[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.

                                  
