[House Report 108-641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-641
======================================================================
REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP FOR
CEDAR KEYS UNIT P25/P25P
_______
September 7, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3056]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3056) to clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25 on
Otherwise Protected Area P25P, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.
(a) In General.--Of the 2 maps subtitled ``P25/P25P'' that relate to
the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as
Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P and are
included in the set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources
System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), the map depicting the northernmost area of
that unit is hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit
entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys
Unit P25/P25P'' and dated February 9, 2004.
(b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for
inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3056 is to clarify the boundaries of
the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys
Unit P25 on Otherwise Protected Area P25P.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Coastal barriers are natural landscape features that
protect the mainland, lagoons, wetlands and salt marshes from
the full force of wind, wave and tidal energy. Major types of
coastal barriers include fringing mangroves, barrier islands
and bay barriers. Composed of sand and other loose sediments,
these elongated, narrow land forms are dynamic ecosystems and
prone to frequent disruption by storms. Coastal barrier systems
provide habitat for wildlife, and are an important recreational
resource. Despite their vulnerability to hurricane damage,
these areas are attractive places to locate private homes and
resorts.
In 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act amended the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to prohibit the issuance
of new Federal flood insurance after October 1, 1983, for ``any
new construction or for substantial improvements of structures
located on undeveloped coastal barriers.'' This law directed
the Secretary of the Interior to designate coastal barriers
under the definition contained in the Act and make
recommendations to Congress on additional areas for inclusion
in the system.
In August 1982, the Secretary of the Interior submitted to
Congress recommendations for definitions and a list of 188
units for designation as undeveloped coastal barriers. The
report used a density threshold of one structure per five acres
to categorize a barrier as undeveloped. The Secretary also
defined ``structure'' to mean a legally constructed building
larger than 200 square feet in area, regardless of the number
or size of housing units it contains. Only areas with greater
than \1/4\ mile of beachfront were included in the System.
However, the \1/4\ mile minimum may be a combination of
beachfront contained in the System units and adjacent,
otherwise protected areas.
The Coastal Barrier Resources System was established by the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 and was expanded
with the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. The Act is
designed to eliminate or limit federal development incentives
on undeveloped coastal barriers, to prevent the loss of human
life and property from storms, minimize Federal expenditures
and protect habitat for fish and wildlife.
Inclusion of property in the System does not prevent
private development nor does it prevent actions to process and
issue Federal permits necessary for development. However, it
does restrict the availability of new Federal financial
assistance to develop property within the System. No new
Federal flood insurance can be issued for properties located in
System units but existing flood insurance policies for property
currently within the System remain in place. However, if the
property is damaged, it cannot be rebuilt with Federal flood
insurance if the cost of rebuilding is more than 50 percent of
the value of the property. Other forms of Federal assistance
that are restricted include disaster relief, community block
grants, flood control, construction of new Federal highways,
construction of new infrastructure and beach stabilization or
erosion projects.
CBRA System units are delineated on maps referenced in law
and maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These units
encompass areas that were undeveloped (defined as having low
densities of structures per acre and negligible infrastructure)
when the units were made part of the System. In 1990, otherwise
protected areas (OPAs) were also included in the System. These
are public lands already held for conservation purposes such as
wildlife refuges, national parks, military lands and seashores.
They are also delineated on maps using rudimentary mapping
tools based upon pre-existing boundary data. As a result of
technological advancements in geographic information systems,
databases and digital mapping techniques, it is clear that OPA
boundaries do not coincide with the actual conservation land
boundaries. Since 1990, Congress has corrected inaccurate
boundaries in a number of coastal states.
H.R. 3056 would revise the Cedar Key Unit (P25) in Florida
to replace one map that inaccurately includes private property
within the Coastal Barrier Unit. This land was recently
identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service when the area was
remapped using modern digitized technology. These homeowners
were originally advised a number of years ago that their
property was not included within the Coastal Barrier Resources
System and based on that assertion, they obtained Federal flood
insurance to protect their property. However, upon the
completion of the new map, several homeowners have now been
advised that their land is contained within P25 and that they
are not no longer eligible for Federal flood insurance.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, ``after review of
the Administrative Record, the Service believes the lots are
inadvertently included in P-25 due to inaccuracies in the
original base map.'' A total of 35 acres of fastland would be
removed from the system. However, 40.6 acres of wetlands and
open water would be added to the system unit. This legislation
is necessary because only Congress can make any boundary
adjustments within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3056 was introduced on September 10, 2003, by
Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL). The bill was referred
to the Committee on Resources and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On
September 25, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
bill. On July 14, 2004, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill by unanimous consent. Chairman
Richard Pombo (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that correctly references the revised map date of
February 9, 2004, and ensures that the map will be on file and
available for public inspection. It was adopted by unanimous
consent. The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that H.R. 3056
would increase premium collections into the national flood
insurance fund by less than $100,000 annually. Collecting would
be partially offset each year by new mandatory spending for
underwriting and administrative expenses. CBO concludes that
enacting the bill would have no significant impact on the
federal budget. The bill could affect direct spending but the
net changes would be negligible.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3056, a bill to
clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25 on Otherwise Protected
Area P25P.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Robinson
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3056--A bill to clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25 on
Otherwise Protected Area P25P
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3056 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. The bill could affect
direct spending, but we expect that net changes would be
negligible. H.R. 3056 would not affect revenues. H.R. 3056
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 3056 would modify the boundaries of the Cedar Keys
Unit (in Florida) of the Coastal Barriers Resource System to
exclude three lots on 32 acres of private land that was
erroneously included in the unit. This change would enable the
owners of those properties to retain federal flood insurance,
which they otherwise would lose. Hence, CBO estimates that,
relative to current law, H.R. 3056 would increase premium
collections into the national flood insurance fund by less than
$100,000 annually. Collections would be partially offset each
year by new mandatory spending for underwriting and
administrative expenses. The federal government may also incur
additional costs for losses associated with any future floods
that might affect those properties, but CBO has no basis for
predicting such events.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.