[House Report 115-541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-541
======================================================================
TO CLARIFY THE UNITED STATES INTEREST IN CERTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS IN THE
AREA OF THE MONOMOY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
February 2, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1157]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1157) to clarify the United States interest in
certain submerged lands in the area of the Monomoy National
Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 1157 is to clarify the United States
interest in certain submerged lands in the area of the Monomoy
National Wildlife Refuge.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Established in 1944, Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge is a
7,600-acre stretch of wetland and tidal habitat located off the
elbow of Cape Cod. Nearly half of the Refuge is designated
wilderness, which serves as a habitat for two federally-
protected migratory bird species.\1\ Created from an old Air
Force training ground, the Refuge serves as the northernmost
boundary of the Nantucket Sound, and is situated near historic
fishing grounds and popular tourist destinations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge. ``About the Refuge.'' Last updated September 23, 2013. https://
www.fws.gov/refuge/Monomoy/about.html.
\2\U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge. ``Refuge Map.'' Last updated December 9, 2015. https://
www.fws.gov/refuge/Monomoy/map.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its creation in 1944, the western boundary of the Refuge
was set at the mean low-water level around the peninsula. This
boundary includes many small islands, sand bars, and tidal
flats exterior to the mainland, but crucially omits the
submerged intertidal zones and open ocean between these
features and the Refuge.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\``Comments on Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge . . .'' Exhibit
A. Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General to Libby Herland,
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex. December 7,
2015. http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/environmental/massag-cmts-on-fws-
fnl-ccp-eis-for-monomoy-refuge-15-12-07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2014 draft management plan, citing a ruling from the
1944 court case United States v. 3,000 Acres of Land (Misc.
Civil Action No. 6340), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) proposed to expand the Refuge by including submerged
acres within the original boundary. In the plan, FWS pointed to
shifting tides exposing new critical habitat and the need to
begin conserving submerged horseshoe crab habitat as reasons
justifying the expansion beyond the previously outlined mean
low-water mark.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge. ``Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement Executive Summary.'' Pages 4-6. April 2014. https://
www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/
Latest%20Executive%20Summary%20for%20Draft%20CCPEIS_27May2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite sizable local outcry in opposition to FWS's action,
and public comment from the Massachusetts Attorney General's
office disputing FWS's reading of United States v. 3,000 Acres
of Land, FWS finalized the management plan in March 2016.
Shortly thereafter, Massachusetts's Governor Charles Baker
joined 18 Cape Cod townships in a written request for
legislation to rescind the boundary expansion.\5\ Further, in
October 2016, the Attorney General of Massachusetts announced
her intention to sue FWS if the boundary expansion was not
revoked.\6\ From this, Congressman William Keating introduced
H.R. 6075 in the 114th Congress to undo the boundary
adjustment, and subsequently reintroduced the bill as H.R. 1157
in the 115th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Wood, Tim. ``Boundary Change Could Cut Monomoy Refuge Area By
Half.'' Cape Cod Chronicle. July 13, 2016. http://
www.capecodchronicle.com/en/5128/chatham/337/Boundary-Change-Could-Cut-
Monomoy-Refuge-Area-By-Half.htm.
\6\Leggett, Doreen. ``Attorney general may sue over Monomoy
Refuge.'' Wicked Local Cape Cod. October 06, 2016. http://
capecod.wickedlocal.com/news/20161009/attorney-general-may-sue-over-
monomoy-refuge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill would not only prevent FWS from negatively
impacting Massachusetts communities and the local fishing
industry, but would also prevent FWS from incurring legal fees
brought on by litigation from the State of Massachusetts.
Groups Supporting the Legislation
Association to Preserve Cape Cod
Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates Resolution
Barnstable County Commissioners
Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce
Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance
Cape and Islands Selectmen/Councilors' Association
Chatham Chamber of Commerce
Chatham Summer Residents Advisory Committee
City of New Bedford
Commonwealth of Massachusetts-Governor Baker
Gail Eldredge
Town of Bourne
Town of Brewster
Town of Chatham
Town of Falmouth
Town of Harwich
Town of Nantucket
Town of Orleans
Town of Provincetown
Town of Sandwich
Town of Wellfleet
The West Chatham Association, Inc.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 1157 was introduced on February 16, 2017, by
Congressman William R. Keating (D-MA). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to
the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. On April 5, 2017, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On December 12, 2017,
the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments
were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably reported to
the House of Representatives by voice vote on December 13,
2017.
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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, January 18, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1157, a bill to
clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands
in the area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for
other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1157--A bill to clarify the United States interest in certain
submerged lands in the area of the Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge, and for other purposes
H.R. 1157 would express a finding by the Congress regarding
the location of the western boundary of the Monomoy National
Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts. Although the bill would not
change current law, enacting the bill could cause the agency to
change its determination of the refuge's boundary, which would
reduce the size of the refuge by about 3,000 acres. However,
using information provided by the agency, CBO estimates that
any such change would have a minimal effect on the cost of
administering the refuge.
Enacting H.R. 1157 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1157 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 1157 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to clarify the United States interest
in certain submerged lands in the area of the Monomoy National
Wildlife Refuge.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of Rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
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 to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We strongly oppose H.R. 1157 because it revokes any federal
interest in the submerged lands and water of Nantucket Sound,
Massachusetts. This conveys to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts ownership and control over 3,900 acres of
submerged land within the boundary of Monomoy National Wildlife
Refuge (``Monomoy'').
Monomoy was established in 1944 to protect habitat for
migratory birds. In the process of updating its 15-year
conservation plan, Monomoy initially proposed to limit some
commercial (fishing) and recreational (kite surfing) activities
in the open water area of Nantucket Sound that fall within the
refuge boundary. The nearly Town of Chatham, Massachusetts,
opposed these changes, which resulted in a final conservation
plan that did not limit existing activities.
In the meantime, however, the Massachusetts Attorney
General became involved and is disputing the Fish and Wildlife
Service's (FWS) valid, legal claim to the open waters and
submerged lands within the Refuge boundary, even though the
area has been under valid federal control since 1944 under the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Despite efforts by the Fish
and Wildlife Service to work with the Town of Chatham and other
concerned stakeholders, H.R. 1157 attempts to ``clarify'' that
Massachusetts retains ownership of and jurisdiction over the
disputed area despite effective federal oversight.
Supporters of the bill claim that this congressional
``fix'' will save taxpayers money by stopping a costly court
battle. In this case, we believe that decisions regarding the
Monomoy boundary are best left to the courts. We cannot support
this bill because it would undermine the federal management of
public lands, especially when there us no evidence that points
to better management under state control.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Jared Huffman.
[all]