U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89-515 PS 2004

H.R. 154, H.R. 2501, H.R. 2619, 

H.R. 2623 AND H.R. 3056

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, September 25, 2003

Serial No. 108-60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, September 25, 2003 ................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Bachus, Hon. Spencer, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Alabama, Oral statement on H.R. 2623 ..................................................... 5

Case, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii ..... 10

Prepared statement on H.R. 2619 ........................................................... 12

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 154, H.R. 2501, H.R. 2619, H.R. 2623, 

and H.R. 3056 ....................................................................................... 2

McIntyre, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Carolina .............................................................................................. 8

Prepared statement on H.R. 2501 ........................................................... 9

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 3

Paul, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ..... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 154 ............................................................. 5

Statement of Witnesses: 

King, Becky, Village Manager, Bald Head Island Village Council and 

Community, Bald Head Island, North Carolina ......................................... 25

Prepared statement on H.R. 2501 ........................................................... 27

Oberholster, Chris, Director of Conservation Programs, Alabama Chapter, 

The Nature Conservancy .............................................................................. 29

Prepared statement on H.R. 2623 ........................................................... 31

Riley, Clint, Special Assistant to the Director, Fish & Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 154, H.R. 2501, H.R. 2619, H.R. 2623, 

and H.R. 3056 ....................................................................................... 18

Westmoreland, Hon. Greg B., Matagorda County Judge, Bay City, Texas . 24

Prepared statement on H.R. 154 ............................................................. 24

Additional materials supplied: 

Brown-Waite, Hon. Ginny, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 3056 .................. 16

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 154, A BILL 

TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM 

THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER 

RESOURCES SYSTEM; H.R. 2501, A BILL TO 

CLARIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF COASTAL 

BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM CAPE FEAR 

UNIT NC-07P; H.R. 2619, A BILL TO PROVIDE 

FOR THE EXPANSION OF KILAUEA POINT 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; H.R. 2623, A 

BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPANSION OF 

THE CAHABA RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE IN BIBB COUNTY, ALABAMA; AND 

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. 

Thursday, September 25, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m, in 

Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne 

Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Pallone and Bordallo. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning, everybody. My colleagues, thank 

you for coming this morning to testify on various bills that there 

is apparently a great deal of interest in. 

I am pleased to convene this hearing today on legislation to address the boundaries of certain units contained within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

2

The first three bills, H.R. 154, H.R. 2501 and H.R. 3056, propose to remove some 100 acres of fastland from the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. This system was first created in 1982 and it has 

become one of the Nation’s best coastal environmental laws. While 

this law does not prevent a single landowner from building on a 

coastal barrier, it clearly states that, if your property is located 

within the system, then you are not eligible for Federal flood insurance, Federal highway and sewage funds, or a host of other development incentives. 

Instead of removing property, I would support enlarging the size 

of the system. Nevertheless, I am pleased to hear the testimony of 

our colleagues and their arguments on why these unit maps should 

be changed. 

The final bills we will consider are H.R. 2619 and H.R. 2623. 

These measures expand the boundaries of the Kilauea Point and 

Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuges. 

H.R. 2619, introduced by Congressman Case of Hawaii, would 

double the size of the Kilauea Point unit. This refuge, which was 

acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1984, contains an historic lighthouse and essential habitat for a number of listed species. I look forward to hearing a justification for this expansion, a 

description of the proposed refuge property, and an indication of 

the amount and source of Federal funds to acquire them. 

H.R. 2623, introduced by Congressman Bachus, would greatly 

expand the size of the Cahaba River Unit. The Cahaba River is the 

longest free-flowing river in Alabama and it may have the greatest 

concentration of fish biodiversity per mile for any river in the 

United States. That’s quite an extraordinary thing. 

In recognition of the importance of this ecosystem, Congress legislatively created the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in 

2000. All of us are interested in hearing the justification for increasing the size of this refuge from its statutory level of 3,500 

acres to approximately 30,000 acres—which sounds like a lot. But 

if you look at the refuges in Alaska, which are millions—one is 13 

million acres—this is small in comparison. So we would like to take 

a close look at this, Mr. Bachus, and try to accommodate our colleague. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today. 

In the two part hearing that we have today, we really do want to 

take everybody’s testimony, the way it is expressed and the details 

that they give us, into serious consideration. There is always controversy about more Federal land, and there are always controversies surrounding the coastal barriers of the U.S. and how they 

should be protected. So I want to welcome all the witnesses here 

this morning. We look forward to your testimony. We will take 

each of your individual testimonies into serious consideration. 

At this point I would like to recognize the gentleman from New 

Jersey for his opening remarks. Mr. Pallone. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Good morning. I am pleased to convene this hearing today on legislation to address the boundaries of certain units contained within the Coastal Barrier Resources System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

3

The first three bills, H.R. 154, H.R. 2501 and H.R. 3056, propose to remove some 

100 acres of fastland from the Coastal Barrier Resources System. This system was 

first created in 1982 and it has become one of this nation’s best coastal environmental laws. While this law does not prevent a single landowner from building on 

a coastal barrier, it clearly states that if your property is located within the System, 

then you are not eligible for federal flood insurance, federal highway and sewage 

funds or a host of other development incentives. 

Instead of removing property, I would support enlarging the size of the System. 

Nevertheless, I am pleased to hear the testimony of our Colleagues and their arguments on why these unit maps should be changed. The final bills we will consider 

are H.R. 2619 and H.R. 2623. These measures expand the boundaries of the 

Kilauea Point and Cabaha River National Wildlife Refuges. 

H.R. 2619, introduced by Congressman Case of Hawaii, would double the size of 

the Kilauea Point Unit. This refuge, which was acquired by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1984, contains an historic lighthouse and essential habitat for a number 

of listed species. I look forward to hearing a justification for this expansion, a description of the proposed Refuge property, and an indication of the amount and 

source of federal funds to acquire them. 

H.R. 2623, introduced by Congressman Bachus, would greatly expand the size of 

the Cahaba River Unit. The Cahaba River is the longest free-flowing river in Alabama and it may have the greatest concentration of fish biodiversity per mile for 

any river in the United States. In recognition of the importance of this ecosystem, 

Congress legislatively created the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in 2000. 

I am interested in hearing the justification for increasing the size of this Refuge 

from its statutory level of 3,500 acres to approximately 30,000 acres and the cost 

of such acquisition. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I am now pleased 

to recognize our Ranking Democratic Member, Congressman Frank Pallone. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

on legislation affecting two of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

most important programs—the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and the Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

I want to first welcome our friends who are assembled here to 

testify this morning. We are honored to have you join us and I look 

forward to hearing your presentations. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, any bill that comes before this Subcommittee that seeks to alter the boundaries of any unit or otherwise protected area in the coastal barrier resource system is potentially controversial and deserving of our patient and careful scrutiny. To date, our deference to caution in this Subcommittee has 

ensured that all approved boundary correction legislation represents legitimate technical corrections rather than undeserved 

windfalls for well-connected developers seeking Federal flood insurance or other Federal development subsidies. 

In this respect, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your tireless 

efforts to protect the coastal barrier resource system from the 

‘‘death of a thousand cuts’’ effectively. 

It would appear, from my own review of the three CBRA bills before this Subcommittee today, that both H.R. 154 and H.R. 2501 

appear to be legitimate corrections. In fact, in regards to 

H.R. 2501, I cannot recall another comparable bill that has undergone such an extensive review, both in the field and here in Congress, and our colleague from North Carolina, Congressman McIntyre, should be recognized for his perseverance on behalf of his constituents. 

4

I am sad to say that I must withhold my support for H.R. 3056. 

The information provided to date by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

is incomplete and their proposed boundary corrections push an entirely new strategy to revise CBRA maps. I urge the Subcommittee 

to closely review the circumstances underlying this bill before it is 

put to a vote. 

The other two bills before the Subcommittee, H.R. 2619 and 

H.R. 2623, would expand existing National Wildlife Refuges in 

Alabama and Hawaii. I commend the bills’ sponsors for their interest in enhancing the land and water resources at both refuges. 

I support the legislation introduced by our friend and colleague 

from Hawaii, Congressman Ed Case. I would, however, like to better understand why we should support H.R. 2623, which would increase by ten times the Cahaba National Wildlife Refuge when we 

only created this refuge less than 3 years ago. In this respect, I 

await any information in this regard to be offered by the bill’s 

sponsor, Congressman Bachus, and other witnesses. 

Of course, considering the policy of this administration to cut 

funding and oppose additional land acquisition for refuges, parks, 

forests and other public lands, both bills still face an uncertain future outside of this Subcommittee. But I want to thank everyone 

for being here, and the sponsors. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

We welcome Congressman Paul, Congressman Bachus, Congressman McIntyre, and Congressman Case. Thanks for coming this 

morning. We will start with Congressman Ron Paul. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I come with a modest request, not thousands of acres but 16 

acres. It is a correction that we would like to see made. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to gain testimony relative to legislation to correct certain errors made in the 

mapping process relative to the Coastal Barriers Resource Act, or 

CBRA. I also want to thank the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for their efforts in helping to correct this error, and the 

local government officials and property owners who brought this 

problem to my attention. 

Simply, as you will hear today from Fish and Wildlife, more than 

some 16 acres of property has been placed in a CBRA-designated 

area in Matagorda County, TX. My mistake. This has prohibited 

more than a dozen landowners from participating in State and Federal programs in which all other landowners similarly situated may 

participate. My bill would fix this error. I mentioned the local governments and property owners, and in your next panel you will 

hear from the top elected official from Matagorda County. 

Before closing, I again want to thank the Chairman and Committee Members for holding this hearing, and ask that this legislation receive expeditious consideration so that these errors might be 

corrected prior to the next significant storm event occurring in 

Matagorda County. These past couple of years have seen particularly devastating storms hit this area. Fortunately, even more 

5

destruction has not already occurred, but now we are pressed by 

time. 

Unfortunately, I have to leave shortly after this presentation to 

prepare for an International Relations Committee and a Banking 

hearing, but I ask that you listen closely to the testimony of the 

Fish and Wildlife staff member, as well as my constituent, Judge 

Greg Westmoreland, who is County Judge in Matagorda County, 

which contains this area affected by this error. Judge Westmoreland and his staff have already been very helpful to us in resolving 

the issues surrounding the correction of this error. 

Again, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paul follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas 

Mr. Chairman: 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to gain testimony relative to 

legislation to correct certain errors made in the mapping process relative to the 

Coastal Barriers Resources Act or CoBRA. I also want to thank the staff of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, for their efforts in helping to correct this error, and the 

local government officials and property owners who brought this problem to my attention. 

Simply, as you’ll hear today from Fish and Wildlife, more than some 16 acres of 

property has been placed in a CoBRA-designated area in Matagorda County, Texas, 

by mistake. This has prohibited more than a dozen landowners from participating 

in state and federal programs in which all other landowners similarly situated may 

participate. My bill would fix this error. I mentioned the local governments and 

property owners and, in a moment, I will introduce the top elected official from 

Matagorda County. Before doing that I again want to thank the Chairman and 

Committee Members for holding this hearing and ask that this legislation receive 

expeditious consideration so that these errors might be corrected prior to the next 

significant storm event occurring in Matagorda County. These past couple years 

have seen particularly devastating storms hit this area. Fortunately, even more destruction has not already occurred in that area, but we are pressed by time. 

