
Barrier Islands, Virginia. accessed 23 September 2023. https://
www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/places-we-protect/vcr-
barrier-islands/.
\21\ Nardin, W., Larsen, L., Fagherazzi, S., and Wiberg, P., 2018.
Tradeoffs among hydrodynamics, sediment fluxes and vegetation community
in the Virginia Coast Reserve, USA, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science, v. 210, p. 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.06.009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The protective, economic, and ecosystem value of the Virginia
Barrier Islands is owed largely to the fact that they are undeveloped.
These barriers move landward at rates of >20 feet/year, largely in
response to storm-driven overwash. The cost to taxpayers of this
dynamic movement? Next to nothing. Along heavily developed barriers of
large portions of the New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, and Gulf
coasts, storm impacts flood islands and work to move them landward,
creating a problematic and deeply costly scenario for the populations
and infrastructure of those islands. In contrast, the wind, waves, and
floodwaters that strike the Virginia Barrier Islands are felt only by
the sand and vegetation of those islands (in most cases): the islands
move and adapt, receiving the brunt of the storm and protecting the
mainland and ecosystems landward of the islands. This allows these
undeveloped coastal barriers and the ecosystems they support to remain
conservation jewels, with benefits for the citizens of the Commonwealth
today and into the future.
The Future of Coastal Barriers: Expanding the Coastal Barrier Resources
System through the BEACH Act
Human-induced climate change presents an immediate threat to
coastal communities worldwide. As a result, the value of the protective
services of barriers and associated wetlands is projected to increase
with accelerating climate change and growing development pressures. The
threat to coastal systems and communities grows annually not only
because increasing of accelerating rates of sea-level rise and
increases in storm frequency and intensity, but also because of
increasing population density and coastal infrastructure placed within
high-risk coastal zones. For example, between 1970 and 2010, coastal
shoreline counties added 3.5 times more people per square mile than the
nation as a whole.12 Along the U.S. East Coast, these new
residents are challenged with some of the highest rates of sea-level
rise in the country; in the Mid-Atlantic specifically, they are more
than twice the global average, already leading to widespread ``sunny
day'' and recurrent nuisance flooding. Coupled with hurricanes and
nor'easters, these impacts are likely to cost billions of dollars in
property damage in the U.S. by mid-century, with accelerated risk in
the Mid-Atlantic.\22\ The threats are widespread, including to
developed coastlines, built infrastructure and hardened landscapes,
agricultural lands and forest ecosystems, and groundwater resources.
Importantly, many of these changes will occur irrespective of the
unlikely immediate reduction in CO2 emissions that is
required to slow the pace of climate change. For example, Mariotti &
Hein \23\ found that undeveloped barriers are primed for rapid
migration, even in the highly improbable case in which sea levels
stabilize at current elevations. The case is more dire along developed
coasts, where stabilization of many open-ocean beaches as well as
upland coastal margins (e.g., marsh-forest boundaries) will
fundamentally impact coastal ecosystem size and functionality, leading
to reduced and deteriorating coastal habitats and attendant protective
and ecosystem services.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J. and Nicholls,
R.J., 2015. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level
rise and coastal flooding-a global assessment. PloS One, v. 10, p.
e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131375.
\23\ Mariotti, G., Hein, C.J., 2022. Lag in response of coastal
barrier-island retreat to sea-level rise, Nature Geoscience, v. 15, p.
633-638. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00980-9
\24\ Hein, C.J. and Kirwan, M.L., 2024. Marine transgression in
modern times, Annual Reviews of Marine Science, v. 16, in press.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-022123-103802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBRA established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS),
encompassing 3.5 million acres along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,
Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. The CBRA
established a ``program of coordinated action by Federal, State, and
local governments . . . critical to the more appropriate use and
conservation of coastal barriers.'' As a result of this Act,
development rates and densities of hazard-prone coastal areas
substantially decreased,\25\ and 97% of all CBRS units remained
undeveloped or have experienced minimal development,\26\ allowing them
to continue to serve their full potential for coastal protection and
habitat. Further, federal expenditures associated with coastal
disasters were decreased by $9.5 billion, and forecasts are that--
without any substantial changes to the CBRS system--the fiscal benefits
of the CBRA over the next 50 years will be more than ten times greater
than historical benefits: depending on land development patterns and
rates and storm impacts, the CBRA is likely to contribute between $8.6
and $63 billion in disaster-relief savings by 2048, and between $11 and
$109 billion by 2068.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Onda, K., Branham, J., BenDor, T.K., et al, 2020. Does removal
of federal subsidies discourage urban development? An evaluation of the
US Coastal Barrier Resources Act. PloS one, 15(6), p.e0233888. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233888.
\26\ GAO, 2007. Coastal Barrier Resources System: Status of
Development that has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by
Federal Agencies, Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO), GAO-07-356, v. 10, accessed 24 September 2023. https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-07-356.
\27\ Coburn, A.S. and Whitehead, J.C., 2019. An analysis of federal
expenditures related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of
1982. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 35, p. 1358-1361. https://
doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-18-00114.1
The Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm (BEACH) Act seeks to
give congressional approval to update the CBRA System using new and
detailed mapping undertaken by the USFWS following Hurricane Sandy.
Additionally, the bill makes improvements to CBRA that make it more
transparent and flexible. As detailed in the USFWS report,7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these goals will be accomplished through:
removal from the CBRS of 969 acres of land above mean tide
(`fastland') and 392 acres of wetlands and open water that
were apparently mistakenly included in the original Act.
addition to the CBRS 11,102 acres of fastland and 266,848
acres of associated aquatic habitat, including 3,240 acres
of privately owned fastland.
net reclassification of 28,956 acres from System Unit to
`Otherwise Protected Area'.
Together, these changes would add a net 276,589 acres to the CBRS,
expanding it to a total of 846,918 acres of protected, largely
undeveloped coastal barrier and wetlands. Doing so would allow for
continued and expanded maintenance of coastal barrier systems, such as
those along Virginia's Eastern Shore, in an undeveloped state. This
will allow them to adapt naturally to sea-level rise and will help
ensure their continued roles in supporting coastal economies,
recreation, and tourism; providing habitat and myriad ecological
services; protecting mainland communities and infrastructure; and
offering vital opportunities for scientific research and education.
Conclusion
I have herein carefully limited my testimony to scientific facts:
the myriad roles of coastal barriers and the increasing threats they
face from climate changes. My intent is to lay out the tremendous
protective, economic, and ecosystem benefits provided by coastal
barriers and their associated estuaries, lagoons, tidal flats, and
wetlands; services which the science is clear are enhanced through
policies that allow those to remain in their most natural state. On
behalf of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, the
coastal scientific community, and the citizens of coastal Virginia, I
am grateful for the Subcommittee's interest in expanding protections
for these vital landforms and ecosystems based on the best-available
science from the USFWS, and welcome any questions or concerns.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Hein. I now recognize Mr. Lynn
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LYNN, MANAGER, MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
PAVILLION, WYOMING
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, and the members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 3415 to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Midvale Irrigation
District the Pilot Butte Power Plant. It is my honor and
pleasure to address you today.
I am the Manager of the Midvale Irrigation District. We are
located in Pavillion, Wyoming. The District was formed in 1921
and is historically known as the Riverton Unit of the
Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. Major
facilities in this unit are the Bull Lake Dam and Reservoir,
Pilot Butte Dam and Reservoir, Wind River Diversion Dam, the
Pilot Butte Power Plant, as well as 100 miles of main canals,
300 miles of lateral canals, and approximately 650 miles of
structured drains.
Midvale is under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to
operate and maintain these transferred works. The District
serves approximately 73,000 acres of irrigable lands with
direct flow water from the Wind River and stored water from
Bull Lake and Pilot Butte Reservoirs.
The Pilot Butte Reservoir is an off-stream facility fed by
the Wyoming Canal, approximately 10 miles downstream of the
Wind River Diversion Dam. The reservoir supplies the Pilot
Canal, which extends another 38.2 miles and irrigates the
southern portion of the District.
The Pilot Butte Power Plant is located at the drop from
Wyoming Canal to Pilot Butte Reservoir. The plant began
generating power in 1925, and has two generating units which
operate under a maximum head of 105 feet, with a total capacity
of 1,600 kilowatts. Power was distributed over 76 miles of
transmission lines. The plant was shut down on June 15, 1973
because of high operation and maintenance costs and penstock
problems. The penstock was replaced and the units were placed
back in service in June 1990, and continued through 2008.
Following an economic analysis, the Bureau of Reclamation
decided to shut down the power plant due to increasing
operation and maintenance costs and needed plant repairs.
The Midvale Irrigation District has been interested in
hydropower generation for many years, and applied for a
hydropower feasibility study through the Wyoming Water
Development Commission. A Level II study, published in June
2016 assessed the feasibility of developing hydropower on
several of Midvale's drop structures, and also assessed the
feasibility of Midvale rehabilitating and operating the Pilot
Butte Power Plant. The recommendations of the report considered
most all of the power generation and appurtenant equipment had
exceeded its useful life and in need of replacement with modern
power generating equipment.
The Pilot Butte Power Plant is referred to by Reclamation
as reserved works, meaning the facility and the appurtenant
penstock and headgate are to be retained by Reclamation for its
use in generating power income. The reserved works designation
does not allow the facilities to be transferred by any other
means but through an Act of Congress.
As mentioned, the power plant has been shut down and
mothballed since 2008, and a future plan for demolition was
estimated by Reclamation at approximately $5 million several
years ago.
Additionally, Reclamation incurs mounting annual costs for
maintenance and inspection of the facility, even as it sits
idle.
The Midvale Irrigation District recognizes the mounting
costs of the facility to Reclamation, and is petitioning
Congress to transfer the reserved works to the District for the
opportunity to rehabilitate the building and purchase new
equipment to produce hydroelectric power during its irrigation
season, which is approximately 6 months of the year.
Ultimately, the produced power would benefit the District's
940 water users, and in keeping with the goal of providing the
maximum amount of available water to the District's
constituents at the lowest reasonable cost each year.
The property the power plant and appurtenances are located
on is managed by the Midvale Irrigation District for
Reclamation and is eligible for title transfer through the
Dingell Act as transferred works, but the reserved works are
not.
In closing, the Midvale Irrigation District is in support
of the Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act, and asks that it
be supported by the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I will gladly answer any questions the Subcommittee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve J. Lynn, District Manager, Midvale
Irrigation District, Pavillion, WY
on H.R. 3415
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R.
3415 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Midvale
Irrigation District the Pilot Butte Power Plant. It is my honor and
pleasure to address you today.
My name is Steve J. Lynn, District Manager of the Midvale
Irrigation District, located in Pavillion, Wyoming. The District was
formed in 1921 and historically known as the Riverton Unit of the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Major facilities of
this unit are Bull Lake Dam and Reservoir, Pilot Butte Dam and
Reservoir, Wind River Diversion Dam, and Pilot Butte Power Plant as
well as 100 miles of main canals, 300 miles of lateral canals and
approximately 650 miles of drains. Midvale is under contract with the
Bureau of Reclamation to operate and maintain these transferred works.
