79–006 

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. 

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 

2 

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. 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-fwsfnl-ccp-eis-for-monomoy-refuge-15-12-07.pdf. 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. 5Wood, Tim. ‘‘Boundary Change Could Cut Monomoy Refuge Area By Half.’’ Cape Cod Chronicle. July 13, 2016. http://www.capecodchronicle.com/en/5128/chatham/337/BoundaryChange-Could-Cut-Monomoy-Refuge-Area-By-Half.htm. 6Leggett, Doreen. ‘‘Attorney general may sue over Monomoy Refuge.’’ Wicked Local Cape Cod. 

October 06, 2016. http://capecod.wickedlocal.com/news/20161009/attorney-general-may-sueover-monomoy-refuge. 

is situated near historic fishing grounds and popular tourist destinations.2

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

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

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. 

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 

3 

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. 

4 

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. 

5 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing law. 

(6) 

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. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Ranking Member. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. JARED HUFFMAN. 

Æ