Now I’m pleased to introduce your next witness, my constituent, Judge Greg 

Westmoreland, who is County Judge in Matagorda County, which contains the area 

affected by this error. Judge Westmoreland and his staff have been very helpful in 

resolving the issues surrounding the correction of this error, Judge Westmoreland. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Paul. 

Mr. Bachus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER BACHUS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. BACHUS. I thank you, Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking 

Member Pallone. 

Taking you back hundreds of thousands of years in the United 

States, as you all know, we had an Ice Age. That ice occupied a 

great percentage of the country. However, it stopped just north of 

the Cahaba River in Alabama. Because of that, what is called the 

Mobile Basin, which is a river system made up of seven different 

rivers in Alabama, contained more species than any other basin in 

the United States. Literally hundreds of species were found nowhere else because they were basically destroyed during the Ice 

Age. 

Of the species which weren’t destroyed thousands of years ago, 

many of them have been destroyed in the last 100 years. You will 

see testimony that we have submitted in this regard, and the 

6

Nature Conservancy will also give testimony about this. There 

have been more extinctions—In fact, I will just read you this: 

About 50 percent of all documented U.S. species’ extinctions since 

European settlements have occurred in this century in the Mobile 

River Basin in Alabama. So half of the extinctions in the United 

States have occurred this century in this one river basin. 

Now, of all the rivers in this basin—and that was testimony by 

the Nature Conservancy—of all the species in these rivers, all the 

rivers except the Cahaba River were dammed for hydroelectric 

dams. All the other rivers have been dredged for barge traffic. The 

only river that has never been dredged and has never been 

dammed is the Cahaba River. It is one of the smallest rivers in 

Alabama, and yet it contains over 100 endangered species. 

The great percentage of these species occurs in about a 22 mile 

stretch of the river. This stretch of the river, because it is a very 

rural part of Alabama, a very remote part and hard to get to, those 

species have basically been protected in that part of the river. 

It is also habitat for several bird species which actually have 

large populations in Central and South America but are seen in the 

United States. They only land in two locations—one down near the 

Mobile River Bay, and then in this refuge area within this proposed 30,000 acres as they travel north. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Spence, what kind of birds are those? 

Mr. BACHUS. Warblers, waterthrush—I have a list of them and 

I can give them to you. It has been identified that this is their 

flyaway. 

We’re also talking about a river—it has been established and 

we’ve given testimony on this—that has 131 fish species in this one 

river. That is more species than in the whole State of California, 

which is the most biodiverse State in the Union. Alabama ranks 

right up with Hawaii, California and Texas as the most biodiverse, 

for different reasons. 

What is being done in a 50-mile stretch above this refuge is literally over $100 million worth of projects are underway to protect 

that part of the river. Now, that part of the river doesn’t contain 

the species. Most of them are contained within this 25-mile area. 

But they are actually doing this work above that—and you’re talking about Jefferson County, you’re talking about private groups, 

the city of Hoover spending $7 million, one city to establish greenways along this river, because it has been recognized as a treasure 

trove of endangered and threatened species. So you’re talking about 

over $100 million in State and local efforts above that. 

In this 22 mile stretch there are landowners all willing to sell. 

Most of these are corporations out of Alabama, and they have actually said that they will sell their land for a fair amount. We established the first 3,500 acres of the wildlife refuge, in actually an 

area that we felt was a good starting point. We have already acquired 90 percent of that land within 3 years. 

There are national groups and environmentalists. We have the 

Cahaba River Society in Alabama and it has its own license plates 

in the State of Alabama. It’s one of the most popular licenses in 

the State of Alabama, because this is the only place that these different fish, crayfish, mussels, abound. 

7

Since the focus on this area, they have actually found seven 

plants that do not exist anywhere else. The reason for a lot of this 

biodiversity is what’s called dolomite outcroppings, which are very 

rich in minerals. Where the river flows over them, a lot of different 

species congregate there because of the mineral content. It is also 

a flat river and it’s wide and shallow. 

It is a beautiful river, containing some of what’s called the 

Cahaba lily, which is a beautiful plant. It is found nowhere else except on one isolated stretch of one other river. Below there, an 80 

mile stretch below there, the property owners have all agreed to 

come together with the counties there. They’re spending approximately $20 million worth of local and State money to preserve that 

stretch. The one stretch that actually needs Federal protection and 

needs to be established is this stretch. 

Now, if this was so biodiverse, why did we just start doing anything in the last four or 5 years? We literally have land and refuges 

in Alabama today that are three and four times this size that don’t 

protect anywhere near this type diversity. It was simply a political 

thing. You had members that were active and concerned about 

these issues and they set aside refuges. You know, the interest has 

just not been there in Congress. No one has tried to do anything 

about this. 

Bibb County, a very rural county that this river flows through, 

is the second poorest county in the State. They have all sorts of 

problems in keeping their schools open. They have all sorts of problems with their roads. It is really an impoverished area. Despite 

that, they recently pledged $80,000 and put it in an escrow account 

to help manage this wildlife refuge and protect it. That is an incredible amount of money for a county that has leaky roofs in their 

schools. There is quite a bit of testimony that you all have seen. 

But this will still be a small refuge, even when it’s expanded. It 

will be right along the river and it will protect that stretch of the 

river, which is very sensitive to—We’ve had cases of people coming 

in and taking four-wheelers and driving along the river, just basically tearing up miles of the river. 

We will either act on this in the next few years or we’ll lose it. 

It is part of a comprehensive effort. I can tell you that when you 

have people spending $100 million north of there to protect just the 

water that flows into this area, then the amount of money that 

we’re spending in this area, which is about a fifth of that, to protect the actual species is of primary importance. That is the Federal role we’re asking for. So the investment would be highly leveraged. I can give you all these documents——

Mr. GILCHREST. We’ll take a very close look at that, Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We really appreciate your testimony and your 

discussion about biodiversity is not often heard in such eloquent 

passion. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I would quickly mention that there is an interesting book about 10 years old now titled ‘‘Water.’’ It’s about the 

history of water in the United States. It’s the history of the hydrologic cycle of water basically over the last 500 years, something 

similar to what you mentioned about the last Ice Age and how we 

8

have lost a lot of biodiversity in the last 100 years. The author is 

Alice Outwater. There are some fascinating insights in that book. 

But thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. McIntyre. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE McINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Pallone and other members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to come before you 

on H.R. 2501, which is a bill to clarify the boundaries of Cape Fear 

Unit NC07P, an ‘‘otherwise protected area’’ designed by the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 

As you recalled, and as you were kind enough to mention earlier, 

I testified before this Committee in April of last year, so I will keep 

my remarks fairly brief in order to allow other witnesses time to 

testify. In another panel this morning, Becky King, who is the 

Town Manager of the village of Bald Head Island, will also be 

speaking to you about some of the particulars. 

In general, though, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act was an effort to address problems caused by coastal barrier development. 

CBRA, of course, restricts those Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance, including Federal flood insurance for development on 

these coastal barrier islands. In addition, with the adding of the 

otherwise protected areas to the system, OPAs are undeveloped 

coastal barriers within the boundaries of the lands reserved for 

conservation purposes, which I’m sure the Committee is familiar 

with. 

Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service has advised me that the maps 

of the area known as NC07P are inaccurate. That is the essence 

of our concern today. These errors in the maps deny flood insurance to certain property owners on Bald Head Island, NC. The errors result from problems inherent in translating lines drawn on 

large scale maps used for designations into precise, on-the-ground 

property lines. 

However, this problem is now fixable with improved technology 

available to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The mistakes, admitted 

by Fish and Wildlife, that led to the Bald Head Island properties 

being placed within the outer boundary of NC07P were clearly not 

intended by Congress when the maps were created. This bill would 

amend the boundaries of NC07P, the otherwise protected area established during the 1990 amendments, that was intended to include these multiple contiguous pieces of property owned by the 

Bald Head Island Land Conservancy, the State of North Carolina, 

the U.S. Army, and held for conservation purposes. 

Analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the existing NC07P does not follow the actual protected area boundaries 

and erroneously includes private property that is not an inholding. 

This bill would simply replace those two maps that are incorrectly drawn with new maps that do accurately depict the digitized 

OPA boundaries. The affected parties are all in agreement, that the 

new maps portray accurate boundaries. So when this is done, 

which can only be done by an act of Congress, this correction could 

9

be made. As you know, the statute doesn’t provide for administrative correction of such an error. 

In the past, Congress has enacted legislation in several instances 

where the stated purpose was to remove private property from the 

mapped outer boundary of an otherwise protected area. Also, the 

technical changes called for in this legislation have another benefit—vastly increasing the overall acreage in the map. 

Now, as the hurricane season, as we well know in North Carolina, and unfortunately as many of our neighbors in other States 

know, is now in full swing. There are landowners on Bald Head Island who, by no fault of their own, will continue to be left unprotected if a storm strikes the Cape Fear region, as did six hurricanes during my first 4 years in office. Therefore, this matter requires immediate attention. I would greatly appreciate your prompt 

consideration of this. 

The good news is that, as we look at the additional land, in addition to correcting the maps that are available to be protected, we 

have an opportunity that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the State of North Carolina have identified as additional acreage 

that could be eligible to be added to NC07P, with a total net increase of 5,862 acres. Of this, 2,362 are fastland or land above 

mean high water and another 3,500 acres are wetlands and open 

water. 

So there is a double benefit here. The main issue, of course, is 

to allow these property owners to be able to get Federal flood insurance and simply correct the maps, and second, there is the added 

benefit of additional acreage that could be made available. 

We see this as a ‘‘win win’’ situation, a win for conservancy, a 

win for the environment and the government, and also, of course, 

a win for those who would just simply like to be able to protect 

their property. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mike McIntyre, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of North Carolina 

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 2501, a bill to clarify the boundaries of 

Cape Fear Unit NC07P an ‘‘otherwise protected area’’ (OPA) designated by the 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 

As you recall, I testified before this Committee on April 11, 2002, on this same 

matter, so I will keep my remarks brief in order to allow the other witnesses ample 

time to testify. However, as the sponsor of this legislation, I would like to speak to 

you in support of the bill. 

Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in an effort to address problems caused by coastal barrier development. As you know, CBRA restricts 

Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance, for 

development on coastal barriers in the CBRAs. In addition, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 added ‘‘otherwise protected areas’’ to the System. OPAs are 

undeveloped coastal barriers within the boundaries of lands reserved for conservation purposes, such as wildlife refuges and parks. While they were not made part 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, the Congress forbade the issuance of new 

flood insurance or any Federal development-related assistance in OPAs. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has now advised me that the maps of the area, 

known as NC07P, are inaccurate. The errors in the maps deny flood insurance to 

certain property owners on Bald Head Island, North Carolina. The errors result 

from the problems inherent in translating lines drawn on the large-scale maps used 

for designations into precise, on-the-ground property lines. However, this problem 

is now fixable due to improved technology available to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

10

The mistakes that led to the Bald Head Island properties being placed within the 

outer boundary of NC07P was clearly not intended by Congress when maps were 

created. 

While correcting the lines around Bald Head Island, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

working with the State of North Carolina and the local communities contained within NC07P, identified 2,471 acres that are eligible for addition to NC07P. Therefore, 

when the 109 acres are removed from the 2,471 that would be added, the net gain 

to NC07P is 2,362 acres. 

As you know, only an act of Congress may revise CBRA boundaries. The statute 

does not provide authority for an administrative correction of such an error. In the 

past, Congress has enacted legislation in several instances where the stated purpose 

was to remove private property from the mapped outer boundary of an otherwise 

protected area. Furthermore, the technical changes called for in my legislation have 

the added benefit of vastly increasing the overall acreage in the map. As hurricane 

season approaches, there are landowners on Bald Head Island who, by no fault of 

their own, will be left unprotected if a storm hits the lower Cape Fear region. Therefore, this matter requires immediate attention, and I appreciate your prompt consideration of this important bill. 