The District serves approximately 73,000 acres of irrigable lands
with direct flow water from the Wind River and stored water from Bull
Lake and Pilot Butte Reservoirs.
Pilot Butte Reservoir is an off-stream facility fed by the Wyoming
Canal, approximately 10 miles downstream of the Wind River Diversion
Dam. The reservoir supplies the Pilot Canal which extends 38.2 miles,
and irrigates the southern portion of the District.
The Pilot Butte Power Plant is located at the drop from the Wyoming
Canal to Pilot Butte Reservoir. The plant began generating power in
1925 and has two generating units which operate under a maximum head of
105 feet with a total capacity of 1,600 kilowatts. Power was
distributed over 76 miles of transmission lines. The plant was shut
down on June 15, 1973, because of high operation and maintenance costs
and penstock problems. The penstock was replaced, and the units were
placed back in service in June 1990 and continued through 2008.
Following an economic analysis, the Bureau of Reclamation decided
to shut down the power plant due to increasing operation and
maintenance costs and needed plant repairs.
The Midvale Irrigation District has been interested in hydropower
generation for many years and applied for a hydropower feasibility
study through the Wyoming Water Development Commission. The Level II
study published in June 2016 assessed the feasibility of developing
hydropower on several of Midvale's drop structures and also assessed
the feasibility of Midvale rehabilitating and operating the Pilot Butte
Power Plant. The recommendations of the report considered most all of
the power generation and appurtenant equipment had exceeded its useful
life, and in need of replacement with modern power generation
equipment.
The Pilot Butte Power Plant is referred to by Reclamation as
``Reserved Works'', meaning the facility and the appurtenant penstock
and head gate are to be retained by Reclamation for its use in
generating power income. The Reserved Works designation does not allow
the facilities to be transferred by any other means but through an act
of Congress.
As mentioned, the power plant has been shut down and mothballed
since 2008 and a future plan for demolition was estimated by
Reclamation at approximately $5M several years ago. Additionally,
Reclamation incurs mounting annual costs for maintenance and
inspections of the facility even as it sits idle.
Midvale Irrigation District recognizes the mounting costs of the
facility to Reclamation and is petitioning Congress to transfer the
reserved works to the District for the opportunity to rehabilitate the
building and purchase the new equipment to produce hydroelectric power
during its irrigation season, which is approximately 6 months of the
year. Ultimately the produced power would benefit the District's 940
water users in keeping with the goal of providing the maximum amount of
available water to the District's constituents at the lowest reasonable
cost each year. The property the Power Plant and appurtenances are
located on is managed by the Midvale Irrigation District for
Reclamation and is eligible for title transfer through the Dingell Act,
as ``Transferred Works'', but the reserved works are not.
In closing, the Midvale Irrigation District is in support of the
``Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act'' and asks that it be
supported by the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today and I'll gladly answer any questions the Subcommittee
may have.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Lynn. I now recognize Mr. Leonard
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM LEONARD, ALDERMAN, TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL
BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Leonard. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony today on H.R. 2437.
This legislation will correct a mapping error made by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over 40 years ago when it
incorrectly designated the northern end of Topsail Island, now
the town of North Topsail Beach, as a Coastal Barrier Resources
Act, or CBRA, zone.
North Topsail Beach is one of three small towns located on
Topsail Island, a 26-mile-long barrier island between
Jacksonville and Wilmington, North Carolina, and adjacent to
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Due to our proximity to Camp
Lejeune, many of our residents and visitors have a military
connection, including myself, a retired U.S. Marine Corps
officer with 30 years of service. Like you, North Topsail Beach
plays an important role in a collective Federal, state, and
local effort to preserve and maintain barrier islands.
As the primary law that protects barrier islands, CBRA is a
law that we hold in the highest regard and with the greatest
respect. As effective as CBRA has been collectively for the
Federal Government, the taxpayers, and the environment, the
application of the law in North Topsail Beach has not been
wholly positive or successful. In fact, both North Topsail
Beach and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognize that
Topsail Unit L06 is one of the most developed CBRA System units
in the United States.
CBRA has been overwhelmingly successful at deterring
development. So, the question must be asked: Why did CBRA not
deter development in North Topsail Beach?
Development continued in North Topsail Beach after the
passage of CBRA because the town already had a full complement
of infrastructure in place before the enactment of CBRA in
October 1982. Having a full complement of infrastructure is one
of two primary criteria the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses
to determine if an area is developed and thus not eligible for
inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, the other
being the density of development.
The full complement of infrastructure is defined by law as
a road with a reinforced road bed, a wastewater disposal
system, electric service, and a fresh water supply, all of
which must be sufficient to serve each lot or building site in
the area. A thorough examination of records and documentation,
which is summarized in my written testimony, shows that the
north end of Topsail Island had a full complement of
infrastructure that meets the requirements outlined in the
Service's own guidance and the law.
Roadways have existed along the entire length of Topsail
Island since the 1940s. A 1982 zoning map shows that all lots
on the northern end of Topsail Island had direct access to a
road with a reinforced roadbed. Jones-Onslow Electric
Membership Cooperative has provided electrical service to the
island since the 1940s. Maps supplied by Jones-Onslow show that
even the most northern reaches of Topsail Island had electrical
service by 1980. North Topsail Water and Sewer was established
in 1979 to provide water and sewer services to North Topsail.
Onslow County began to construct its own water system to
service the island in 1980. Records establish that water and
sewer utility lines ran to the northernmost reaches of the
island by the end of 1981.
Hundreds of structures were built in North Topsail before
the enactment of CBRA, and hundreds more were built in the
years following due to the substantial infrastructure
investments made on the island by both public and private
entities. There was so much growth in the area that in 1980
West Onslow Beach, which is now North Topsail Beach, was
nominated as a statewide ``growth center.''
It is clear that Congress did not intend to include areas
in CBRA with such significant on-the-ground infrastructure
investment by private entities and local governments. We agree
with Congress which said that ``an area which has a full
complement of infrastructure,'' i.e. some combination of roads,
water, sewers, electric lines, et cetera, but not structures,
suggests that the area is, as a practical matter, already
developed.
Being included in CBRA has no doubt had an impact on our
community. Our residents cannot qualify for Federal flood
insurance. Our town cannot apply for Federal grants and loans
or named storm assistance, and our veterans cannot access
federally backed mortgage products, including VA loans.
But H.R. 2437 is about equal treatment under the law and is
in no way an attempt to subvert CBRA. This bill will just allow
our community to be treated like any other community that was
not mapped into CBRA, including the two other towns on Topsail
Island.
On behalf of the town of North Topsail Beach, I urge you to
support and approve H.R. 2437. Thank you again for this
generous opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Leonard, LtCol, USMC (ret.) Alderman, Town of
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina
on H.R. 2437
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today
on H.R. 2437, a bill to revise the boundaries of Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS) Unit L06 in North Topsail Beach, North
Carolina. The legislation will correct a mapping error made by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service over 40 years ago when it incorrectly
designated the northern end of Topsail Island, now the Town of North
Topsail Beach, as a Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) zone.
North Topsail Beach is one of three small towns located on Topsail
Island, a 26-mile-long barrier island between Jacksonville and
Wilmington, North Carolina, and adjacent to Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune. With a year-round population of just 1,005, North Topsail
Beach is a quiet, rural beach town. Due to our proximity to Camp
Lejeune, many of our residents and visitors have a military connection,
including myself, a retired United States Marine Corps officer with 30
years of service.
Like you, North Topsail Beach is passionate about protecting
coastal barrier islands and their significant resources. We have a
great responsibility in the collective federal-state-local effort to
preserve and maintain these important natural resources. We will always
remain committed to carrying out the purposes and objectives of the
CBRA as an active partner with the federal government. As the primary
law that protects barrier islands, it is a law that we hold in the
highest regard. As the CBRA law rightly states, ``coastal barriers
contain resources of extraordinary scenic, scientific, recreational,
natural, historic, archeological, cultural, and economic importance.''
The CBRA is a testament to the shared interest that the nation has in
protecting coastal barrier islands and their ``extraordinary''
resources.
As effective as the CBRA has been collectively for the federal
government, the taxpayers, and the environment, the application of the
law in North Topsail Beach has not been wholly positive or successful.
In fact, both North Topsail Beach and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) recognize that CBRS Unit L06 is one of the most
developed CBRS units in the United States. The CBRA has been
overwhelmingly successful at deterring development, so the question
must be asked, ``Why did the CBRA not deter development in North
Topsail Beach?'' Development continued in North Topsail Beach after the
passage of the CBRA because the Town already had a ``full complement of
infrastructure'' in place before the enactment of the CBRA in 1982.
Having a full complement of infrastructure is one of two primary
criteria the Service uses to determine if an area is developed and thus
not eligible for inclusion in the CBRS, the other being the density of
development. For this reason, the proposed mapping change will not set
a new precedent for CBRS mapping changes. North Topsail Beach is a
unique situation, and few (if any) other CBRS units have received the
same level of analysis and attention as Unit L06.
The legislation does not intend or aim to remove Unit L06 from the
CBRS. We understand the purposes of the CBRA and support its
overarching goals and objectives. The legislation will remove only
approximately 590 acres of the total 5,865 acres from the Unit. The
approximately 590 acres that will be removed will only include areas
served by a ``full complement of infrastructure'' before the mapping
and designation of CBRS Unit L06 in 1982.
Evidence of a Full Complement of Infrastructure
North Topsail Beach has done extensive research to document
development at the north end of Topsail Island before 1982. North
Topsail Beach submitted this research, totaling 199 pages, to the
Service during a 2009 request for comment on its ``Draft Report to
Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital
Mapping Pilot Project.'' The results of this analysis are summarized
herein.
As you know, in 1981, the Department of the Interior (DOI) was
directed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA, P.L.
97-35) to map undeveloped coastal barriers for Congressional
consideration. In response, DOI published a notice of proposed action
in the Federal Register on August 16, 1982, titled ``Federal Flood
Insurance Prohibition for Undeveloped Coastal Barriers; Proposed
Identification and Submission of Report to Congress'' (Proposed
Criteria or 47 FR 35696). The Proposed Criteria provided the
definitions and delineation standards of undeveloped coastal barriers
that guided DOI mapping efforts and is still used to guide the
Service's mapping and CBRS unit review efforts today.
In 1982, Congress designated relatively undeveloped coastal
barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts--later including parts of
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Great Lakes, and the Florida
Keys during the 1990 reauthorization--as part of the CBRS in order to
remove the incentive to develop coastal barriers by limiting federal
expenditures and financial assistance to designated CBRS units.
