79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–648

CLARIFICATION OF BOUNDARIES OF COASTAL BARRIER

RESOURCES SYSTEM UNIT NC01

JUNE 6, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 4435]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 4435) to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating to

Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, 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. 4435 is to clarify certain boundaries on the

map relating to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Coastal barriers are landscape features that protect sensitive

areas from the full force of wind, wave and tidal energy. The Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of undeveloped coastal barrier

units delineated on maps adopted by Congress. The System was

created by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, Public Law 97–348) and greatly expanded by the CBRA amendments

adopted in the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (Public

Law 101–591). The 1990 amendments added, among other areas,

‘‘otherwise protected areas’’ to the System. These are areas which

are already protected under federal, State or local law, or held for

conservation purposes. Land included in the System is not acquired

by the government, and CBRA does not prevent or regulate development on private lands. CBRA does prohibit the use of federal development assistance, including federal flood insurance, on propVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:53 Jun 07, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR648.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR648
2

erty included in the System. Since 1990, Congress has enacted legislation on several occasions to amend the boundaries of System

units. See Public Law 106–128; Public Law 106–116; Public Law

105–277 (Section 101(e)); Public Law 104–333 (Section 220); Public

Law 104–265 (Section 201); Public Law 104–148; Public Law 103–

461; Public Law 102–440 (Section 303); and Public Law 101–591

(Section 4).

Coastal barrier unit NC–01P was included in the System as an

‘‘otherwise protected area’’ in 1990. The underlying conservation

area that was supposed to constitute the otherwise protected area

was a wildlife sanctuary owned by the National Audubon Society.

Unfortunately, a significant amount of privately and publicly

owned developed property was inadvertently, and incorrectly, included within the boundary of the otherwise protected area. In

1992, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to redraw the

boundary of the unit to consist of the area ‘‘owned by the National

Audubon Society, along with the associated aquatic habitat of Pine

Island Bay and Goat Island Bay.’’ At the request of the Audubon

Society, the otherwise protected area designation was dropped and

the unit became NC–01. A new map was prepared. That map, however, also failed to accurately portray the boundary of the wildlife

sanctuary, and again included privately owned developed property.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the System, recently

discovered this error, and supports the proposed correction. The

correction embodied in H.R. 4435 removes the incorrectly labeled

private property, and adds associated aquatic habitat that was left

out of the unit in 1992. This change leads to a net increase of 2,326

acres in the System.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4435 was introduced on May 11, 2000, by Congressman

Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R–NC). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On May

11, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing which discussed boundary corrections to NC–01. The Administration testified in support

of the corrections. On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee met to

mark up the bill. There were no amendments and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On

May 24, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the

bill. There were no amendments and the bill was ordered favorably

reported by voice vote to the House of Representatives.

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.

3

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, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. According

to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of this bill would increase offsetting collections from flood insurance premiums by less

than $50,000 per year. These collections would be partially offset

by spending for administrative and underwriting expenses.

3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 3(c)(4)

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on this

bill.

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, June 5, 2000.

Hon. Don Young,

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. 4435, a bill to clarify

boundaries on the map relating to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 4435—A bill to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating

to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4435 would result in no significant cost to the federal government. Because the bill could affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply, but we

expect that net charges in direct spending would be negligible. H.R.

4435 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as

4

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose

no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

H.R. 4435 would correct a map of the Coastal Barrier Resources

System in North Carolina. The proposed correction would revise

the boundaries of Unit NC01 to include 2,330 acres of aquatic habitat and exclude about 4 acres of developed land. This change would

enable local property owners occupying the excluded acreage to obtain federal flood insurance. Once insurance policies have been

written on the affected properties, offsetting collections from premiums paid into the national flood insurance fund would increase

by less than $50,000 per year. Collections would be partially offset

by new mandatory spending for underwriting and administrative

expenses. The federal government might also incur additional costs

for losses associated with any future floods that might affect this

land, but CBO has no basis for predicting such floods or their resulting costs.

The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. 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.

Æ