Once again, thank you for allowing me to testify on my legislation, and I urge 

the Subcommittee to report this bill to the full Committee as soon as possible. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. 

Mr. Case. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Mr. CASE. Chair Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, members of 

the Subcommittee, good morning and ‘‘aloha’’ to you. Thank you 

very much for considering H.R. 2619, my bill, which is cosponsored 

by a Subcommittee member and my colleague from Hawaii, Mr. 

Abercrombie, to authorize an expansion of the Kilauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Kauai. 

Let me put this bill in context, Mr. Chairman, because I think 

it’s important to understand the context for this bill, the big picture 

of this bill, and to describe to you why it is so vital in the big picture of what is happening in Hawaii today. 

When we talk about biodiversity, Hawaii is the most biodiverse 

place in this country and possibly on this planet. It has an incredible array and diversity of resources that all arise from its history. 

Imagine its history, where you have an isolated island chain in the 

middle of the biggest ocean in our world, that is essentially cutoff 

from any contact with humanity for hundreds of thousands, millions of years, developing its own, unique resources, indigenous resources, primarily in the area of plant and animal species, bird species. It is the biodiversity capital of our world. 

That biodiversity and the unique natural resources of Hawaii 

that go with it, whether they be wild and scenic places or marine 

resources, are under attack. They are under threat of their very 

survival across my entire State. I represent the 2nd District, which 

has virtually all of these resources. The 1st District is Honolulu 

and the 2nd District is everything else. 

The wildlife, the wild and scenic places, the coastal and marine 

resources are under attack. Really, that attack is coming from two 

directions. The first is simply exposure to the rest of the world, biological exposure to the rest of the world, on exotic species and 

invasive species. Much of our time in Hawaii is spent in protecting 

11

what is indigenous to Hawaii from what is coming from outside of 

Hawaii. 

A far more insidious threat comes from development, from us, 

from us humans, and the development is particularly severe in any 

of the coastal places throughout our entire State. So this bill is one 

of several efforts that I have undertaken, and my predecessor, Mrs. 

Mink, have undertaken in the 2nd District, to try to bring the Federal Government’s resources to bear on protecting these resources. 

This is an effort in which my community is entirely supportive, 

so on all islands we have some initiatives that go to the heart of 

this matter, protecting what is under threat from extinction. 

The Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1985. 

It was created out of the old Kilauea Point Lighthouse, which was 

owned by the U.S. Coast Guard. It started off as 31 acres, it expanded up to a little over 203 acres. It is particularly renowned not 

only for the scenic value, but for its native seabird habitat. We 

have all kinds of species. Some of them are up here on the board. 

We have the Hawaiian coot up there on the upper right, the Alae 

’ke’oke’o; we have the Hawaiian goose, which is the ne ne; we have 

the Hawaiian duck, which is the Koloa right there; and down at 

the bottom, the Hawaiian moorhen, Alae ’ula. These all have Hawaiian names because these were known to the Hawaiians as indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands. They are all under threat. They 

all live at this refuge. 

In addition, what you can see here is really a unique vista. The 

pictures give you some context for where this is located in Hawaii 

and how it fits into our local lifestyle. This refuge is one of the 

most heavily traveled refuges among all of the refuges. It has 

300,000 visitors coming through it every year for not only its scenic 

value, but also its value as a species habitat protection area. 

It also has a really unique public/private partnership. It is adopted, protected, enhanced and supported by the community through 

the Kilauea Point Natural History Association and otherwise. 

The bill was introduced because we have a unique opportunity 

here. We have three landowners that own the adjacent landholdings of a little over 200 acres, 219 acres. These landowners are 

shown here. In the upper left is the existing refuge, and then we 

can see the parcels that we’re talking about here. 

These parcels include a couple of extremely valuable areas from 

the perspective of the refuge. First of all, the beach itself, the control of the coastline. Second, the Kilauea River, which comes into 

the ocean right there, and the estuary of the Kilauea River which 

creates an incredibly diverse habitat, which I think is really the 

most valuable part of this parcel from the perspective of a National 

Wildlife Refuge. And third, the river itself going up to Kilauea 

Falls, which is in the upperlands there. So you’re really talking 

about controlling an entire river system down to the ocean, plus 

the ocean itself, protecting the ocean. 

One of the questions is, are these three owners willing sellers. 

The answer is absolutely yes. We have been in contact with all 

three of them. One of them is willing to donate the beach parcel 

to the U.S. Government, to donate it. I think that’s an incredibly 

valuable opportunity for the U.S. Government. The others are 

12

willing to exchange their lands for other Federal income-producing 

lands, to the degree that is available. 

One question that has been asked is what is the value of these 

lands. I can tell you that the tax-assessed value for real property 

tax purposes is a little over $5 million right now. We are talking 

about coastal lands that are under threat from development because they are valuable, because they are coveted. I am confident 

that we can find the resources or the land to exchange to add to 

this refuge. 

The community is solidly behind this. I have appended to my testimony supportive testimony from the mayor of Kauai, from the 

State legislators on Kauai, and I anticipate a resolution when the 

city council wakes up and votes today, passed unanimously on the 

Island of Kauai, and in the last couple of days I have received over 

100 letters of support from the Kilauea community. 

A couple of questions just to answer, because I know there are 

questions from the Committee and perhaps others. The administration has testified that, although they understand the need for this, 

they are not necessarily supportive of acquisition of all of these 

lands. 

I would point out two or three things along those lines. This is 

authorization. What we don’t want to do is have an opportunity to 

acquire without the authorization. These things happen very fast 

in today’s market on Kauai. If you have an opportunity, you want 

to go out and get it right then, whether it’s donation of private contributions or exchange. You want it to be preauthorized. 

Second, the administration says it might not need all of it. I 

would suggest that what we want to do is to over-authorize and 

then decide exactly what we want to acquire. I don’t think it’s overauthorization, by the way. I think all of this is going to be a valuable addition, and 50 years from now we’re not going to regret the 

authorization and acquisition of all of these properties. But the bill 

does provide that what can actually be acquired is some or all, so 

we can take this in segments as we go. 

One question was asked about some ancient Hawaiian taro fields 

that are located in this estuary system. These taro fields are not 

in use right now, so there is no current use of these lands for agriculture. We’re not displacing anybody that is agriculture. 

Finally, the question asked is what will happen if this property 

is not acquired by the Federal Government. This property will be 

developed and it will be lost. This property is in the path of development. The owners are willing to convey to the Federal Government, either by donation or exchange or market value, but they 

can’t wait forever. They eventually will either develop or sell, and 

the next owner will go ahead and develop. 

So, from my perspective, this is imminent. This is something we 

should proceed with right now, and I would ask for the Subcommittee’s support on this. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Case follows:]

Statement of the Honorable Ed Case, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Hawaii 

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

13

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of my bill to authorize 

expansion of the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Kauai. 

This bill is a vital component of one of my principal goals in Congress: to ensure 

that federal and/or state or private protection is extended to as many of Hawaii’s 

threatened and irreplaceable areas as possible, both to ensure the survival and recovery of Hawaii’s unique endangered and threatened species and to preserve the 

remaining unspoiled natural treasures of our beautiful islands for future generations. 

The Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge, located at the northernmost tip of Kauai, 

was established in 1985. The initial acreage of 31 acres was increased to 203 acres 

through additional acquisitions in 1993 and 1994. The refuge provides invaluable 

habitat for many native seabirds, including the Laysan Albatross, the Red-footed 

Booby, and the Wedge-tailed Shearwater, as well as for the endangered nene (Hawaiian Goose). Endangered native plants have also been reintroduced to the area. 

The Refuge and its historic lighthouse have become one of Hawaii’s world-class tourist destinations, visited by some 300,000 visitors each year. It is one of the most 

heavily visited refuges in the United States. 

The proposed expansion area comprises three parcels of some 219 acres adjoining 

the eastern boundary of the Refuge and currently available for purchase from willing sellers. The Kilauea River runs through the land, which also includes an extensive lo’i (irrigated terrace for traditional cultivation of taro, the staple crop of Native 

Hawaiians) which could be restored to support endangered Hawaiian water birds, 

including the Hawaiian duck (Koloa), Hawaiian coot (‘‘Alae ‘‘ke’oke’o), Hawaiian stilt 

(Ae’o) and Hawaiian moorhen (‘‘Alae ‘‘ula). There is also a high quality estuarine 

ecosystem at the lower reaches of the river, which includes habitat for endangered 

birds as well as native stream life, such as the hihiwai (an endemic snail), o’opu 

(native goby), the native sleeper fish, flagtail, mullet, prawn, shrimp, invertebrates 

and juveniles of several important recreational and commercial marine fish species. 

The proposed addition also provides an excellent habitat for the nene, Hawaii’s state 

bird, which was only recently saved from extinction. The beach is also sometimes 

used by endangered Hawaiian monk seals, and endangered sea turtles nest in the 

area. 

The upper end of the proposed expansion area contains one of the largest waterfalls (Kilauea Falls) in the state of Hawaii. 

One of the owners has indicated an interest in donating a portion of valuable 

beachfront property (5.25 acres) to the Fish & Wildlife Service. And the owners of 

the two largest parcels have expressed interest in swapping their lands for incomeproducing real estate that may be in the registry of federal surplus lands. 

The three parcels of land are available for sale, and the owners have expressed 

a desire to see the land protected from development. But given rampant urbanization on Kauai (and elsewhere in Hawaii) and the high demand for waterfront property, we could very well lose this remarkable opportunity to add high quality wildlife habitat to our national refuge system. 

The Kilauea community strongly supports protecting the land from development. 

In fact, the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge is a model for management of 

other federal refuges nationwide. The operations of the Refuge are supported by 

community volunteers, who give daily tours of the Refuge and help in the preservation and propagation of native plant species. The principal volunteer group, Kilauea 

Point Natural History Association, even has a small store in the Visitor Center, the 

proceeds of which support environmental education programs throughout Kauai. 

I append to my testimony, and would like to include in the record of this hearing, 

letters of support for H.R. 2619 from Kauai’s Mayor Bryan Baptiste, State Senator 

Gary L. Hooser, State Representatives Hermina M. Morita and Ezra Kanoho, as 

well as from the Kilauea Neighborhood Association, the Kauai Public Land Trust, 

and the Kilauea Point Natural History Association. I also attach a copy of a resolution in support of H.R. 2619, which has been co-sponsored by each of the members 

of the Kauai County Council. The resolution will be passed unanimously by the 

Council today, September 25th. 

I respectfully ask the Members of this Subcommittee to support H.R. 2619 and 

invite you to come to the Island of Kauai to visit the Refuge. I know that if you 

did so, you would be as convinced as I am of the importance of protecting these 

lands. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Case. 

I want to thank the members for their patience, persistence, 

their ability to represent their constituencies, either to expand the 

14

refuge or to try to help those who are seeking to get Federal flood 

insurance. We look forward to working with you on these issues in 

the coming weeks. 

I don’t have any questions for each of the members. Mr. Pallone? 

Mr. PALLONE. I was going to ask Congressman Case a couple of 

questions, although I think maybe you have answered all of them. 

But let me just go over them quickly. 