Congress later codified some of the definitions outlined by the
Service in the Proposed Criteria in Section 2 of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (CBRRA) to provide additional
clarification and guidance on what should be considered an undeveloped
coastal barrier. Section 2 of the CBRRA specifies that, at the time of
the inclusion of a System unit within the System, a coastal barrier
area is considered developed if the density of development is more than
one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide and if there
is a full complement of infrastructure in place. A full complement of
infrastructure is defined in the law as:
(i) a road, with a reinforced roadbed, to each lot or building
site in the area;
(ii) a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot
or building site in the area;
(iii) electric service for each lot or building site in the
area; and
(iv) a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the
area.
The corresponding report language (Senate Report 106-252) states:
``Section 2(1) amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act by
establishing a set of criteria to serve as a guide to the
Congress, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the public to
determine whether a coastal barrier should be considered
developed, and therefore excluded from the CBRS. The criteria
are based on a rule that was proposed by the Department of the
Interior in August 1982, but was never finalized (47 FR 35696).
Despite never being finalized, the proposed rule has long
served as a guideline for Congress and the Fish and Wildlife
Service when they review suggested changes to the CBRS. In
accordance with the proposed rule, this section would consider
an area developed if it has more than 1-structure per 5-acres,
or a full complement of infrastructure--which is defined to
include water supply, wastewater disposal, electricity, and
paved roads.''
The original 1982 mapping and subsequent 1990 additions to the CBRS
designated sections of North Topsail Beach as CBRS Unit L06. However,
the Service should not have been mapped North Topsail Beach into the
CBRS because the area had a full complement of infrastructure in place
prior to the mapping and subsequent designation of the Unit on October
18, 1982. According to the criteria described in the CBRRA, Senate
Report 106-252, and the following guidance from the Proposed Criteria,
the area meets the conditions for having a full complement of
infrastructure:
``All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered
developed, even when there is less than one structure per five
acres of fastland, if there is a full complement of
infrastructure in place. This is consistent with the clear
intent of Congress on this point (Congressional Record, July
31, 1981, p. H5793). A full complement of infrastructure
requires that there be vehicle access (i.e., improved roads or
docks) to each lot or building site plus reasonable
availability of a water supply, a wastewater disposal system,
and electrical service to each lot or building site. Ability to
use on-site wells and/or septic systems on each later building
site in a development, when legally authorized and the normal
practice in the vicinity, will constitute water supply and
sewage infrastructure since they can be drilled and/or
installed concurrently with the construction of the structure
(House Report 97-158, Vol. 1, June 19, 198, p. 100; and
Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, p. H5793.)''
The Service made an important distinction here that cannot be
overlooked. The Service stated that a coastal barrier will be
considered developed even when there is less than one structure per
five acres of fastland if there is a full complement of infrastructure
in place and said that these criteria are ``consistent with the clear
intent of Congress.'' The reference the Service made to the
Congressional Record on July 31, 1981, is critical because, on that
day, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by unanimous consent the
OBRA conference report, which, as you know, directed DOI to create the
maps that would become the CBRS one year later. And on that day,
Representative Thomas B. Evans of Delaware--an original author of the
aforementioned OBRA language and later the CBRA itself--spoke to the
House on the record ``to firmly establish the legislative intent of the
sponsors of the provision.'' Included in Representative Evans' remarks
is a discussion of what the sponsors consider an undeveloped coastal
barrier:
``Regarding the determination of which coastal barriers are
undeveloped, the House adopted, and the Senate agreed to,
section 1321(b)(2) which requires that an undeveloped coastal
barrier shall be treated as such only if there are few people-
made structures on the barrier, or portion of a barrier, so
that these structures and human activities on the barrier do
not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes.
In interpreting the first aspect of this standard, the authors
intend that the Department use the same standard which they
have used in their ongoing inventory of coastal barriers. That
is, an area which averages less than one structure per 5 acres
should be considered undeveloped. We also expect, and this was
noted in the report from the Banking Committee, that the
Department will take into account the level of infrastructure--
roads, water, sewers, electric lines, jetties, and so forth--in
place in making this determination. For example, the presence
of scattered structures with no associated infrastructure
suggests that an area is not developed. On the other hand, an
area which has a full complement of infrastructure; that is,
some combination of the above-mentioned items, but no
structures, should be considered as being already developed''
(Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, p. H18935-H18936).
Representative Evans clearly stated that the sponsors intended for
coastal barriers with a full complement of infrastructure (some
combination of roads, water, sewer, electric lines, jetties, etc.) to
be considered developed, even if there are no structures. Some areas of
North Topsail Beach met both criteria and were not included in CBRS
Unit L06. Those pockets are clearly visible on the current maps for the
Unit. However, other areas of North Topsail Beach seemingly needed more
structures to meet the density of development criteria despite the
significant growth occurring on the north end of Topsail Island.
Nevertheless, the significant infrastructure on the island, which
supported the existing structures and later development, was in place
before the passage of the CBRA in 1982.
In 1981-1982, when the Service was mapping coastal barriers per
Congress' directive in the OBRA, development status was determined
primarily on the density of visible structure as seen from aerial
photography. This method is understandable given the immense amount of
mapping the Service needed to complete within a short period. According
to a July 28, 1982, memo from the Coastal Barrier Task Force to the
Secretary of the Interior on the Interim Proposed Undeveloped Coastal
Barrier Designation for Topsail Unit L06, the Task Force stated,
``Aerial photography taken April 30, 1982, verifies the existence of
the components including a linear beach feature, sand dunes, and
landward aquatic habitat within the area proposed for designation as an
undeveloped coastal barrier. In addition, those aerial photographs
confirm the lack of sufficient structure and other facilities or
visible impacts to consider the area proposed for designation developed
as defined by statute.''
However, this aerial examination method did not reveal the
significant infrastructure development already on the ground. A
thorough examination of records and documentation shows that the north
end of Topsail Island had a full complement of infrastructure that
meets the requirements outlined in the Proposed Criteria and the CBRRA.
Roads
Roadways have existed along the entire length of Topsail Island
since the 1940s. State records indicate a fully paved road in 1953,
which became part of the state highway system in 1968. A 1982 Onslow
County Zoning Map shows that all lots on the northern end of Topsail
Island had direct access to a road with a reinforced roadbed.
In addition, North Topsail Beach is accessible from the mainland by
NC Highway 210 and the Larry Walton Memorial Bridge, which was built in
1968. The bridge provides direct and convenient access to North Topsail
Beach and is responsible, in part, for the significant growth on
Topsail Island in the 1970s and 1980s. Bridge access to the island has
also been available through Surf City, the town just to our south,
since 1955.
Electricity
Jones-Onslow Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) has provided
electrical service to Topsail Island since the 1940s. Easement records
show that Jones-Onslow EMC aggressively expanded electrical service
throughout Topsail Island in 1977 and 1978. Maps supplied by Jones-
Onslow EMC show that even the most northern reaches of Topsail Island
had electrical service by 1980. Electrical lines suspended on telephone
poles were installed well before 1982 along NC Highway 210 and New
River Inlet Road, allowing every lot in the area direct access to
power.
Water and Sewer
North Topsail Water and Sewer was established in 1979 to provide
water and sewer services to North Topsail. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation granted the company easements to extend
its utility lines along New River Inlet Road in 1980. A pump station at
the center of New River Inlet Road was also operational by 1980. That
same year, Onslow County began to construct its own water system. The
County's system gained utility easement rights along Island Drive while
North Topsail Water and Sewer still serviced the New River Inlet Road
area. In 1981, North Topsail Water and Sewer transferred ownership of
its water system to Onslow County. Records establish the location of
North Topsail Water and Sewer's utility lines as running from NC
Highway 210 to the New River Inlet. Onslow County completed its water
pipelines along Island Drive by the end of 1981.
Initial sewer permits were issued in 1979 to service the northern
section of Topsail Island. A 53,000-foot extension of sewer lines was
installed in 1982, and a pump station was located near the bridge (now
the Larry Walton Memorial Bridge). Most significantly, an expanded
33.4-acre treatment facility and a 268-acre irrigation area were
constructed at this time, which still supports North Topsail Beach's
wastewater needs today.
Groundwater sources for water wells were also readily available to
supplement the water supply, and the installation of septic systems was
available to lots where sewer lines were not already installed.
As a result of the significant infrastructure investments by
private and public entities, there were approximately 490 existing
housing units in North Topsail Beach by the end of 1981, and 100
additional units were constructed in 1982. Zoning authority records
indicate that 179 more housing units were built in 1983, 232 more in
1984, 250 more in 1985, and so on. There was so much growth in the area
in the late 1970s and early 1980s that in 1980, West Onslow Beach (now
North Topsail Beach) was nominated as a statewide ``growth center''
(1980 Onslow County Resolution).
According to 1982 zoning maps, approximately 796 lots were on the
main road. As was the case for the existing structures, each lot could
connect directly to electrical, sewer, and water services. The adequacy
of infrastructure is shown clearly by the fact that the Service
excluded from the CBRS two housing developments at the extreme north
end of New River Inlet. These developments were made possible because
of the existing roadways, electric and water infrastructure, and the
ability to install private drives, septic systems, and wells.
In summary, before the passage of the CBRA, the north end of
Topsail Island had in place infrastructure consisting of:
1. a road with a reinforced roadbed (NC Highway 210 and New River
Inlet Road);
2. a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot or
building site in the area (North Topsail Water and Sewer
Corporation, Onslow County, and availability of septic);
3. electric service for each lot or building site in the area
(Jones-Onslow EMC); and
4. a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the area
(North Topsail Water and Sewer Corporation, Onslow County,
and availability of groundwater sources for wells).
(North Topsail Beach's Infrastructure Analysis totals 199 pages and
therefore exceeds the testimony attachment limitations allowed by the
Subcommittee. North Topsail Beach can provide the Subcommittee with the
Infrastructure Analysis at a later date at the Subcommittee's request.)
We must also address the single highway corridor provision outlined
in the Proposed Criteria. While the Service generally identifies
vehicle access, water supply, wastewater disposal, and electrical
service as the infrastructure necessary for an area to be considered
developed, the Service also qualifies that ``[t]he presence on a
coastal barrier of a single road, or even a through highway, plus
associated electric transmission and water and sewer lines in this
highway corridor does not constitute the necessary full complement of
infrastructure necessary to support development.'' The terms ``through
highway'' and ``highway corridor'' suggest a highway with limited
direct access from private lots. We must emphasize that NC Highway 210
and New River Inlet Road are the primary local roadways in North
Topsail Beach. Due to the island's narrow configuration, the main
water, wastewater, and electrical infrastructure lines were placed down
these roads, with most lots directly bordering the roads, as you would
see on a typical neighborhood street. There was no restricted access to
these roads from lots or building sites, as would be the case if NC
Highway 210 and State Route 1568/New River Inlet Road were through
highways or highway corridors.