About the estimated cost to expand the refuge as proposed, you 

said the tax-assessed value was over $5 million, but I guess some 

of it would simply be exchanged for other land. What would your 

cost estimate be? In other words, how much money would we have 

to provide? 

Mr. CASE. First of all, if the assumption is, as I think it’s fair 

to assume, that we can, in fact, achieve some kind of an exchange, 

the out-of-pocket value would be zero because five acres would be 

donated and the remaining acres, the owners are perfectly willing 

to do it by exchange. 

Mr. PALLONE. So actually all of the property could theoretically 

be done by exchange then? 

Mr. CASE. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Then you talked about willing sellers, because 

that’s always important in terms of any expansion of the refuges. 

I think you basically confirmed that all the private owners are willing sellers; you said that? 

Mr. CASE. That’s right. The private owners have properties that 

are valuable properties. The private owners have a sense of commitment to the preservation of those properties, but not all of the 

private owners have the ability to simply donate it to the Federal 

Government, so they would expect some form of compensation. But 

they are willing, in the sense that they are willing to proceed. They 

want the Federal Government to acquire these properties. 

Mr. PALLONE. Then the last question, I know you said the mayors and the State legislators on the island are supportive. What 

about the State itself? Are they fully supportive of the legislation? 

Mr. CASE. We have not actually confirmed the official State support. We will proceed to do that immediately after this hearing. 

But I would tell you that I would be extremely surprised if the 

Governor and the Director of Land and Natural Resources are not 

fully supportive of the expansion of this jewel, as they have been 

in other areas of Hawaii. 

Mr. PALLONE. Has the Bush administration told you which parcels they want to acquire and which ones they might not, and have 

they given you any indication of why they might not want to acquire certain ones? 

Mr. CASE. The testimony, I believe, will be that they are not sure 

they need all of this 219 acres that is available. They have some 

concerns about the resources to acquire and operate. But they have 

said they are very interested in some of it. 

I think they will confirm for you that what they are interested 

in is really the coastline and immediate estuary of the Kilauea 

River, which as I testified earlier they believe, and I agree, has the 

most value, relative value, for wildlife habitat. That’s just simply 

where the birds are, so that’s what they want to protect. 

15

This is also crucial, because I think we all know that when we’re 

talking about endangered species in a hostile environment, you 

need critical mass with your habitat in order to provide that protection. If you have too little, you’re going to be lost. You can’t just 

have 30 acres and expect the species to survive. You need critical 

mass. This provides that critical mass. 

Mr. PALLONE. Because the rest of that is basically upstream from 

there, in other words? 

Mr. CASE. The rest of it is upstream. I don’t want to give you the 

impression that the rest of it is not valuable for wildlife habitat 

protection. There are endemic, indigenous snails, indigenous 

shrimp, in that river. And just in terms of protecting the overall 

aura of this treasure, which is not just a matter of endangered species and endangered habitat, but endangered scenery. 

This is an incredible place for people who have been there. It is 

incredibly scenic. It’s the way Hawaii was and the way people want 

to enjoy it. 

The waterfall that is at the top of that river is really an amazing 

waterfall. It’s straight out of the movies, if you’ve ever seen some 

of the great movies we have shot on Kauai, like—you know, if I 

said it, you would recognize them. It’s that kind of waterfall. So 

that’s a valuable addition. 

Again, the community is entirely supportive and is willing to find 

the wherewithal to make sure that this addition is absorbed in a 

way that is manageable. 

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate your explanation. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

So was that Elvis Presley in ‘‘Blue Hawaii’’? Was that shot in 

that section of——

Mr. CASE. ‘‘Blue Hawaii’’ was shot down the street from here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CASE. If you’ve seen ‘‘South Pacific,’’ it may give you some 

sense of how this looks. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Elvis Presley immediately came to mind when 

you talked about the beauty of Hawaii. 

Mr. CASE. I would be happy to sit here and continue to advertise 

my tourism industry, but you’ve got other stuff to do. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. I would ask unanimous consent, or whatever I need 

to ask, that some supporting letters be put into the record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

[NOTE: Letters of support for H.R. 2619 attached to Mr. Case’s 

statement have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. Frank and I take your testimony seriously, so we 

want to canoe around the areas in question before we act on this 

legislation. 

Mr. BACHUS. Absolutely. I actually have one letter I want to direct your attention to. Mr. Pallone asked about the State. The 

Parks Administrator for many of our parks wrote the State’s endorsement. In the second paragraph he notes that he is a ‘‘Michigan Yankee’’ who has moved to Alabama, and when he walked and 

canoed the river, he closes by saying, ‘‘If any place in the country 

deserves and needs preservation and protection, it is the land proposed for the refuge expansion.’’

16

Now, I’m sure he has not been to Hawaii. I have several times. 

But it looks like you’re in Hawaii. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate 

your testimony and we will act expeditiously on your requests. 

I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Ginny BrownWaite’s testimony be included in the record, along with all of the 

attachments that are in this document. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown-Waite follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, on H.R. 3056

Chairman Gilchrest, Members of the Subcommittee: 

I thank you for taking the time to discuss my bill, H.R. 3056. Passage of this legislation is vital to my constituents in Cedar Key, Florida. 

In 1992, Congress made changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System that 

have effectively protected environmentally sensitive communities. These changes 

have also deterred residents from building or buying lands that are prone to natural 

disasters, such as flooding and erosion. However, these maps were created using the 

technology available at the time: paper maps with longitude and latitude markings 

and hand-drawn boundaries and land masses. Today, we have digital technology 

available to more accurately depict where the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

boundaries lay. Unfortunately, it has been discovered that the original intent of 

Congress is not being followed; this new technology shows that many areas should 

have been excluded and are not. 

Two such cases exist in my district in Cedar Key. Mr. & Mrs. Oliver and Ms. 

Smith bought their homes with the belief that they lived in an excluded area of the 

CBRA system. As you know, if you do not live in an excluded area you do not qualify for federal assistance, the most important being federal flood insurance. The Olivers and Ms. Smith have now had to purchase insurance from private agents, which 

can cost over six times more than a federal policy. The Olivers were also in the process of selling their home and have found that since this new determination, their 

home has depreciated by 50-percent. 

On September 10th I introduced H.R. 3056. This bill clarifies the boundaries of 

Unit P25 and the Otherwise Protected Area P25P of the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, which includes the area in which my constituents live. 

This bill uses digital technology to redraw the boundaries to better reflect the intent 

of Congress in 1992. The total net gain to P25 is approximately 115 acres, with the 

net loss to P25P being approximately 98 acres. By looking at a 1’’=500 feet scale 

plot of the excluded area and then estimating how many properties are bisected by 

the CBRA boundaries on the existing map, compared to the number of properties 

bisected by the CBRA line on the revised map, the Service estimates that 110 properties would be affected by this legislation. 

I support the efforts of my predecessors and the passage of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act. However, digital technology shows us that their intent is not being 

followed. I implore you to favorably pass my bill, H.R. 3056. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Panel II this morning will be Mr. Clint Riley, 

Special Assistant to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Honorable Greg B. Westmoreland, Matagorda County 

Judge, Bay City, TX; Ms. Becky King, Village Manager, Bald Head 

Island, Village Council and Community, Bald Head Island, NC; 

and Mr. Chris Oberholster, Director of Conservation Programs, 

Alabama Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. 

Welcome. Thank you all for coming this morning. We look forward to hearing your testimony. Mr. Riley, you may begin, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CLINT RILEY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE 

DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the 

Administration’s views on H.R. 154, H.R. 2501, H.R. 3056, 

17

making technical corrections to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, as well as H.R. 2619 and H.R. 2623, expanding the Kilauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge and the Cahaba National Wildlife 

Refuge, respectively. 

I am Clint Riley, Special Assistant to the Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, I 

would like to request that my written testimony be made part of 

the record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

Mr. RILEY. Thank you. I will try to move quickly to touch on all 

five of these bills during the time available to me. 

Beginning with the bill relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act, the administration does strongly support the goals of CBRA 

legislation and we do believe that that Act has had tremendous 

positive impacts on the protection of our coastal resources over the 

last 20 years. 

However, the three bills before you today are examples of challenges we face and could be called ‘‘growing pains,’’ as we work 

through the implementation of CBRA. I’m going to begin, if I may, 

with House Bill 3056, as it is the bill that was not presented by 

the sponsoring Congressperson this morning, so I will touch on it 

briefly. 

The bill, introduced by Congresswoman Brown-Waite, addresses 

the Cedar Keys, Florida, Unit P25, where we recently discovered 

a situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service had in the past incorrectly informed owners of three private lots that their properties 

were not part of P25 and, therefore, were eligible for Federal flood 

insurance. These incorrect property determinations were made in 

good faith, using the existing maps, with the frailties they had and 

the technology available at that time. 

H.R. 3056 would adopt a new digital map that we believe accurately depicts the appropriate portion of P25 by following the geographical features it was meant to follow. By doing so, the new 

map does remove approximately 32 acres of developable land from 

P25 and adds approximately 50 acres of wetland and open water 

to the unit. The digital map would appropriately, we believe, exclude the three lots from P25 and reflects what we believe was the 

original intent of Congress. 

The other two bills related to CBRA were briefly discussed previously. To touch on them again, H.R. 154, introduced by Congressman Paul, addresses T07, a CBRA unit in Matagorda Peninsula, TX. This legislation would adopt a new digital map that we 

believe would appropriately exclude approximately 19 acres of privately owned land in the Matagorda Dunes Homesites subdivision, 

based on information that has been presented to us that leads us 

to believe there are credible records showing that a full complement of infrastructure was available in the subdivision before 

Congress adopted T07 in 1982. 

H.R. 2501, introduced by Congressman McIntyre, addresses NC07P, which is an otherwise protected area in Cape Fear, NC. The 

legislation would adopt two new digital maps that provide an accurate and comprehensive revision to NC-07P. As you heard, these 

maps were prepared collaboratively, and you have heard testimony 

about them in the past year. Once again, we do believe the bill 

18

would correctly reflect the original intent of Congress to follow the 

appropriate conservation land boundaries. 

I will now turn to the two bills that deal with the National Wildlife Refuges legislation, H.R. 2619, introduced by Congressman 

Case, and H.R. 2623, introduced by Congressman Bachus. 

At this time I will not pretend to add to the discussions that 

those two gentlemen eloquently provided concerning the biodiversity of those areas and the value, but I do need to say that the administration cannot support either of these bills. Both the administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service are committed to taking 

better care of the resources currently under our jurisdiction, while 

ensuring that new land acquisitions truly meet the strategic needs 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We believe there must be 

a balance between acquiring new lands and meeting the operational, maintenance and restoration requirements for the resources already under public ownership. 

Towards this end, the Service is currently developing a plan to 

guide future growth and land acquisition for the Refuge System, as 

I believe you are familiar with, and I believe you’re also familiar 

with the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, the CCP 

process, which provides an opportunity and a forum for meaningful 

public participation and improved coordination with the States and 

local communities concerning the plans for the refuge, including potential acquisition. 

In the future, we will be developing draft CCPs for both Kilauea 

Point and Cahaba River Refuges and the public would have an opportunity to comment on these draft documents. 

The Service has evaluated these proposed expansions, however, 

and after careful review, we have concluded that the funding needs 

associated with the operational requirements to expand these refuges would compromise our ability to properly manage and address 

the needs of the refuges and potentially others within the Refuge 

System. For this reason, the administration cannot support 

H.R. 2619 or H.R. 2623. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or Congressman Pallone may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]

Statement of Clint Riley, Special Assistant to the Director,

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the Administration’s views on H.R. 154, H.R. 2501, and H.R. 3056, 

which make technical corrections to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System, as well as H.R. 2619 and H.R. 2623, which would expand Kilauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge and Cahaba National Wildlife Refuge, respectively. I am 

Clint Riley, Special Assistant to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service). 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Legislation 

Before discussing the Administration’s support of the three Coastal Barrier Resources System bills being discussed this morning, I will briefly describe the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and the Service’s role in its implementation. 

Coastal barriers perform many functions that strengthen our economy and promote a healthy environment. These unique land forms support productive and lucrative fisheries, provide essential habitat for migratory birds and other protected species, serve as recreational areas for the public, and help sustain the vitality of local 

19

economies. Their beautiful beaches, unique dune and wetland environments, and biological diversity attract millions of visitors every year. 

With all of the positive attributes coastal barriers provide to people and wildlife, 

it is no surprise that development pressures on coastal barriers continue to escalate. 

However, coastal barriers are composed of unstable elements, and are vulnerable to 

storm damage and chronic erosion. Located at the interface of land and sea, coastal 

barriers serve as the mainland’s first line of defense against the strong winds, huge 

waves, and powerful storm surges that accompany hurricanes. Their exposure to 

wind, wave, and tidal energy keeps coastal barriers in a state of flux, losing sand 

in some places and gaining it in others. 

Recognizing the environmental and economic value of coastal barriers and the 

risks associated with their development, Congress adopted and President Reagan 

signed into law the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Through implementation 

of the Act, Congress sought to minimize the potential loss of human life, reduce 

wasteful expenditures of Federal revenues, and protect fish and wildlife and their 

habitats. The Act identified and included in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (System) approximately 590,000 acres of undeveloped coastal barrier 

habitat along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The undeveloped status of System lands 

was an important underpinning of the law. The Act sought to remove Federal subsidies for new construction in hazard-prone and environmentally sensitive areas 

that were not yet developed, but not to penalize existing communities where significant investments had already been made. CBRA in no way regulates how people can 

develop their land. Instead, it removes Federal subsidies for development by limiting Federal spending for flood insurance, roads, potable water and other types of 

infrastructure on coastal barriers within the System. Therefore, individuals who 

choose to build and invest in these hazard-prone areas will incur the full cost of that 

risk, rather than passing the cost on to the American taxpayer. 

In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act which significantly increased the size of the System to approximately 1.3 million acres and included coastal barriers along the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

The expansion of the System by the 1990 Act is largely due to the designation of 

‘‘otherwise protected areas’’ or OPAs. Federal flood insurance is the only Federal 

spending prohibition in OPAs. By withholding Federal flood insurance, OPA designations give additional protection to coastal barriers already held for conservation 

purposes, such as park land and wildlife refuges, and discourage development of privately owned inholdings. 

When OPAs were first included in the System more than a decade ago, they were 

mapped with limited resources and rudimentary mapping tools. As a result, many 

OPAs could not be, and were not, mapped with the highest degree of accuracy and 

we continue to uncover cases where OPA boundaries do not coincide with the actual 

conservation land boundaries they were meant to follow. OPAs sometimes include 

adjacent private lands that are not inholdings, and the owners of these lands cannot 

obtain Federal flood insurance for their homes. We believe that Congress did not 

intend to include such adjacent private lands in the OPA. When these discrepancies 

come to our attention, as is the case with Cape Fear, we work closely with interested land owners, local and state officials, and protected area managers to correctly 

map the boundaries with the high quality mapping tools now available. Although 

the process is time consuming and requires a great deal of research and collaboration to ensure that OPA boundaries are correctly depicted on a digital map, we believe the result is well worth the investment. The replacement of crude paper maps 

with precise digital maps will result in a modernized tool that our customers and 

partners alike can rely upon for making important investment and planning decisions. 

CBRA is a map-driven law that is poised for a modernization process that expands electronic government, increases customer service, and builds upon existing 

tools used by our partners to conserve the nation’s coasts. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 directed us to conduct a Digital Mapping Pilot 

Study that would produce draft digital maps of 75 areas and estimate the cost and 

feasibility of completing digital maps for the entire System. We are pleased to report 

that we are making progress on completing the pilot study and look forward to presenting it to you as soon as it is completed. 

The Administration strongly supports the intent of CBRA and its free-market approach to coastal protection. Despite the challenges presented by the fact that the 

controlling CBRA maps were drawn using the imprecise mapping tools available at 

the time, the Administration believes that the intent of CBRA has largely been 

achieved. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 also directed 

the Service to conduct an economic assessment of the System. This study was 

20

released in 2002, the year of CBRA’s 20th anniversary. The study estimated that 

CBRA will save American taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion from 1983 to 2010. 

As authorized by Congress, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for: (1) 

maintaining the official maps of the System; (2) conducting a review of the maps 

every five years to reflect natural changes; (3) consulting with Federal agencies that 

propose spending funds within the System; (4) working with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to ensure that Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps accurately 

depict the System boundaries; (5) determining the location of private properties in 

relation to System boundaries; and, (6) making recommendations to Congress regarding the addition of areas to the System and in determining whether, at the time 

of its inclusion in the System, a coastal barrier was undeveloped and was appropriately included in the System. The Secretary administers the Act through the 

Service. 

H.R. 154, To exclude certain properties from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System 

H.R. 154, introduced by Representative Paul, addresses the Matagorda Peninsula, 

Texas Unit T07. T07, which includes most of the Matagorda Peninsula, was designated as a full System unit with the passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

in 1982. In addition, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 designated T07P, 

an adjacent OPA that includes mostly wetlands and open water on the sound side 

of the peninsula. H.R. 154 would adopt a new digital map that excludes from T07 

approximately 19 acres of privately owned land in the Matagorda Dunes Homesites 

Subdivision. 

When reviewing requests to modify an existing System unit, the Service examines 

the development status of the unit when it was included in the System by Congress. 

The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 codified the criteria for 

recommending appropriate ‘‘undeveloped’’ coastal barriers for inclusion in the System, and for reviewing a unit’s development status at the time of inclusion to determine whether an area was undeveloped and appropriately included in the System. 

The two criteria are density of development and level of infrastructure present at 

the time of inclusion. The density criterion is such that the density of development 

is less than one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide. The infrastructure criterion is such that there is existing infrastructure consisting of: (1) a 

road, with a reinforced road bed, to each lot or building site in the area; (2) a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot or building site in the area; (3) 

electric service for each lot or building site in the area; and, (4) a fresh water supply 

for each lot or building site in the area. 

The Service was presented with records showing that a full complement of infrastructure—roads, wastewater disposal, electricity, and potable water supply—was 

available in the Matagorda Dunes Homesites Subdivision before Congress adopted 

T07 in 1982. Based on the information provided and research of the Administrative 

Record, the Service believes that the subdivision should not have been included in 

the original T07 Unit because it exceeded the infrastructure criterion used to designate ‘‘undeveloped coastal barriers’’ as part of the System. 

When the Service finds a technical mapping error in one part of a System map, 

we review all adjacent areas to ensure the entire map is accurate. This comprehensive approach to map revisions treats other landowners who may be similarly affected equitably, and it also ensures that Congress and the Administration don’t 

have to revisit the same areas in the future. 

However, we were not able to comprehensively revise the maps in this situation. 

Due to a disagreement between the State of Texas and Matagorda County over land 

ownership, the Service was unable to revise the boundaries of the nearby T07P 

OPA, which is depicted on the same maps as those for T07. The State contends that 

most of the land included in T07P is owned and held for conservation by the State. 

The County contends that the land is privately owned and not held for conservation. 

The dispute over land ownership will likely be resolved through future litigation. 

The Service supports H.R. 154 that would adopt one new digital map of T07 to 

exclude the Matagorda Dunes Homesites subdivision and accurately depict the T07 

boundaries on the southern portion of the map to follow the shoreline. The new map 

does not comprehensively revise the existing T07 and T07P boundaries at this time 

because it is not possible to obtain concurrence from the State and the County on 

property boundaries. Although the Service supports a less than comprehensive 

boundary change in this case, our support is due to the unique circumstances described above. Future efforts to revise the System maps will adhere, to the fullest 

extent practicable, to our traditional comprehensive approach to map revisions that 

seeks concurrence from all interested parties. 

21

H.R. 2501, To clarify the boundaries of Otherwise Protected Area NC–07P, 

Cape Fear, North Carolina 

H.R. 2501, introduced by Representative McIntyre, addresses the Cape Fear, 

North Carolina, OPA NC-07P, which was designated with the passage of the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. H.R. 2501 would adopt two new digital maps of 

NC-07P that exclude from the OPA approximately 49 acres of privately owned land 

outside of the conservation land boundaries. H.R. 2501 would also significantly expand the OPA by adding approximately 5,961 acres of conservation land, water, and 

wetlands that were not included in the OPA in 1990. 

The Service supports H.R. 2501. Last year the Service testified in support of a 

similar bill that would make technical corrections to NC-07P. In the case of private 

lands adjacent to a conservation area that were included in an OPA, we believe the 

controlling question is whether Congress intended to include these private lands 

within the OPA. In this case, all evidence we can find, both from the map itself, 

and from the legislative history of the 1990 law, suggests that Congress intended 

only to include the public lands, not these adjacent private lands, in the OPA. The 

49 acres of private property in question are outside the boundary of the conservation 

area, are not inholdings, and are not held for conservation purposes. The new maps 

provide an accurate and comprehensive digital revision to NC-07P and were prepared through a collaborative process involving the local landowners and officials 

from the Village of Bald Head Island, Bald Head Island Land Conservancy, North 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and Sunny Point Military Installation. 

H.R. 3056, To clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25 and Otherwise Protected Area 

H.R. 3056, introduced by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, addresses the 

Cedar Keys, Florida, Unit P25. P25 was designated as a full System unit with the 

passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982. In addition, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 designated P25P as an OPA. H.R. 3056 would adopt 

a new digital map that revises the excluded area of Cedar Key to remove approximately 32 acres of developable land from P25 and add approximately 50 acres of 

wetland and open water to P25. In addition, the new map revises the P25P OPA 

boundaries to coincide with the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge boundaries 

which the OPA was intended to follow. 

As mentioned above, one of the Service’s roles in administering CBRA is to determine whether certain private properties are affected by CBRA. The Service recently 

discovered a situation on Cedar Key where our field personnel, in the past, incorrectly informed the owners of three private lots on Cedar Key that their property 

was not part of the System, and therefore was eligible for Federal flood insurance. 

These property determinations were made in good faith with the best tools available 

at the time. The tools available were imprecise topographic quadrangle maps that 

are the current law, and aerial photos used to interpret these maps. 

When higher precision mapping tools were recently used to make a property determination in another part of Cedar Key, we discovered the three earlier incorrect 

determinations. The affected landowners will lose their Federal flood insurance because their properties are actually within the System. Based on our review of the 

Administrative Record, we believe that the three lots were inadvertently included 

in P25 due to inaccuracies in the original topographic map. The new map proposed 

by H.R. 3056 provides a digital revision to the P25 excluded area that reflects what 

we believe was the original intent of the unit. The revised map appropriately excludes the three lots from the System, as well as other private properties on Cedar 

Key that never received determinations from the Service. 