In its ``Draft Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System Digital Mapping Project'' (2009), the Service
``affirmed that sewer and water lines were installed along the main
roads and primary electric service was available'' in North Topsail
Beach but said that ``secondary services were not constructed until the
lots were developed'' (p. D-14). There are no references to ``secondary
services'' in the OBRA, CBRA, CBRRA, Proposed Criteria, or related
documents. The term seems to reference infrastructure installed from a
primary utility line onto a building site. Without a structure, there
is no need for ``secondary services'' to a lot or building site. We
again reference Representative Evans' comments: ``. . . the presence of
scattered structures with no associated infrastructure suggests that an
area is not developed. On the other hand, an area which has a full
complement of infrastructure; that is, some combination of the above-
mentioned items, but no structures, should be considered as being
already developed'' (Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, p. H18935-
H18936). The Service refrained from including any reference to
``secondary services'' in its final report to Congress (2016).
Further, this same infrastructure provided service to lots in the
southern half of North Topsail Beach, which were not included in the
CBRS, and two developments in the northern half, which were excluded
from the CBRS. In the case of the southern half of the Town, NC Highway
210 was not considered a single road, through highway, or highway
corridor, even though the same infrastructure that served the southern
half of the Town also served the northern half. We must also note that
the other communities on Topsail Island, Surf City and Topsail Beach,
were not included in the CBRS.
Federal Flood Insurance and Other Impacts
In removing certain areas of North Topsail Beach from the CBRS,
H.R. 2437 will allow the Town and its residents to qualify for federal
financial assistance, just like any other community not in the CBRS.
For example, H.R. 2437 will enable property owners to obtain
federal flood insurance. These structures are currently covered by
private flood insurance, which is generally only provided at full risk
rates. If the legislation is approved, these homeowners can remain on
their current private plans or move to the NFIP. If a homeowner
switches to the NFIP, that property would not be eligible for any
special status (i.e., grandfathering) and would therefore be expected
to pay full risk rates.
Although several hundred housing units within CBRS Unit L06 were
built between 1982 (the year CBRA was authorized) and when the 1987
flood standard went into effect, most structures built in this area are
post-FIRM and therefore built to at least the 1987 flood standard. Due
to Town ordinances, property owners within CBRS Unit L06 must meet the
same flood policy dwelling standards adhered to by the non-CBRS
residents, who must meet NFIP standards. In addition, due to the Town's
successful floodplain management policies and Community Rating System
standing, eligible properties in North Topsail Beach receive
substantial premium discounts through the NFIP.
Regarding previous CBRA legislation, it is our understanding that
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) historically has not provided
estimated costs to the federal government regarding future flood
events, stating that there is no basis for predicting such events and
thus no basis for providing an estimated cost to the federal
government. However, some suggest that taking areas out of the CBRS
puts the federal government at risk.
North Topsail Beach completed an analysis of flood insurance claims
filed from 1987, the year North Topsail Beach began participating in
the NFIP, through 2015. This analysis shows that North Topsail Beach is
a donor community, meaning it contributes more to the NFIP than it
receives (refer to the tables below). Between 1987 and 2015, average
yearly NFIP claims in North Topsail Beach totaled $524,235, while
annual NFIP premiums totaled $1,725,329. (Approximately 56 percent of
policies are for pre-FIRM structures and 44 percent are for post-FIRM
structures.) Based on this analysis, North Topsail Beach property
owners pay 329 percent more in annual NFIP premiums than they claim.
Therefore, it can be assumed that North Topsail Beach will not only
continue to be a donor community to the NFIP but will also likely
contribute more to the NFIP (in terms of both percentages and annual
surplus contributions) because a greater share of structures will be
post-FIRM.
The CBRS designation has also prohibited property owners and
homebuyers from access to federally backed mortgage products. This is
especially challenging given North Topsail Beach's proximity to Camp
Lejeune, one of the largest military installations in the nation. Many
of our residents currently serve in the military or are military
veterans, and due to the Town's CBRS designation, these residents
cannot access V.A. loans.
Of course, the CBRS designation has prevented the Town itself from
applying for federal financial assistance, including FEMA Public
Assistance after storm events, and most other federal grants, loans,
and technical support.
Conclusion
H.R. 2437 will only remove from the CBRS areas of North Topsail
Beach that were served by a full complement of infrastructure before
the mapping and designation of CBRS Unit L06 in 1982. As is clear from
our review of the law, the Proposed Criteria, House and Senate Reports,
and the Congressional Record, coastal barrier areas served by a full
complement of infrastructure must be deemed developed and thus not
designated as part of the CBRS. It is clear that Congress did not
intend to include areas in the CBRS with such significant on-the-ground
infrastructure investment by local governments and private entities. As
a practical matter, undeveloped areas do not have such substantial
public and private infrastructure investment, particularly areas where
there is a clear intention that the infrastructure is meant to support
residential structures. Undeveloped areas do not have sewer lines,
water lines, wastewater treatment facilities, electricity, and paved
roads that serve no purpose. We agree with Congress that ``. . . an
area which has a full complement of infrastructure (i.e., some
combination of roads, waters, sewers, electrical lines, etc.) but not
structures, suggests that the area is, as a practical matter, already
developed'' (House Report 97-158, Volume 1, page 100).
We want to express to you our serious commitment to preserving the
CBRA. We do not take this request lightly, and we know how important it
is to you that we all continue to protect and further the integrity and
goals of the CBRA. In the spirit of the CBRA, the Town has placed 60
percent of its total land acreage in conservation zoning and restricted
development to 30 percent of residentially zoned properties. In
accordance with the Town's adopted Land Use Plan, conservation zones
can never be rezoned for development, protecting this land from future
development incursions. H.R. 2437 is about equal treatment under the
law and is in no way an attempt to subvert the CBRA. We fully
understand the importance of preserving the integrity of barrier
islands. A barrier island is our home, and preserving our home is our
highest priority.
On behalf of the Town of North Topsail Beach, I urge you to support
and approve H.R. 2437.
Thank you for your time and attention.
*****
ATTACHMENTS
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. I now recognize Mr.
Stiles for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``SKIP'' A. STILES, JR., SENIOR ADVISOR,
WETLANDS WATCH, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
Mr. Stiles. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, members
of the Subcommittee, Vice Chair Kiggans, my name is William
Stiles. I am Senior Advisor to Wetlands Watch, and for 16 years
before that I was Executive Director.
Wetlands Watch is a statewide environmental organization in
Virginia working on the conservation and protection of
wetlands. As such, we use a number of state and Federal
programs to protect the wetlands. And CBRA, the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act, serves in that role. Its nearly 164,000 acres in
Virginia is a significant help to the efforts to protect
wetlands in Virginia. That is why we are pleased to see the
introduction of H.R. 5490 to expand the System and add over
96,000 acres to Virginia's part of the System. We also welcome
the chance to open a conversation about some additional
improvements needed to the System.
As has been mentioned numerous times, CBRA is a long-time
bipartisan success story with lots of support, and I will not
detail that part of it here. I will say that we have two wishes
in the consideration of this bill.
First, Congress should add the more than 292,000 acres to
CBRA that have been mapped by the Fish and Wildlife and that
are contained in the BEACH Act. Adding these areas along the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts will expand the benefits of CBRA,
which, again, have been detailed here: the billions of dollars
in flood loss avoided, the billions of dollars that are
provided in habitat to commercial fisheries.
The second part of this, Congress should plan for
tomorrow's challenges today by drawing on innovative state
programs and implement the Federal Coastal Hazards Pilot
Project to look at future conditions and how the CBRA System
needs to adapt to them. It is imperative that on the Federal
level we plan for the challenges that sea level rise will
bring, and amplify actions being taken by the state.
Virginia's program is a result of acknowledging the changes
taking place and acting on the serious risk that the state
faces. Virginia has, over the last century, had the highest
rate of relative sea level rise on the East Coast, three to
four times the global average. In response, a number of
Virginia State agencies have taken action. Our Virginia
Department of Transportation has new engineering standards for
bridges; localities have adopted sea level rise in their
planning documents; we have new standards for siting of state
buildings; and even the Department of Defense, in its joint
land use work around military facilities, is using sea level
rise in those planning scenarios.
Virginia has also enacted first-in-the-nation changes to
its shoreline regulatory statutes that require permitting
agencies to consider sea level rise in issuing development and
land-disturbing permits. The goal of these changes is to
identify and protect areas into which the wetlands will migrate
as sea level rises.
As the intertidal zone rises, it wants to move up shore,
and it will move onshore unless there are barriers in the way.
In that case, if there are barriers, the coastal ecosystem will
drown in place, causing tremendous loss to the acreage that is
there.
So, Virginia's statutory changes to our shoreline
regulatory programs don't just support the fisheries and
habitat, they also recognize the value of keeping development
away from harm, echoing the dual goals of CBRA: minimizing
development along the shore to reduce coastal residents'
exposure to risk, while maintaining escape routes for the
habitat.
Other states are acting, as well. Maryland is mapping
wetlands migration corridors to better target its conservation
easement programs and land purchase programs. So, the timing is
perfect for Congress to direct the Fish and Wildlife Service
and other Federal and state agencies to conduct a pilot project
to explore how CBRA would be extended upland to provide habitat
and protect communities. States are working hard to plan for
the future, and the CBRA pilot project would help support and
inform that work.
When Wetlands Watch began 16 years ago working on sea level
rise, our goal was to keep the houses away from the wetlands.
We wanted to avoid the development's impact on the wetlands,
but we also wanted to allow escape zones for the wetlands. And
we also recognized that the wetlands and the shoreline
ecosystem are the leading edge of the oceans, and there is
great risk when you build too close to the ocean. Sixteen years
later, we are finding that coastal residents want the wetlands
away from their houses because the wetlands are slowly inching
onto their property, bringing greater risk. So, we have
agreement that the wetlands and the houses should be separated.
All that is lacking is a strategy to do that, and that is what
we hope that the pilot project would do.
So, in conclusion, we very much support the addition of the
acreage that is proposed in this bill, and we would also like
the inclusion of the pilot program. Thank you for your
consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stiles follows:]
Prepared Statement of William A. Stiles, Jr., Senior Advisor/Former
Executive Director, Wetlands Watch
on H.R. 4590 and H.R. 2437
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today regarding the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (CBRA).
I am William A. Stiles, Jr. and for the last sixteen years, I was
executive director of Wetlands Watch, a Norfolk, Virginia-based
statewide nonprofit that has been working on the conservation and
protection of wetlands since 2000. We have depended upon a number of
state and federal protections for coastal ecosystems, including CBRA.
At present, there are nearly 164,000 acres in the Coastal Barrier
Resources System (System) in Virginia, with nearly 155,000 acres in
aquatic habitat and over 8,700 acres of that in uplands. This acreage
represents a significant portion of our coastal resources. The CBRA is
important for Virginia and the nation, and there are opportunities to
expand its benefits that Congress should act upon.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is a bipartisan success story
supported by taxpayer advocates, conservative think tanks,
environmental groups, state officials, sportsmen's organizations,
insurance industry groups, and Democrats and Republicans alike. CBRA is
unique among federal programs. It has three goals: save federal tax
dollars, conserve undeveloped coastal habitat, and promote public
safety. To save federal tax dollars, CBRA prohibits most federal
expenditures in areas included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(System.) Development can still occur, but without the financial
backing of the federal taxpayer. The CBRA System includes undeveloped
areas, such as barrier islands and beaches, spits, inlets, wetlands,
and estuarine areas. Roughly 3.5 million acres are in the System along
the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands,
and Puerto Rico.