When the Service finds a technical mapping error in one part of a System map, 

we review all adjacent areas to ensure the entire map is accurate. Upon reviewing 

the adjacent P25P OPA, which is depicted on the same maps as those for P25, we 

uncovered significant State and Federal conservation lands that are not included in 

the existing OPA boundaries. The process to revise the existing OPA boundaries and 

depict the new boundaries on a map is lengthy as it requires the Service to work 

with landowners and local, State, and Federal officials to accurately define the conservation area boundaries. 

The Service supports H.R. 3056 that would adopt a new digital map of P25/P25P 

that accurately delineates the P25 Cedar Key excluded area and the adjacent P25P 

OPA boundaries. This digital map addresses only part of the existing area that encompasses P25 and P25P. All the boundaries on the digital map are accurate and 

we have letters of concurrence from Levy County and the State of Florida that confirm this. The areas of P25 and P25P not addressed by this digital map continue 

to be depicted in the current map. The Service supports a future comprehensive digital revision to the entire P25 and P25P area that follows adequate research to 

22

examine the extent of the adjacent conservation lands that were not included in 

P25P when the OPA was designated in 1990. We will prepare these maps expeditiously, obtain concurrence from appropriate entities, and present them to Congress 

for consideration when they are completed. 

This situation is a notable departure from our traditional comprehensive approach 

to map revisions. The Service supports a targeted map revision in this case because 

the time required to accurately re-map the significant conservation lands of P25P 

would preclude a timely remedy for the private property owners who received an 

inaccurate determination from the Service and subsequently lost their Federal flood 

insurance eligibility. However, in future cases where we uncover a technical mapping error, we will apply, to the fullest extent practicable, our traditional approach 

of comprehensively re-mapping the entire area. 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, the situations surrounding the three CBRA bills discussed above 

are all indicative of the ‘‘growing pains’’ the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System is experiencing. We have worked with Congress to develop approaches for making recommendations regarding CBRA maps, and to the maximum 

extent, we strive to maintain consistency in our approaches. However, we have also 

learned through experience that we must be flexible enough to deal with unanticipated situations as they arise. Two of the three cases I discussed do not adhere to 

our preferred approach of comprehensive re-mapping. In those two cases, due to 

unique circumstances, we believe that providing timely relief to the affected private 

property owners is essential. In the short-term, we will continue to address technical mapping errors as we uncover them. In the long-term, we are hopeful that our 

progression towards accurate and up-to-date digital maps will help alleviate many 

of the challenges we are currently facing due to the imprecise mapping of the past. 

The Administration supports the three Coastal Barrier Resources System bills I 

discussed today and we will continue to work with Congress to achieve CBRA’s objectives and ensure the System is accurate in its boundary descriptions. Our work 

to correct technical errors is one part of our broader goal to modernize all CBRA 

maps and provide our partners and customers with better information. We believe 

this will help achieve all of three of CBRA’s intentions: saving taxpayers’ money, 

keeping people out of the deadly path of storm surge, and protecting valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Legislation 

H.R. 2623, To provide for the expansion of Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge 

I would like to begin by giving you a brief summary of Service involvement in 

the protection of lands in the Cahaba River area. For several years, The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) has been working to develop partnerships with corporations, 

local communities, and other conservation groups to protect the Cahaba River and 

its unique natural resources. Though the Cahaba River has experienced a dramatic 

decline of freshwater fish and wildlife during the past 50 years, it is still one of the 

nation’s most biologically diverse rivers. It currently supports 64 rare and imperiled 

plant and animal species, and 15 federally listed fish, snail, and mussel species—

13 of which are found nowhere else in the world. There are a total of 131 species 

of fish in this River—more than any other river of its size in North America. 

To protect a critical core area along the Cahaba River, Congress passed the 

Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Establishment Act, which became 

Public Law 106-331 following the President’s signature on October 19, 2000. The Act 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire up to 3,500 acres of lands and waters 

within a designated acquisition boundary. In partnership with TNC, the Service 

began acquiring land for the Cahaba River NWR in September 2002, and we have 

acquired a total of 2,977 acres. 

H.R. 2619, To provide for the expansion of Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

H.R. 2619 authorizes expansion of the Kilauea Point NWR. It is one of three 

National Wildlife Refuges managed as part of the Kaua‘i NWR Complex. This Refuge was established in 1985 when the Coast Guard transferred 31 acres to the Service. Today the Refuge consists of 203 acres of protected land on the island of Kaua‘i, 

near the northernmost tip of the Hawaiian Islands. 

The Kilauea Point NWR is managed to provide protected marine and terrestrial 

habitats for a host of increasingly rare Hawaiian wildlife species. The steep cliffs 

on this Refuge support nesting seabirds, such as red-footed booby, Laysan albatross, 

great frigate bird, red-tailed tropic bird, white-tailed tropic bird, and wedge-tailed 

shearwater. Hawaii’s state bird, the endangered Hawaiian goose (or nene), and the 

Pacific Golden plover use the refuge’s grasslands. Endangered Hawaiian monk seals 

23

haul out on the rocks below the cliffs, and endangered humpback whales, threatened green sea turtles, and protected spinner dolphins migrate through the adjacent 

National Marine Sanctuary. The refuge’s endangered plant restoration program is 

giving a number of rare species a chance to survive on Kilauea Point’s protected and 

managed environments. Kilauea Point is one of the few Hawaiian refuges open to 

the public and is one of the most popular spots for visitors and residents of Hawaii 

alike, with an average of 300,000 visitors a year. 

Status of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

The Administration is committed to taking better care of what we have, while ensuring that new acquisitions truly meet strategic needs of the NWRS. This includes 

purchasing in-holdings within currently approved refuge boundaries. There must be 

a balance between acquiring new lands and meeting the operational, maintenance 

and restoration requirements for the resources already in public ownership. Towards this end, the Service is currently developing a plan to guide future growth 

and land acquisition for the NWRS. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) 

requires the Service to develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for each 

refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The CCP describes the desired future conditions of a refuge and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. It is during this process that expansion 

of a refuge is considered and recommended if increasing the size will help fulfill the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. Development of a CCP provides a 

forum for meaningful public participation and improved coordination with the states 

and local communities. It also affords local citizens an opportunity to help shape future management of a refuge, recognizing the important role of refuges in nearby 

communities. In the future we will develop draft CCPs for both Cahaba River and 

Kilauea Point refuges, and the public will have the opportunity to comment on these 

drafts. 

We have evaluated the areas identified in H.R. 2623 and H.R. 2619 as potential 

additions to Cahaba River and Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuges and, after 

a careful review of our current priorities and funding constraints, have concluded 

that the funding needs associated with the operational requirements to expand 

these refuges would compromise our ability to properly manage and address the 

needs of these refuges, as well as existing refuges throughout the system. However, 

the Pacific Regional Office has begun evaluating whether a scaled-back expansion 

at Kilauea Point NWR limited to the coastal strand, estuary, and grassland north 

of the estuary (totaling approximately 40 acres) would be valuable additions to the 

refuge based on benefits to threatened and endangered species. 

We note that other opportunities and tools exist for protecting resources along the 

Cahaba River and coastal Kaua‘i. Service programs such as Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Landowner Incentive 

Program, and Private Stewardship Grants can be used in cooperation with State, 

local and private partners to restore and protect these natural resources. The States 

of Alabama and Hawaii both receive funds through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, and state wildlife grants that can 

assist in protecting these areas and their resources. The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, the County, the City of Kilauea, and other 

local partners have all expressed interest in protecting the natural resources along 

the coastal area of Kaua‘i. Thus, we believe the Service working in partnership with 

other interested agencies can achieve the resource protection goals suggested by 

H.R. 2623 and H.R. 2619. 

We appreciate that Representative Bachus and Representative Case and their 

constituents are interested in having the Fish and Wildlife Service expand our role 

in the areas around Cahaba River and Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuges. 

However, for the reasons stated previously, the Administration cannot support this 

legislation. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above the Administration supports the 

three Coastal Barrier Resources System bills being discussed this morning, but cannot support the two National Wildlife Refuge expansion bills. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the Committee Members may have. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley. 

24

Judge, the Honorable Greg B. Westmoreland, welcome, sir, to the 

great city of Washington, D.C., from the great State of Texas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREG B. WESTMORELAND,

MATAGORDA COUNTY JUDGE, BAY CITY, TEXAS 

Judge WESTMORELAND. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. It’s an 

honor to be here. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the Honorable 

Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing a County Judge from 

a small rural county in Texas to come before you on a problem that 

is big to us but, undoubtedly, small in the national picture. 

There is a small subdivision at Matagorda Beach, known as 

Matagorda Dunes Homesites, that has 45 lots with 10 existing 

homes. We have the paperwork that proves this subdivision was 

platted with electrical and water service provided to all of the lots 

in 1976-77, which met the requirements to be excluded from the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982. As you just heard, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has confirmed that this subdivision 

should not have been included in the Act. 

In fact, all 10 homes that have been built there have been built 

with the belief that they were excluded from the CBRA zone. They 

were able to secure loans from financial institutions only because 

of the security of Federal flood insurance and State windstorm coverage programs. 

These individuals and financial institutions have been left in 

limbo since the Texas windstorm pool looked at a map and discovered about a year-and-a-half ago that this subdivision was indeed 

included in the CBRA zone. At this time the homeowners and 

lienholders were sent cancellation notices of insurance and told, 

‘‘Sorry, we can no longer cover your property.’’

This started the trail that eventually brought me to Washington 

today. A mistake was made 21 years ago that placed this little subdivision in CBRA. It does not matter who made the mistake, but 

now, since the mistake has come to light, please help us fix it. Your 

action to remove this subdivision from the CBRA zone is greatly 

appreciated and will restore value to these property owners. 

Thank you so much for your time and consideration. I will be 

happy to try to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Westmoreland follows:]

Statement of Greg B. Westmoreland, Judge, Matagorda County, Texas 

Dear Congressman Gilchrest and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: 

First of all, let me thank you for taking the time to listen to a County Judge from 

a small rural county in Texas that has a problem that is Big to us, but undoubtedly 

Small on the National Level. 

There is a small Subdivision at Matagorda Beach, known as Matagorda Dunes 

Homesites, that has 45 lots with 10 existing homes. We have the paperwork that 

proves that this subdivision was platted with electrical and water service provided 

to all of the lots in 1976-77 which met the requirements to be excluded from the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has confirmed that this subdivision should not have been included in the Act. 

In fact, all 10 homes that have been built have been with the belief that they were 

EXCLUDED from the CBRA Zone. They were able to secure loans from Financial 

Institutions only because of the security of Federal Flood Insurance and State Windstorm Coverage Programs. 

These individuals and Financial Institutions have been left in limbo since the 

Texas Windstorm Pool looked at a map and discovered about a year-and-a-half ago 

25

that this subdivision was indeed included in the CBRA Zone. At this time the homeowners and lien holders were sent cancellation notices of insurance and told sorry 

we can no longer cover your property. 

This started the trail that eventually brought me to Washington today. A mistake 

was made 21 years ago that placed this little subdivision in CBRA. It does not matter who made the mistake, but now, since the mistake has come to light, please help 

us fix it. Your action to remove this subdivision from the CBRA Zone is greatly appreciated and will restore value to the property owners. 

Thank you so much for your time and consideration. 

I will be happy to try to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Judge. 

Judge WESTMORELAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Miss Becky King, welcome to Washington. 

STATEMENT OF BECKY KING, VILLAGE MANAGER, BALD HEAD 

ISLAND VILLAGE COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY, BALD HEAD 

ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA 

Ms. KING. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Becky King and I’m the Village Manager for the Village of Bald Head Island. I am here today representing the Bald Head Island Village Council and the community. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on Congressman McIntyre’s 

bill, H.R. 2501, which is a bill to clarify the boundaries of the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, Cape Fear Unit NC-07P, which 

directly affects Bald Head Island. 

The community strongly supports the proposed bill, as it would 

allow for a needed clarification of the CBRA areas, allow affected 

homeowners to purchase Federal flood insurance, and would bring 

200 acres of environmentally sensitive property under Federal protection through CBRA. 

Let me begin my testimony by describing to the Committee the 

community of Bald Head Island. Bald Head Island is a barrier island at the mouth of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County, 

NC. It is accessible by passenger ferry and the primary mode of 

transportation on the island is by electric vehicles or golf carts. 

The community of Bald Head is extremely environmentally sensitive. It has been carefully planned and developed to protect the 

maritime forest, estuarine and ocean environments that exist there 

on Bald Head. The preserved ‘‘natural state’’ of the island is, in 

fact, the primary draw of the island to those who live and visit 

there. Many areas on Bald Head are protected by virtue of the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, others through gifts to the State of 

North Carolina, the purchase of property by the Smith Island Land 

Trust, which is a nonprofit organization, and thoughtful development. 

Residential development of the island began in the early 1970s. 

However, the village did not become a governmental entity until 

1985, and not until 1991 did the village government adopt a flood 

damage prevention ordinance in order to participate in the 

National Flood Insurance Program. The Flood Insurance Rate Map, 

or FIRM map as we know it, became a part of this ordinance, 

which is the tool the village utilizes to determine CBRA areas. 

Many lots on Bald Head Island were platted and recorded prior 

to Congressional enactment of the CBRA, the Coastal Barrier 

26

Resources Act. A total of eight homes have been constructed in the 

CBRA zone, or otherwise protected area, prior to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act becoming law. Since that time, other homes 

have been built in OPAs, many of which property owners were not 

notified of being in a protected area. Due to the scale of the FIRM 

maps, being one inch equals 2,000 feet for our area, accurate delineation of the CBRA area is very difficult to determine generally, 

impossible to determine precisely. 

The Village of Bald Head believes that H.R. 2501 is much needed legislation. The CBRA zone, as it exists on the 1993 FIRM 

maps, which is what we use for our area, is currently inaccurate 

according to the premise of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 

1982. 

The area on Bald Head Island that was included in the CBRA 

zone as an OPA was supposed to have been the marshland below 

mean high water and certain areas of high ground, such as marsh 

islands, that had been specifically identified and previously deeded 

for public ownership. 

However, in the process of delineating the CBRA zone, areas on 

FIRM maps resulted in the CBRA line following mean high water 

in some areas, but moving up on high ground areas along Bald 

Head Creek. The delineation of these lines simply appears to be a 

mistake. 

The primary significance of areas included under the CBRA designation as OPA is that property owners are not eligible for Federal flood insurance. In the areas of misinterpretation, some houses 

have been built and insurance policies written in some of these 

areas. In the event of a loss, FEMA can interpret the area to be 

in the CBRA zone, deny the claim, and tell the property owner that 

the insurance company error in writing the policy, leaving the 

property owner completely unprotected. 

Therefore, revision of the map is imperative for Bald Head, as 

hurricanes are a constant threat in our area, and risk of loss is 

probable. To provide an example, if Hurricane Isabel had directly 

hit Bald Head Island, and a homeowner had a house in the CBRA 

zone that is inaccurately delineated, then that property owner 

would have absolutely no recourse. Because they are not eligible for 

Federal flood insurance, it would be a complete loss to them. 

The revised map would remove 26 homes and 15 lots from the 

Otherwise Protected Area designation. Of the 26 structures, eight 

of those were in place prior to November of 1990, when the original 

Otherwise Protected Area was drawn. 

In addition to removing existing structures and undeveloped lots 

from the CBRA zone, which is an Otherwise Protected Area again, 

the revised NC-07P would add 186.59 acres of maritime forest and 

11 acres of environmentally sensitive property under Federal protection through CBRA. 

To conclude, the Village of Bald Head Island and the community 

strongly supports H.R. 2601, as it provides needed clarification for 

the CBRA boundaries and would allow affected homeowners to purchase Federal flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance 

Program. The bill would also serve as a positive environmental 

measure, affording approximately 200 acres of maritime forest and 

environmentally sensitive property Federal protection through 

27

CBRA. The bill has the support of the governing body, the community, and the Bald Head Island Nature Conservancy. 

Amending the map to clarify the original intended boundaries 

would not be detrimental but enhance the public interest. It is my 

understanding the Congress established the Coastal Barrier Resources System to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish and wildlife and 

other natural resources. Passage of the proposed bill is not inconsistent with these goals, but would seek to promote them. 

The Village of Bald Head Island urges your support of the proposed legislation. Thank you for your time and consideration of my 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:]

Statement of Becky King, Manager, Village of Bald Head Island 

Chairman Gilchrest, members of the Subcommittee. My name is Becky King and 

I am the Village Manager for the Village of Bald Head Island and I am here today 

representing the Bald Head Island Village Council and Community. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify on Congressman Mike McIntyre’s bill, H.R. 2501, a bill to 

clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape Fear Unit NC-07P, 

which directly affects Bald Head Island. 

Professional Background 

I was raised in a farming family in a rural area along the coast of North Carolina. 

I attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and earned a Bachelor 

of Science degree in Business Administration in 1994. I subsequently obtained a 

Master’s of Business Administration in 1998 from the University of North Carolina 

at Wilmington. 

While obtaining my Master’s Degree, I worked as a Planner both for County and 

Municipal Government in the coastal areas of Brunswick County. This experience 

allowed me to gain knowledge in various Coastal issues by serving as a Coastal 

Areas Management Act Local Permit Officer and assisting in administration of the 

Flood Prevention Ordinance. Since June 2000 I have served as Village Manager for 

the Village of Bald Head Island, which has further exposed me to addressing difficult coastal issues. 

Since 1994, I have worked in one capacity or another in local government, promoting the interest of the public. I have assisted in drafting many local ordinances 

that were geared toward protection of the environment, specifically marshes, estuaries, and other protected areas. Therefore, I am familiar with the principles upon 

which the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is founded. 

Introduction 

Let me begin my testimony by describing to the Committee the Community of 

Bald Head Island. Bald Head Island is a barrier Island located at the mouth of the 

Cape Fear River in Brunswick County, North Carolina. It is accessible only by passenger ferry and the primary mode of transportation is by electric vehicles or golf 

carts. The community of Bald Head Island is extremely environmentally sensitive. 

It has been carefully planned and developed to promote the protection of the maritime forest, estuarine and ocean environments that exist on Bald Head Island. The 

preserved ‘‘natural state’’ of the Island is in fact the primary draw of the Island to 

those who live and visit there. Many areas on Bald Head Island are protected by 

virtue of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, others through gifts to the State of 

North Carolina, purchase of property by the Smith Island Land Trust (a non-profit 

organization), and thoughtful development. 

Residential development of the Island began in the early 1970’s; however, the Village did not become a governmental entity until May 6, 1985, by grant of Charter 

by the State of North Carolina. Not until 1991 did the Village government adopt 

a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in order to participate in the National Flood 

Insurance Program. The ordinance was adopted on May 18, 1991, and the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) became a part of this ordinance. 

Many lots on Bald Head Island were platted and recorded prior to the Village 

Charter, adoption of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance as well as Congressional enactment of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. A total of eight homes have 

been constructed in the COBRA Zone or ‘‘otherwise protected area’’ (OPA) prior to 

28

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act becoming law. Since that time, other homes have 

been built in OPA’s, many of which property owners were not notified of being in 

a protected area. Due to the scale of the FIRM maps (the tool utilized to delineate 

COBRA areas) being 1 inch equals 2,000 feet for our area, accurate delineation of 

the COBRA area is very difficult to determine generally, impossible to determine 

precisely. 

Overview 

The Village of Bald Head Island believes that Congressman McIntyre’s bill, 

H.R. 2501, to clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape Fear 

Unit NC-07P, is much needed legislation. The COBRA Zone, as it exists on the 1993 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for our area, is currently inaccurate according 

to the premise of the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982. For example, some 

areas depicted as located in a COBRA Zone or ‘‘otherwise protected areas’’ (OPA’s) 

on Bald Head Island are not even in flood hazard areas. Other areas that are inappropriately labeled as OPA’s are privately held and in upland areas or areas completely out of the marsh where development has occurred. 

The area on Bald Head Island that was included in the COBRA Zone as an OPA 

was supposed to have been the marsh area below mean high water and certain 

areas of high ground (marsh islands) specifically identified and previously deeded 

for public ownership. However, in the process of delineating the COBRA Zone, areas 

on FIRM maps resulted in the COBRA line following Mean High Water (MHW) in 

some areas but moving up on high ground in areas along Bald Head Creek. The 

delineation of the lines in these areas simply appears to be a mistake. 

The primary significance of areas included under the COBRA designation as OPA 

is that property owners are not eligible for Federal Flood Insurance. In the areas 

of misinterpretation, some houses have been built and insurance policies written in 

some of these areas. In the event of a loss, FEMA can interpret the area to be in 

the COBRA Zone, deny the claim, and tell the property owner that the insurance 

company erred in writing the policy, leaving the property owner unprotected. 

Clarification of NC-07P would be a very positive measure for Bald Head Island. 

The revised map would remove 26 homes and 15 undeveloped lots from the OPA 

designation. Of the twenty-six structures in existence, eight of those were in place 

prior to November of 1990, when the original OPA was drawn. Revision of NC-07P 

is imperative as hurricanes are a constant threat along our coast, with the potential 

to leave many Bald Head Island property owners unprotected in the event of a catastrophic storm. 

In addition to removing existing structures and undeveloped lots from the COBRA 

Zone (otherwise protected area), the revised NC-07P would add 186.59 acres of maritime forest and 11.06 acres of environmentally sensitive property under federal protection through COBRA. Therefore, the bill would not only clarify the originally intended boundary for Bald Head Island, but would also enhance the environmental 

impact to the Island by adding further protection to environmentally sensitive 

areas. 

Conclusion 

The Village of Bald Head Island and the community strongly supports H.R. 2501 

as it provides needed clarification for COBRA boundaries and would allow affected 

homeowners to purchase flood insurance, under the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill would also serve as a positive environmental measure affording approximately 200 acres of maritime forest and environmentally sensitive property 

federal protection through COBRA. The bill has the support of the governing body, 

the community, and the Bald Head Island Nature Conservancy. 

Amending the map to clarify the original intended boundaries would not be detrimental but enhance the public interest. It is my understanding that Congress established the Coastal Barrier Resources System to minimize loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal Revenues, and damage to fish and wildlife and other natural resources. Passage of the proposed bill is not inconsistent with these goals, but 

would seek to promote them. 

The Village of Bald Head Island urges your support of the proposed legislation. 

Thank you for your time in consideration of my testimony. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Miss King. 

Mr. Chris Oberholster. Welcome. 

29

STATEMENT OF CHRIS OBERHOLSTER, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, ALABAMA CHAPTER, THE NATURE 

CONSERVANCY 

Mr. OBERHOLSTER. Thank you. 

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, I really appreciate the opportunity to present 

the Nature Conservancy’s testimony in support of H.R. 2623, legislation to expand the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama. 