CBRA has a long track record of bipartisan support. The original
Act's author, Rep. Thomas B. Evans (R-DE), said CBRA was needed because
``the U.S. taxpayer should not subsidize and bear the risk for private
development on coastal barriers.'' As he signed the bill into law in
1982, President Ronald Reagan noted that CBRA ``simply adopts the
sensible approach that risk associated with new private development in
these sensitive areas should be borne by the private sector, not
underwritten by the American taxpayer.'' Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA)
introduced the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, which expanded
the CBRA System and was signed into law by Pres. George Bush. In 2000,
legislation reauthorizing and strengthening CBRA was championed by Sen.
John Chafee (R-RI) and signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton, who
applauded CBRA, saying that it, ``discourages development, keeping
lives out of harm's way, protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and
reducing wasteful expenditures of taxpayer dollars.'' In 2005, Sen.
James Inhofe (R-IN) described CBRA as ``a free-market approach to
conservation. These areas can be developed, but Federal taxpayers do
not underwrite the investments.'' And in 2018, Reps. Lisa Blunt
Rochester (D-DE) and Thomas J. Rooney (R-FL) introduced the
``Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018,'' which added 18,000+
acres to CBRA and was signed into law by Pres. Donald Trump.
By all measures, CBRA has been a phenomenal success. By removing
the dozens of federal programs that subsidize coastal development, CBRA
has saved the Federal Treasury nearly $10 billion in avoided
expenditures and is on track to save billions more. CBRA has helped
steer people away from areas prone to deadly hurricanes, rising seas,
and growing climate change impacts, with 85% of CBRA areas remaining
undeveloped or lightly developed. And CBRA has helped conserve habitat
that is vitally important to wildlife and the nation's commercial and
recreational fishing industries. I would like to focus my discussion on
the benefits of the CBRA and the need to expand and strengthen it
through new legislation. My testimony will focus on:
Planning for tomorrow's challenges today: Drawing on
innovative state programs to implement a federal Coastal
Hazards Pilot Project. In order to protect areas that will
be crucially important for tomorrow's economies,
environment, and public safety, Congress should authorize a
Coastal Hazards Pilot Project, informed by on-the-ground
state programs, to start identifying coastal hazard areas
and areas where habitat can migrate as sea levels rise and
front-line coastal defenses are lost.
Protecting today's vulnerable coastal areas: Enacting the
``Hurricane Sandy maps'' and associated maps. Congress
should enact maps that would add 292,000+ acres to the CBRA
in order to save the taxpayer billions of dollars, conserve
important habitat, and ensure flood protections for today's
coastal communities.
Accurately reflecting coastal conditions: Updating the
CBRA's definitions. CBRA's definition of a ``coastal
barrier'' needs to be updated to include bluffs and other
land areas that help buffer upland communities from the
impacts of storms, erosion, flooding and rising seas.
1. Planning for tomorrow's challenges today: Drawing on innovative
state programs to implement a federal Coastal Hazards Pilot
Project.
It is imperative that on the federal level, we plan for the
challenges that sea level rise will bring just as states are already
doing, including in Virginia. Virginia has modified its shoreline
protection laws as the first step in implementing a program to protect
coastal areas at risk from sea level rise, along with adjacent upland
areas, so that coastal habitat like wetlands can ``migrate'' into them
in response to rising seas. These hazard-prone shoreline areas have
restrictions in place to protect state waters, and conditions on
development. This pragmatic, forward-looking approach will help coastal
communities plan for the future, and protect areas that can support
important habitat. The CBRA, with its emphasis on reducing hazard-prone
development and conserving habitat, provides the perfect federal
mechanism for a similar approach.
This week, Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
reintroduced their bipartisan ``Strengthening Coastal Communities
Act,'' which amends the CBRA to authorize a two-year pilot project. The
Act directs the Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Army
Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Federal Emergency Management Agency and state governors, to
develop criteria for mapping coastal hazard areas and areas to which
habitat can migrate as sea level rises. The result of the project would
be reported to Congress, and it would be up to Congress to act upon it.
This Coastal Hazards Pilot Project should be included in any CBRA
legislation considered by the House.
The CBRA Coastal Hazards Pilot Project in the Senate legislation
reflects the same forward-looking pragmatism as Virginia's program.
Facing the reality of high sea level rise projections, Virginia made
major modifications to our tidal wetlands and shoreline protection
programs. These actions may provide a model for how the CBRA System
might try to adapt to sea level rise and merit examination under a
pilot program.
The Virginia Program: Acknowledging and Acting on Risks.
Virginia's program is the result of acknowledging and taking action
upon serious risks that the state faces. Virginia has experienced the
highest rate of relative sea level rise on the Atlantic Coast over the
last century, rates of relative sea level rise 3 to 4 times the global
average. We are already seeing the impacts from these higher tidal
waters on our coastal resources and in our shoreline communities.
Virginia will continue to experience even higher rates of relative sea
level rise over the rest of this century, having been identified by
NOAA as a sea level rise ``hotspot.''
This has prompted many of Virginia's state and local government
agencies to use higher rates of relative sea level rise, specifically
the NOAA intermediate high projections, in their planning and
operations. These projections indicate coastal Virginia will see an
additional 1.5 feet of relative sea level rise above current mean
higher high water (MHHW) by 2045, 3 feet by 2075, and 4.5 feet 2100.
By executive order in 2019, Virginia set the NOAA intermediate high
projections as state planning guidance, which the Virginia Department
of Transportation used in its 2020 engineering standards for bridge
construction. As well, local governments adopted this guidance in sea
level rise plans, such as the City of Virginia Beach's 2020 ``Sea Level
Wise'' plan. The regional planning entity in Southeast Virginia, the
Hampton Roads Planning District, adopted this standard in 2018 in its
``Sea Level Rise Planning Policy and Approach'' guidance for the 17
member localities to use in their planning. The Department of Defense,
in its Joint Land Use Studies in Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Portsmouth are
using a similar rate, developed by the DoD Coastal Assessment Regional
Scenario Working Group (CARSWG) in this work to ensure operational
readiness for military facilities.
With these rates of relative sea level rise, areas within the
Coastal Barrier Resources System (and the storm damage reduction they
provide) will be severely adversely affected in just a few decades
unless changes are made to CBRA. These needed changes are what the
proposed Coastal Hazards Pilot Project would explore.
In Virginia, the 155,000 acres in the CBRA System that are aquatic
habitat will experience major impacts as shallow water aquatic habitat
converts to deeper water habitat, adversely affecting submerged aquatic
vegetation. Vegetated tidal wetlands will have to transgress landward
or drown in place. Barrier islands will migrate landward. Unless we can
adapt the System to these changes, more residences and structures will
be exposed to storm risk, resulting in higher disaster payments, and
vitally important habitat will be lost.
Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Wetlands within the System and Wetlands
Watch's Adaptation Efforts
In the mid-Atlantic region, vegetated tidal wetlands adapt to sea
level rise in two ways: they can accrete vertically or move
horizontally. With modest sea level rise, these wetlands can accrete
vertically, capturing sediment and growing on top of prior year's
vegetation. In the Chesapeake Bay region, this rate of vertical
accretion is about two feet per century. However, Virginia's current
rate of relative sea level rise on the Atlantic Coast is in excess of
the ability of vegetated tidal wetlands to accrete vertically . With
the rates of relative sea level rise being experienced in Virginia, the
only option for the intertidal ecosystem is to ``move uphill'' or
transgress landward with the rising intertidal zone. If, however, there
are hardened structures in the way--like buildings and seawalls--the
wetlands cannot colonize the new/higher intertidal zone and will drown
in place.
In 2007, Wetlands Watch determined that with the rate of relative
sea level rise we were experiencing then (+2.5 feet by 2100), we would
lose between 50 and 80 percent of our vegetated tidal wetlands. If
Virginia could keep the land uphill/landward from the wetlands free of
development, allowing the coastal ecosystem to migrate or transgress
landward as tidal waters rose, we would reduce that loss. However, if
we allowed the land behind the wetlands to become developed, blocking
the wetlands from migrating and causing them to drown in place, we
would experience higher wetlands losses.
Facing this threat, in 2007 Wetlands Watch switched its focus from
conventional wetlands protection and focused on sea level rise
adaptation, becoming one of the first organizations in the country to
undertake this work. Wetlands Watch developed partnerships at the local
government level to help inform land use and natural resources
decisions by county and city staff and leadership in order to minimize
shoreline development and lessen future wetlands losses.
Working at the local level, Wetlands Watch saw that sea level rise
adaptation was not just about the wetlands: coastal residents were at
increasing flood risk from rising sea level as well. In coastal
Virginia, we were seeing flood and storm damages increase and ``sunny
day'' flooding disrupting communities. In Norfolk, Virginia, our
schools started having ``flood days'' causing school delays and
cancellation. Threats to our shoreline economy, outlays for disaster
payments, and a range of other community impacts needed to be addressed
as well. Shoreline adaptation was not just about the ecosystem but had
to include increasingly at-risk coastal communities
The approach Wetlands Watch has taken to address Virginia's sea
level rise risk is similar to the one taken under CBRA. We have, from
the beginning, seen habitat protection and community risk reduction as
twin goals of our work. We realized that minimizing development along
the tidal shoreline would both reduce coastal residents' exposure to
risk while maintaining ``escape routes'' for the intertidal habitat.
This is very similar to the approach that CBRA takes in reducing
incentives for development that harm habitat and place people at risk.
Virginia Is Taking Action
Virginia provides regulatory protection to the coastal ecosystem
with the Virginia Tidal Wetlands Act (Code of Virginia Sec. 62.1-
44.15:20) which runs in parallel with the protections under the Federal
Clean Water Act (33 USC Sec. 1344). Virginia also regulates development
and disturbances in the zone adjacent to and landward of the tidal
wetlands under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) (Code of
Virginia Sec. 62.1-44.15:67) in order to protect water quality.
Together these two statutes regulate disturbances and development in
the zone from low tide to one hundred feet uphill from tidal wetlands.
In 2020, with the guidance of then-Secretary of Natural and
Historic Resources, Matthew Strickler, Virginia's General Assembly
added sea level rise to both of these regulatory programs, with a goal
of ensuring the adaptation of Virginia's tidal and shoreline ecosystem.
Both the Tidal Wetlands Law and the CBPA were changed to require permit
decisions to include the NOAA intermediate high projections for
relative sea level rise. As far as I can tell, Virginia is the first
state in the country to put future conditions as a condition of permit
approval under a shoreline regulatory program.
With these changes, both the intertidal and the shoreline buffer
permits include future projections of sea level rise, requiring permits
to anticipate those future higher water levels and adapt to them. The
hope is that as the sea levels rise, development on the land behind the
intertidal zone will have conditions placed that will keep it free of
barriers to migration, allowing the tidal ecosystem to move ``uphill''
and escape higher tidal waters.
In addition, the General Assembly has put sea level rise into
Virginia's on-site septic regulations, a response to the failure of
septic systems along the coastal shoreline. Shoreline development is
facing the consequences of our high rates of sea level rise as these
septic systems become inundated, fail, and begin releasing sewage into
coastal waters, often fouling shellfish aquaculture operations. New
siting regulations being developed will place additional conditions on
siting these systems, including greater setbacks from the coastal
shoreline for new development. These measures would reinforce
Virginia's efforts to begin stepping back from the tidal shoreline.
With these actions, Virginia is anticipating future sea level rise
in both environmental protection and development decisions along its
tidal shoreline. These policy actions to address the impacts of rising
sea levels could inform a pilot program to address sea level rise
within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
Other states are responding as well. Maryland has a program to
identify ``Sea Level Rise Wetland Adaptation Areas'' to better target
land acquisition and conservation easement programs to create escape
routes for the coastal ecosystem. In many coastal states, actions are
being taken that would both benefit from and help inform the Coastal
Hazards Pilot Project proposed by the Senate legislation.
We are strong supporters of the Coastal Barrier Resource System and
see it as a long-standing bipartisan effort to protect coastal
communities, preserve intertidal and shoreline natural resources, and
limit federal taxpayer exposure to increasingly intense storm damage.
It is imperative that the CBRS be strengthened to help address
challenges that Virginia and other states are already working to
address by authorizing the Coastal Hazards Pilot Project.
2. Protecting today's vulnerable coastal areas: The benefits from
expanding the CBRA by enacting the Hurricane Sandy maps and
other CBRS maps.
Rising seas and climate change exacerbate hurricane damage,
contributing to deadly and enormously costly storms. Last year's
Hurricane Ian claimed more than 150 lives and caused over $112 billion
in damage, making it the costliest hurricane in Florida's history and
the third-costliest in United States history. Coastal habitat, which
supports wildlife and America's commercial and recreational fishing
industries, is disappearing. More than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands
are being lost on average each year, with sea level rise expected to
accelerate that rate.
Expanding the CBRA to include 277,000+ acres identified by the Fish
and Wildlife Service in the Hurricane Sandy impacted states, plus more
than 15,000 acres in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico also
identified by the Service, would lead to significant economic, public
safety, and environmental benefits, such as those discussed below.
CBRA saves billions of federal tax dollars, with the capacity to save
billions more.
CBRA prohibits most federal expenditures in areas included in the
CBRA System, including federal flood insurance, grants to build
highways, bridges and roads from the Department of Transportation, and
similar expenses. Just a few examples illustrate how CBRA is a plus for
the U.S. taxpayer and why expanding it makes good economic sense. CBRA:
Reduces National Flood Insurance Program claims. A 2023
study found that areas along the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic included in CBRA saved $112 million per year in
reduced National Flood Insurance Program claims, a 7%
savings in annual NFIP claims.
Generates multi-billion-dollar savings overall. A 2019
economic study found that CBRA has saved the federal
taxpayer roughly $9.5 billion and is projected to save $11-
$108 billion over the next 50 years in shore areas included
in CBRA. Extending CBRA upland would save billions more in
avoided federal expenditures like disaster relief payments
and federal flood insurance.
CBRA supports important economies.
Protecting undeveloped coastal areas from the dozens of federal
programs that fund coastal development and redevelopment is vital for
multi-billion-dollar economies that depend on healthy coastal
ecosystems. CBRA-protected areas are the backbone of many important
coastal economies. CBRA:
Increases property values. A 2023 study found that CBRA
designation increases property values in adjacent areas,
thereby increasing the overall property tax base.
Supports a healthy fishing industry. Fish and shellfish
depend on healthy wetlands and estuaries, but according to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
coastal wetland degradation and loss has reduced the size
and diversity of fish populations, affecting the
sustainability of commercial and recreational fisheries. In
2019, these fisheries supported 1.8 million jobs and
contributed $255 billion to the economy in sales.
Undeveloped areas included in CBRA help protect communities from deadly
and costly storm damages.
The undeveloped islands, beaches, spits, inlets, and wetland areas
included in the CBRS provide important public safety benefits:
Reduce flood damage. Wetlands act as natural sponges,
absorbing and temporarily storing floodwaters. By holding
back and slowing some of the floodwaters, wetlands can
reduce the severity of flooding and erosion, protecting
people, property, infrastructure, and agriculture from
devastating flood damages. An acre of wetlands can store
1.5 million gallons of floodwater. This protection saves
vulnerable coastal communities $23 billion each year.
Shield communities from storm and hurricane impacts. A
study funded by the insurance giant Lloyds of London found
that coastal wetlands prevented more than $625 million in
property damages during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy, reducing
property damages throughout the Northeastern United States
by 10% on average.
CBRA areas provide vitally important habitat.
CBRA-protected areas are some of the last remaining undeveloped
habitat for birds, sea mammals, sea turtles and a host of other
species. As development paves over and drains habitat, CBRA areas are a
lifeblood for wildlife, providing benefits such as:
Sheltering and feeding birds. About one-half of North
American bird species nest or feed in wetlands, with two of
North America's migratory bird flyways passing over the
Pacific and Atlantic coasts, where coastal wetlands provide
habitat to waterfowl and shorebirds. It is estimated that
birdwatching in the United States has an economic benefit
of $41 billion.
Supporting threatened and endangered species. Nearly half
of federally threatened and endangered species need
wetlands for their survival.
Congress should enact the Hurricane Sandy maps of eligible areas along
New England and the Mid-Atlantic.
The 2012 Hurricane Sandy claimed lives and caused billions of
dollars-worth of damage in many parts of the U.S. coast, including nine
states in New England and the Mid-Atlantic: New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The USFWS used supplemental Hurricane
Sandy funding to evaluate the nine states' coasts and developed maps
depicting areas that could be added to the CBRA System in the states.
The draft maps were released for public comment, and notices of the
maps' availability were provided to governors, state and local
officials, and the general public. After public comment and review, the
maps were finalized by the USFWS and transmitted to Congress in April
2022 for action. Only Congress can enact the maps.
The Hurricane Sandy maps would add roughly 277,000 acres to the
CBRA System. Undeveloped barrier island areas, beaches and spits, along
with inlets, wetlands, and other estuarine areas would be added to the
System and receive its unique protection from federal development
subsidies. Nine states would gain acreage:
New Hampshire: 681 acres
Massachusetts: 32,746 acres
Rhode Island: 1,544 acres
Connecticut: 5,248 acres
New York: 19,799 acres
New Jersey: 71,492 acres
Delaware: 31,216 acres
Maryland: 19,008 acres
Virginia: 96,435 acres
Congress should enact the maps of areas in the South Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico.
The USFWS has also identified areas in the South Atlantic and the
Gulf of Mexico that qualify for inclusion in the CBRA and has developed
maps that were reviewed and commented on by the public, finalized by
the Service, and transmitted to Congress for action. These maps should
also be enacted by Congress to maximize CBRA's benefits in these
coastal regions. The bipartisan Senate bill, the ``Strengthening
Coastal Communities Act,'' and legislation introduced in the House in
September 2023, H.R. 5490, the ``Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal
Harm'' Act, would enact the Hurricane Sandy and South Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico maps. Expanding the CBRA to include these areas makes good
economic and environmental sense and would increase and improve the
nation's coastal resiliency.
3. Expand the definition of a coastal barrier.
When the CBRA was written in 1982, it defined ``coastal barriers''
as primarily composed of unconsolidated sediments, such as islands and
beaches, reflecting the kinds of landforms that are dominant along the
Mid- and South-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
In 1990, Congress updated that definition in recognition of the
fact that other coastal landforms and aquatic areas also act as
``coastal barriers'' since they shield upland communities from storm
and hurricane impacts and erosion, and provide important habitat.
Congress added areas like granitic outcroppings in New England to the
definition of a coastal barrier, and consolidated landforms like the
Florida Keys. Congress also extended the CBRA to areas along the Great
Lakes, reflecting the role that landforms along the Lakes play in
reducing upland storm damages and providing habitat. Congress also
added wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas to the definition of a
coastal barrier, in recognition of the vital role that these areas play
in slowing storm impacts and supporting wildlife.
As our scientific understanding of coastal processes has grown,
Congress has responded by updating the definition of a coastal barrier.
Another update is now needed to reflect new information about sea level
rise and its impacts that's been learned since the last definition
update in 1990. The bipartisan Senate ``Strengthening Coastal
Communities Act'' would update the definition of a coastal barrier to
include bluffs and areas that are and will be vulnerable to coastal
hazards, such as flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, and sea level
rise. As I noted earlier in this testimony, the science of sea level
rise is well-established, and federal agencies such as the Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Defense, NOAA and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency are moving forward with programs to address sea level
rise and its impacts. The CBRA must be updated to reflect what other
federal agencies are doing and to keep CBRA current with scientific
information. House legislation on CBRA should include the full
definitional change to CBRA that is in the bipartisan Senate bill.
H.R. 2437
Regarding H.R. 2437, a bill to revise the boundaries of the CBRS in
Topsail, North Carolina, it is my understanding that H.R. 2437 is
contrary to CBRA and would result in significantly increased taxpayer
burdens. The bill would remove around 660 acres of land from the CBRS
unit, which was established in 1982. There have been arguments that the
area had infrastructure in place when it was added to the CBRS in 1983,
and that therefore, it didn't meet the definition of an ``undeveloped
area'' and shouldn't have been included in the CBRA System. But the
Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the unincorporated north end
of Topsail Island was largely undeveloped in 1982, the land met the
criteria to be placed within the CBRS, and therefore, the area was
correctly added to the CBRS in 1983. The USFWS testified to the
legitimacy of the inclusion of this area in the CBRS in testimony
before Congress in 2014, and again in the 2016 ``Final Report to
Congress'' on a pilot project that began the process of digitizing the
CBRS maps.
Lawsuits challenging the inclusion of the area in the CBRS have
likewise failed. A district court judge ruled that the CBRA designation
was justified, and the court of appeals upheld the district court's
ruling and dismissed the case.
If this area is removed from the CBRS, the federal taxpayer will be
required to pay for expensive beach renourishment projects that the
town wants the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake. The town of North
Topsail Beach is proposing to nourish roughly 5,000 feet of shoreline
every two years at a total cost of more than $58 million over 30 years.
As of the 2020 census, the town of North Topsail Beach has 1,000
residents, and the federal taxpayer would be required to help foot the
bill for a nearly $60 million beach renourishment project to benefit a
handful of local residents.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the area was
rightly included in CBRA, and a district court and court of appeals
have upheld that determination. H.R. 2437 is not warranted.
CONCLUSION
We strongly support the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and we urge
Congress to plan for tomorrow's challenges today by drawing on
innovative state programs to implement a two-year Coastal Hazards Pilot
Project. We also call on Congress to protect today's vulnerable coastal
areas by enacting the ``Hurricane Sandy maps'' and associated maps. And
we support an update to CBRA's definition of a ``coastal barrier'' to
accurately reflect coastal conditions and scientific advances in
understanding sea level rise.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their
testimony. I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each for
questions.
Ms. Kiggans, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is
for Dr. Hein from VIMS.
Thank you again for being here. Barrier islands, obviously,
serve a critical role in protecting inland communities. Can you
speak to some of the benefits of leaving this land undeveloped?
And would the barrier islands be as effective, were they to
be built up for commercial or recreational use?
Dr. Hein. Thank you, Congresswoman. In short, no.
There is a large difference between a built barrier island
and one that is allowed to do as it wants. I gave the example
before of the Virginia Eastern Shore, where these islands are
moving at tens of feet per year in some cases. And that
generally happens during large storms. Well, if you have a
house that is built on the island, or you have one that is
behind the island, that island wants to move underneath it, and
the house doesn't move. At least not without a lot of time and
effort and money.
So, what happens is that house ends up on the front side.
That house also then stops that process of the island naturally
adjusting to the storms that occur, to changes in the rate of
sea level rise. So, it slows the entire natural process down
quite a bit, and makes the whole island system less resilient.
What we could do is, you know, you can nourish beaches, you
could harden the shoreline. But eventually, as sea level rises,
those storms want to move those barriers landward. They are
moving up a slope. That is what they do. That is how they have
survived for 7,000 years. If you stop that from happening, the
barrier is just going to drown from both sides. And that is the
risk to many of our developed barriers around the country and
world.
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you. And I read in your testimony that
barrier islands on the Eastern Shore of Virginia are moving
more than 20 feet toward land per year due to storm surges and
erosion.
So, folks on the Eastern Shore are already concerned with
shoreline movement or sea level rise impacting their homes,
businesses, and families. How does the movement of the barrier
islands impact their effectiveness and what they should be
doing?
And what should we be thinking about as a 10, 20, or 30-
year plan for science-based adaptive management of our barrier
islands?
Dr. Hein. Well, to start, I think that it is important to
think about barrier islands or these coastal systems as two
parts. There are two different shorelines that are moving. Mr.
Stiles spoke very nicely of the wetlands side, where on the
upland side marshes and wetlands want to move up into, on the
Eastern Shore it is largely farmland, but some communities, as
well.
On the other side of it you have the open ocean piece,
which is the barrier island migrating. Over time, yes, the
barriers are moving so quickly that you are shrinking the back
barrier lagoon, and it will be hundreds of years before those
islands get anywhere near the mainland. That is good. They
should be moving. The closer they are to the mainland, the more
they can protect their marshes, they take the brunt of those
storms, and they move with it. They take a hit, they step back,
and then naturally rebuild their elevations.
The challenge is on the other side, where we stop those
marshes from moving upland. So, you have one side that is not
moving and the other side of the island is moving ever closer,
and that shrinks the whole ecosystem, reduces its services and
anything from storing carbon to providing habitat for
commercial fisheries. And that is where I think the real
challenge is here, looking forward for the Eastern Shore, is
the flooding of the upland, allowing that to happen, while
letting the barriers do much of what they do, which is take the
brunt of storms, regenerate, and keep trucking on.
I will also note, though, that one of the challenges there,
of course, is accelerated sea level rise. These processes are
inevitable. Yes, climate change is, of course, happening. Sea
level is, of course, rising. But beyond that, even if it were
to stop tomorrow miraculously, these islands are going to
continue to move. They haven't quite caught up to the rate of
sea level rise today. So, let them.
Mrs. Kiggans. Mr. Stiles, we have heard a lot today about a
proposed coastal hazard pilot program. My concern with that is
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not fully remapped
its existing System. So, would it not be better for the Service
to fully grasp the needs of the existing System first before
starting a new endeavor aimed at possibly expanding the System
inland?
Mr. Stiles. I think that some multi-tasking would be
useful. It is going to take a while to figure out what to do.
It has taken Virginia a long time. Under the leadership of
former Natural and Historic Resources Secretary Strickler it
has taken Virginia a long time to figure out how to approach
this. We are still working it out. Those statutes that were
passed, we are still trying to figure out how they are actually
going to be implemented.
I think you could do both. You could continue the mapping,
but it is going to be a long conversation about how we are
going to deal with the System in the future.
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you very much.
I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Kiggans. The Chair recognizes
Ranking Member Huffman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do have a
couple of questions for witnesses, but before I do that let me
just pause and say how refreshing it is to be part of a hearing
where we are having a conversation where a colleague across the
aisle is asking thoughtful, science-based questions, and we are
talking about the difficult trade-offs and policy choices that
adaptive management impels us to make. It doesn't often happen
in this Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, where it
can sometimes feel like a fact-free, science-free zone. But
this is good stuff, and I want to commend my colleague and the
witnesses for a really important conversation. And you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Stiles, you have a lot of experience helping
communities adapt to sea level rise. And with that in mind,
could you share with us why it is so important to be proactive
in identifying currently undeveloped areas for designation
within the Coastal Barrier Resource System, as the pilot
program in the Senate bill proposes?
Mr. Stiles. The process that I was describing of the
intertidal zone moving uphill is the big issue. Wetlands in our
part of the world can move vertically about 2 feet a century.
The rates of sea level rise we are seeing exceed that. And,
therefore, the only way that they can get out of the way is to
move uphill onto the fast land behind where the wetlands are.
So, this is all new stuff. The steps that Virginia has
taken, as I said, were first in the nation. And we are still
trying to work it out. There is a lot of work that needs to be
done. But the idea, basically, is trying to slow the
development on the land behind so that the wetlands can move
uphill. But when you do that, there are lots of things in the
way like people, like roads, like everything else. So, it is
going to take quite a long time to figure out the conflicts,
the use conflicts, the conflicts between the public good of
maintaining the wetlands and the private resources, the issues
that came up in the Topsail bill, for example.
So, I think it is essential that we begin to look at this
now because, as Dr. Hein said, this system will move uphill.
So, we have to identify places where it can move, where
people can be moved out of the way to avoid the higher risk
that is coming, things like what Maryland is doing with its
mapping program, where it is beginning to map the migration
corridors. I think that is all part of the solution.
Mr. Huffman. And it sounds like this will inevitably
present us with some inconvenient, difficult choices. But why
is it important to begin to proactively use CBRA in terms of
benefits to inland communities, coastal ecosystems, and the
American taxpayers?
Mr. Stiles. Well, I think the CBRA System is poised to
examine these issues. It is a huge holding for the taxpayers, a
resource for the people. And I think that it is a system that
is going to see these impacts first. And I think that that is
why we need to study it.
It also helps to bring the resources of the Federal
Government into this. For the longest time, it has been mostly
local governments having to deal with it because they see the
impacts right in their backyard. State government is beginning
to deal with it, as I said, like the state of Virginia has
done. But the Federal Government has, outside of a few examples
like the joint land use studies that are taking place in
Virginia or some of the examinations that were done by NASA
with its facilities, it has 85 percent of its assets within 8
feet of sea level rise, outside of a few isolated Federal
examinations of this issue, there really hasn't been a
concerted effort to look along the entire shoreline to figure
out how we are going to do this. And that is where I think
bringing the knowledge and expertise of the Federal Government
into it along the whole reach of the shoreline would be very
useful.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Strickler, there is some language in H.R. 2437 that I
am concerned could open the door to a lot of litigation, could
be problematic for Fish and Wildlife Service to interpret.
Could you speak to that, please?
Mr. Strickler. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Yes, we have heard
the stated intent of the legislation is to remove a significant
amount of the developed area on North Topsail from the CBRS
unit. However, there has been, since the time that the unit was
included in the System, a lot of development and a lot of
subdivision. So, it is unclear to us exactly how properties
would be determined in or out. And I think there could be a lot
of disagreement over that.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that.
I yield back, thanks.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman
Hageman for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My bill, the Pilot
Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act, as described in my opening
statement, requires the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into
good faith negotiations with the Midvale Irrigation District
for the conveyance of the Pilot Butte Power Plant located in
Pavilion, Wyoming. And as we have heard from our witnesses,
this conveyance is a net positive for all parties involved.
Before the project was mothballed in 2008, it was estimated
that the cost needed to repair the facility was around $3
million, and it was determined by the Bureau of Reclamation
that it was no longer economical to operate. The Bureau now
estimates that the cost of recovering the power plant through
repairs is between $4.5 to $8 million, and as has been
explained, this exchange is in the financial interest of both
the United States and in the overall interest of Midvale
Irrigation District's 940 water users.
Mr. Lynn, do the water users within the Irrigation District
have a vested interest in assuming responsibility of this
project?
Mr. Lynn. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Yes,
they are. They are in favor of gaining the ability to be able
to produce power, as it has been a topic of discussion for the
District and its users for several years.
As the hydropower study that was done in 2016 indicates,
there are several places on the District that would produce
power due to the natural fall, the topography, drop structures,
and whatnot, but none as beneficial as the power plant.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Can you describe Midvale Irrigation
District's preparedness to assume responsibility of title
ownership on top of the maintenance and operation costs?
Mr. Lynn. Yes, Congresswoman. Midvale is geared to self-
perform a lot of the work there. We are a pretty unique family
there. We do what it takes, most all the work necessary to
remodel the power plant structurally, preparing for the next
phase for consultants and vendors to analyze the hydrologic
aspects of the attributes of the power plant and design the new
generation equipment to maximize the CFS and head that is
available.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Lynn, both you and the Bureau have
highlighted the benefit of divesting liability for Federal
interests in water users. Aside from shifting the burden of
cost from one party to another, why do you believe that this
conveyance is so important to the state of Wyoming?
Mr. Lynn. Congresswoman, thank you. Midvale is committed to
do whatever is necessary to keep costs down regarding its
service to our customers, therefore later on here to the state.
Farmers and ranchers depend on the District for their
livelihoods. Cost to remodel the power plant in-house would be
minimal, compared to contracting it out. Once the power plant
is ready to go on-line, the benefit of the power production to
our customers would be seen in minimizing the cost of services
that we provide.
To Wyoming, the conveyance would set a precedent, I
believe, with irrigation districts throughout the state to take
the initiative in analyzing where they could produce power,
utilizing their conveyances and natural topography.
Conveying the Pilot Butte Power Plant to Midvale Irrigation
District puts control and investment, our hearts and minds of
the District and its constituents there locally. Self-
sufficiency is Wyoming.
Ms. Hageman. And one of the things we are seeing in Wyoming
right now is that one of our largest utilities is seeking a 30
percent increase in rates for our Wyoming citizens because of
some of the decisions that they have made over the years in
using unreliable energy resources. So, having the access to the
hydrologic resources, as well as being able to be self-
sufficient is extremely important at this time. Wouldn't you
agree with that, Mr. Lynn?
Mr. Lynn. Yes, ma'am. It is a timely situation with what we
are seeing with the current plan.
Ms. Hageman. Yes. Mr. Lynn, with the cyclical nature of the
hydrologic situation in the West and increased vertical
integration in power production in Wyoming, why is your project
timely at relieving costs and burdens for water and power
consumers?
Mr. Lynn. Well, I think we just covered that. With the way
things are going with the local power producer, I think that we
would like to see some alternatives that are produced locally.
Ms. Hageman. And this project would provide that?
Mr. Lynn. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. All right, wonderful. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiment of Mr. Lynn, and this
conveyance provides significant benefits to Wyoming and the
Federal Government.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Hageman.
And Dr. Murphy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be in
reference to H.R. 2437.
Thank you, Mr. Leonard, for coming. I just wanted to ask
you again to review why you think CBRA designation was
incorrect in North Topsail.
Mr. Leonard. Yes, Congressman, thank you. At the time the
CBRA was enacted, there was a full complement of infrastructure
within the town. We had roads, we had utilities, we had met all
the requirements to be exempted from CBRA.
The issue was once the mapping had to be done, there was a
year to do it, and the mapping was done via aerial photography,
and the aerial photography did not disclose the full complement
of infrastructure that was on the ground at the time. At the
same time the infrastructure was there, but the development in
certain areas was not. And these two together were tied to the
point where it should have been an either/or per the original
CBRA regulations, but it was not. In the areas that there was
development and infrastructure, those areas were left out of
CBRA, but there was infrastructure in the remainder of the area
of the town, which should have disqualified those areas from
being placed into the CBRA System.
Our town is no different than the other two towns on
Topsail Island, Surf City and Topsail Beach. Those towns were
left out of CBRA, and we are just asking to be removed from
CBRA.
Dr. Murphy. Approximately how many square miles?
Mr. Leonard. I can't give you the square miles, sir, but we
are looking at the total area of L06 is 5,865 acres, and we are
asking for 590 acres of that 5,865 to be removed.
Dr. Murphy. 590 acres?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir, 590 acres. It is roughly 10 percent.
Dr. Murphy. So, a really small amount of land that already
had infrastructure in it.
Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir, and was developed.
Dr. Murphy. All right, thank you. I will get back.
Mr. Strickler, have you ever been to the area in question?
Mr. Strickler. Dr. Murphy, thank you for the question. I
spent a lot of time on North Carolina's Outer Banks. It is a
beautiful place and a unique part of the world. I was talking
to Mr. Leonard earlier. I have not had the pleasure of visiting
North Topsail.
Dr. Murphy. All right. So, my district, I am very blessed.
When I get to go home, I get to go to the beach. It is great. I
have about 80 percent of North Carolina's beaches.
So, is it common for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
designate areas with a CBRA designation that already have
infrastructure present?
Mr. Strickler. Thank you for the question. When the Fish
and Wildlife Service reviews a unit for inclusion or exclusion
in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, they do a
comprehensive review of whether or not the level of development
and the level of infrastructure meet the requirements in the
statute. When the level of development and infrastructure meets
the requirements for exclusion, it is uncommon for a unit to be
included in the System.
Dr. Murphy. All right. So, as I am understanding, again,
this was done aerially and not somebody on the ground, and I
think it is important when we are dealing with the livelihoods
of veterans, homeowners, people that just want flood insurance,
that actually somebody who is going to be opposing this
actually sees what they are talking about. It would be nice to
have that. So, I don't think it is too much to ask for somebody
to take a drive down there and take a look at it if you are
going to oppose it.
It seems like, if you already had infrastructure in place,
that the designation is an error.
They have created lands, I mean, they have created houses.
They have a whole new development on there. All the folks in
North Topsail are asking for 10 percent of this designation to
allow individuals to get national flood insurance, to be able
to get VA loans, not to push the other 90 percent out. They are
not asking for much.
And yes, I understand all about wetlands. Good lord, I have
a Waters Conference every year. I am having that in 2 weeks to
look at inland flooding, to look at water, sea level rise, to
look all of these things. So, it is nothing that I don't know
the science of. I know it very, very well. But in this
instance, an error was made, and somebody just needs to admit
it. The Federal Government makes those mistakes. OK? We can't
just keep on saying, ``Well, no, we didn't make a mistake, we
didn't make a mistake.'' I think the ask is genuine. I think it
is very minimal, just that an error was made, that it be
corrected.
So, if infrastructure was already present in that time, an
error was made by the Fish and Wildlife Service. So, I would
say this to the members of the Committee. This is not a big
lift. This is not a heavy lift. People are already there, 10
percent, less than 600 acres. I really think the request should
be granted. The Federal Government makes mistakes. We have made
mistakes all during COVID, and this is another mistake. I would
hope that the Committee would allow it to be corrected.
With that, I actually just want to ask Mr. Hein one
question.
Mr. Bentz. I am sorry, but we are over time.
Dr. Murphy. I am out of time, OK, I can't see a time thing.
Well, thank you. With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Bentz. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and
the Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee may submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, October 3. The hearing record will be
held open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
on H.R. 3415 and H.R. 4385
H.R. 3415, Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has constructed numerous
dams, canals, and hydropower plants that provide water and power across
the 17 western states. For most of these project facilities,
Reclamation has transferred all or part of the responsibility for
operation, maintenance, and replacement to a project beneficiary.
Title, or ownership, to Reclamation facilities, however, remains with
the U.S. Government unless Congress passes legislation directing
otherwise.
The transfer of title divests Reclamation of responsibility for the
operation, maintenance, replacement, management, regulation of, and
most of the liability for Federal interests in lands and project
facilities, while providing non-Federal entities with greater autonomy
and flexibility to manage the facilities.
From 1995 through 2019, Reclamation conveyed title of 32 projects
or parts of projects across the West pursuant to various acts of
Congress. These title transfers generally have provided mutual benefits
to both Reclamation and the non-federal entities involved. The title
transfer process followed a framework that Reclamation and its partners
collaboratively developed, but which required the passage of individual
acts of Congress.
In 2019 the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9) was signed into law. Title VIII of this Act
provides Reclamation with new authority to transfer title to certain
eligible facilities to qualifying entities without separate and
individual acts of Congress. Section 8002(3)(B) of P.L. 116-9 included
provisions that excluded title transfer authority for certain
facilities, including for any reserved works as of the date of
enactment. Since enactment, title to 12 additional projects or parts of
projects have been conveyed under this new authority. The term
``reserved works'' means any building, structure, facility, or
equipment that is owned, operated, and maintained by Reclamation.
The Pilot Butte Power Plant is a reserved work and is part of
Reclamation's Riverton Unit, as incorporated into the Riverton Unit of
the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program by the Act of September 25, 1970
(Public Law 91-409). The Powerplant receives water through the Wyoming
Canal and discharges water directly to the Pilot Butte Reservoir. The
Wyoming Canal and Pilot Butte Reservoir are Reclamation facilities for
which the operation and maintenance has been transferred to the Midvale
Irrigation District (District) via contract with Reclamation.
The Powerplant started generating power in 1925. The Powerplant was
taken out of service in 1973 due to high operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs as well as a deteriorating penstock. The penstock was
replaced and the Powerplant was put back into service in 1990. From
1990 through 2008, the Powerplant operated seasonally from mid-April
through late September. In 2007, Reclamation estimated the cost of
needed repairs to continue to operate the Powerplant to be
approximately $3.2 Million. In 2008, the Powerplant was placed in a
mothballed status (removed from service) because it was no longer
economically viable to operate it. In 2016, the Wyoming Water
Development Office estimated these repairs to cost between $4.4 and
$8.3 Million.
As a reserved works, the transfer to the Pilot Butte Power Plant
and related facilities is not eligible under the authority granted to
Reclamation and requires an act of Congress. H.R. 3415 would provide
Reclamation with the authority to convey title of the Power Plant to
the district, subject to the necessary leases, permits, rights-of-way,
easements, and terms necessary to ensure: the title transfer would not
result in an adverse impact on existing water or power delivery
obligations, that it complies with all applicable federal and state
laws, and that conveyance of these facilities is in the financial
interest of the United States. As the facilities have been removed from
service, transfer of the facilities would minimally reduce costs
associated with ongoing operation and maintenance and would potentially
eliminate costs associated with removal and demolition, as necessary.
Section 3 further directs Reclamation to enter into good faith
negotiations to enter into an agreement within two years with the
District to determine and outline a framework for the terms of
conveyance of the Power Plant. It requires a report to Congress, if
conveyance is not completed within a year of enactment, outlining the
status of the conveyance, any obstacles to completion, and the
anticipated date of completion.
Section 6 directs Reclamation to provide an equal share with the
District for the administrative costs for the conveyance of the Power
Plant to the District. It should be noted, under P.L. 116-9,
administrative costs for conveyance are fully the requester's expense.
The Department supports the conveyance of the Power Plant to the
District, as outlined in H.R. 3415, and if enacted and subject to
appropriations, Reclamation would work to negotiate an agreement that
ensures the transfer is mutually beneficial to the United States and
the District. The Department supports H.R. 3415 and looks forward to
working with the bill sponsor to address any necessary technical edits.
H.R. 4385, Drought Preparedness Act
The West faces severe water reliability challenges due to climate
change, persistent drought, and increasing water scarcity. The changing
climate in the West highlights the need for thoughtful planning and
work to ensure our infrastructure is more resilient and that planning
for changes in land use are considered over the long-term.
Reclamation's Drought Response Program is an important program by which
Reclamation provides assistance for drought planning and mitigation.
The Drought Response Program's authority is derived primarily through
the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C.
2211) as well as Title IX, Subtitle F of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10364(a), SECURE Water Act).
The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (Act)
is set to expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2023. If enacted, H.R. 4385
would extend the authorities provided by the Act through 2028. With the
Drought Response Program, Reclamation relies on the authorities
provided by the Act for drought contingency planning and emergency
actions. Reclamation is expected to reach the current cost ceiling $130
million within the next year. If enacted, in order to implement the
program through 2028, Reclamation would need an increase in the cost
ceiling.
Through the Act, Reclamation provides financial assistance on a
competitive basis for applicants to develop drought contingency plans
or to update existing plans. In general, the planning process is
structured to help planners answer key questions on recognizing,
understanding the impacts of, and determining how to protect themselves
from drought. It also encourages an open and inclusive planning effort
that employs a proactive approach to build long-term drought
resiliency.
The Act also allows for Reclamation to undertake emergency response
actions under the Drought Response Program to minimize losses and
damages resulting from drought, relying on the authorities in Title I
of the Act. Emergency response actions are crisis driven actions in
response to unanticipated circumstances. As defined within the Act,
eligible emergency response actions are limited to temporary
construction activities such as storage and conveyance, and temporary
water purchases through contracts not to exceed 2 years. The
construction of permanent facilities is not eligible under the Act.
The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 is an
important authority for Reclamation to continue to respond to and
mitigate the impacts of drought. Assuming the cost ceiling is increased
in line with the extension, the Department fully supports the extension
of the authorities provided in the Act through 2028 as outlined in H.R.
4385 for drought contingency planning and emergency actions.
[all]