A recent analyses, as Mr. Bachus had pointed out, of the biological heritage of the U.S. revealed that Alabama is one of the richest 

States in the Nation with respect to its wildlife heritage, ranking 

right up there with the great States of Hawaii, Texas and California. Alabama also has a lot more species than any other State 

in the mainland U.S., second only to Hawaii, with its fragile island 

ecosystems. 

Within this landscape of biological wealth, the Cahaba River 

stands out as one of the crown jewels of our Nation’s natural heritage. The existing refuge established in 2000 protects an impressive 

array of biological resources, including the world’s largest population of the spectacular and imperiled shoal spider lily, known locally as the Cahaba Lily. 

The proposed expansion offers an opportunity to expand the list 

of rare species, like migratory songbirds and other resources protected in the refuge, manyfold. Among other things, the proposed 

expansion would increase the list of rare plant species protected 

from five to sixty-six, and the rare species of animals from 25 to 

40 species. It would protect the habitat for 12 federally endangered 

or threatened species in this one area, almost 10 percent of the 

total for the whole State of Alabama. 

The expansion would also protect the largest populations of at 

least 12 globally imperiled plants, potentially precluding their need 

to be listed in the future. So this is a proactive step. It would include virtually all of the unique Ketona dolomite glades habitat, 

which is found nowhere else on Earth, and has only recently been 

found to have eight new species of plants to science. 

It would provide direct protection to more than 20 miles of river 

frontage along the Cahaba and key tributaries. It would protect extensive hardwood forests harboring many species of migratory 

songbirds, including several of the more rapidly declining species 

like the Louisiana Waterthrush, Swainson’s Warbler, Acadian 

Flycatcher and others. 

The proposed expansion would authorize eventual ownership of 

up to about 26,000 additional acres, the majority of which are 

owned by three major corporate landowners. All of these have indicated a willingness to be included in the expansion and would be 

willing to consider selling at fair market value. Acquisition of these 

additional acres might cost between $25-35 million over time, and 

obviously the length of time would be contingent on several factors, 

including availability of appropriated funds. 

A very low percentage of Alabama, I might point out, is publicly 

owned, around 5 percent. Tremendous support exists from people 

who want additional public recreational, wildlife-related opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, hiking and canoeing. 

30

More than one million people, a quarter of Alabama’s population, 

live within a 1-hour drive of this refuge. In addition, the proximity 

to major interstates, an expanded refuge would be much more attractive as a destination to visitors, especially important to Bibb 

County, a very rural and impoverished county, and to Alabama in 

general, where heritage and ecotourism are being promoted actively. 

Local press coverage has been favorable, and we have not heard 

of anyone opposed to the expansion. Supporters for the expansion 

include the Alabama Department of Conservation, the Cahaba 

Trace Commission, and many other groups, including many statewide and local conservation groups, such as the Cahaba River Society. 

We are particularly grateful for the strong support of our Congressional delegation. U.S. Representative Spencer Bachus and 

Governor, then U.S. Representative, Bob Riley, cosponsored the 

original legislation to establish the refuge. Their leadership, along 

with support from both Senator Sessions and Senator Shelby, for 

subsequent appropriations has resulted in acquisition of virtually 

all land in the refuge boundaries within two Federal fiscal years 

after establishment. 

I should add that the local citizens from Bibb County are particularly strongly supportive of the refuge concept, and especially the 

expansion. I believe Mr. Bachus’ testimony has included letters of 

support, especially one from the Bibb County Commission, expressing their strong support for the expansion. 

As direct evidence of their commitment, the Bibb County Com- mission has set aside in escrow $68,000 in support of O&M for the 

refuge, and the Nature Conservancy has pledged an additional 

$150,000 to support O&M startup activities in the refuge. We are 

also working at our own expense, as a private organization, to 

cover a lot of different aspects of O&M for the refuge currently. For 

example, developing a detailed map, GPS unit based map, of the 

refuge road network, and we are also working with refuge staff to 

develop a draft vegetation management plan, again at our expense. 

An exciting management partnership is emerging here. Clearly, 

more acres are likely to result in some increase in O&M costs for 

the refuge. However, the proposed increase will not necessarily 

lead to a significant increase in staffing at the refuge, which is one 

of the primary operating costs. The planned staffing level at the existing refuge is six FTEs, and when one factors in the strong existing and emerging partnerships here, the Service will be in a very 

strong position regarding tangible assistance toward meeting their 

O&M needs. 

While we are sensitive to Service concerns regarding the continued growth of the refuge system, particularly at a time of fiscal 

constraints, we feel strongly the Service should not halt expansion 

while it develops a strategic vision for the system. We encourage 

the Service to support limited growth system in areas that would 

contribute significantly to the protection of Federal trust resources 

and that enjoy strong public support. 

The Cahaba River is one of these places. It is quite simply a national treasure. Because of the significant biological resource and 

public trust values outlined here, and the partnerships that are 

31

developing regarding O&M, we strongly support this proposed expansion and request Committee support for H.R. 2623. 

Thanks for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oberholster follows:]

Statement of Chris Oberholster, Director of Conservation Programs,

Alabama Chapter, The Nature Conservancy 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to present The Nature Conservancy’s testimony in support of H.R. 2623, legislation 

to expand the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama. 

The Nature Conservancy is a leading international, nonprofit organization that 

preserves plants, animals and natural communities representing the diversity of life 

on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. To date, the Conservancy and its more than one million members have been responsible for the protection of more than 14 million acres in the United States and have helped preserve 

more than 102 million acres in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific. 

We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 30 nations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for scheduling a hearing on this important piece of legislation. The Conservancy presented testimony to this Subcommittee at its hearing 

on June 8, 2000, that led to the enactment of legislation to establish the Cahaba 

River National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of our 

most important conservation partners and we are sensitive to their concerns regarding the continued growth and expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge System particularly in a time of fiscal constraints. 

The Conservancy has wrestled with many of the issues the Service is facing. To 

better orient us to achieve our mission, a framework was created and implemented 

in the 1990s. We call this framework for mission success Conservation by Design. 

This framework translates our broad mission into a unifying articulation of common 

purpose and direction—to align the organization in taking the most effective conservation action to achieve tangible, lasting results at scale. 

The reasons for developing and instituting Conservation by Design included a recognition that our core strategy of purchasing land for conservation ownership was 

inadequate to meet the challenges of protecting biodiversity, that we were not utilizing the best available science to the fullest extent possible, that meeting the costs 

of operations and maintenance for a system of preserves was not the most leveraged 

use of our charitable dollars, and that we needed to be more creative and flexible 

in achieving our conservation goals. Many of these same issues challenge the leadership and staff of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

A key activity in the conservation process outlined in Conservation by Design is 

the development of ecoregional plans. In fact, the plans are closer to biological assessments—they identify a portfolio of conservation areas and ecological targets 

within an ecoregion that, if conserved, would protect the full range of biodiversity 

within that ecoregion. The identification of these portfolio sites—in essence, a blueprint for conservation action—is the platform for our conservation work. The Conservancy is committed to supporting and working with the Service to see how our 

experience with large-scale planning can help them craft a vision that meets their 

needs. 

We feel strongly, however, the Service should not halt the expansion of existing 

Refuges or the creation of new refuges while it develops a strategic vision for the 

System. We encourage the Service to support limited growth of the system in areas 

that would contribute significantly to protection of federal trust resources and that 

enjoy broad public support. The Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge is one of 

those places. 

Alabama is a Global Hotspot for Biological Diversity 

Recent analyses of the biological heritage of the United States reveal that Alabama is one of the richest states in the nation. In the publication States of the 

Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity, published by NatureServe and the Conservancy in 2002, scientists ranked states according to four key biological characteristics: diversity, risk, endemism and extinction. Four states in particular stand out 

as having exceptional levels of biological diversity with respect to all four measures: 

California, Texas, Hawaii and Alabama. Alabama is ranked 2nd in number of extinct species among the 50 states (second only to the islands of Hawaii), 5th in overall species diversity, 4th in number of species at risk, and 7th in number of endemic 

species (i.e. those found only in Alabama). 

32

The Southeastern United States is a hot spot for freshwater biodiversity, resulting 

from the coincidence of a diverse physical geography, favorable climate, and a long, 

but dynamic, history. This varied landscape was spared the repeated habitat-crushing advances of continental ice sheets during the Pleistocene era, allowing living 

things to persist and evolve over time. Over time, changes in climate, stream drainage patterns, and coastline position isolated many populations, enabling them to diverge genetically and evolve into new species. This unique history is evident today 

in Alabama. Some interesting facts about Alabama’s natural resources include: 

• Alabama ranks fifth in the nation in terms of biological diversity and, on a per 

square mile basis, only Florida is home to a greater number of species; 

• Alabama has more species of freshwater turtles, fish, mussels, snails and crayfish than any other state; 

• Alabama’s freshwater streams and rivers contain 38% of the nation’s native fish 

species, 60% of native turtles and 43% of native aquatic snails; and, 

• Alabama ranks near the bottom of states regarding area of public land designated specifically for the protection of biodiversity and provision of compatible 

outdoor recreational opportunities. 

The Cahaba River and Its Tributaries are a Unique Resource 

The Nature Conservancy has identified the Cahaba River watershed in Alabama 

as one of these unique conservation opportunities. Almost fifty percent of all documented U.S. species extinctions since European settlement have occurred during 

this century in the Mobile River Basin, through which the Cahaba River courses. 

Alabama bears the unfortunate distinction of being the most extinction-prone state 

in the continental United States, with 98 species extinct. 

Within this landscape of species loss, the Cahaba River remains the state’s longest free-flowing river, and one of our nation’s most biologically rich. The Cahaba 

River basin supports 69 rare and imperiled species, including twelve fish and mussel species that are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. It has more fish 

species, 131, than any river its size in North America. To put this in perspective, 

the Cahaba River has more species of freshwater fish than the entire state of California. One of these fish is the Cahaba shiner, which is found only in the mainstem 

of this river and the nearby Locust Fork. Although the number of freshwater mussels and snails has declined sharply from historical numbers, many species are still 

well represented in the river. 

The Cahaba River is a treasure trove of botanical life as well. As the river flows 

southward into rural Bibb County, it shelters the largest known stands of the imperiled shoal lily (Hymenocallis coronaria). Celebrated locally as the Cahaba Lily, 

this spectacular and surprisingly delicate flower grows in the middle of the river, 

wedging its bulbs into crevices in the sandstone rock. Bibb County is also home to 

several unique terrestrial plant communities, centered on outcroppings of the unusual Ketona dolomite rock formation. These open gravelly, grassy islands in the 

otherwise forested landscape are found immediately adjacent to the Little Cahaba 

River and other tributaries of the Cahaba River, and virtually all examples are in 

the proposed expansion area of the Refuge. In 1992 scientists discovered eight new 

species of plants on these dolomite outcrops along the Cahaba’s banks—a discovery 

befitting expeditions to uncharted tropical wildernesses. 

Partnerships are Important to Manage Threats to the Cahaba River 

Until recently, development was kept to a minimum by the steep-sided Appalachian ridges of the Cahaba’s headwater tributaries. However, population growth 

is pushing residential and commercial development from Birmingham into the 

Cahaba River watershed, resulting in increased stormwater runoff, sedimentation, 

and municipal wastewater discharges. At the same time, domestic drinking water 

withdrawals from the Cahaba divert virtually its entire flow during drought periods. 

Although threats in the upper watershed are growing, the lower two-thirds of the 

watershed, where the Cahaba’s biodiversity is most remarkable, is somewhat 

healthier. 

To prevent degradation of this rich biological resource, government agencies, conservation groups, and citizens’ groups are working together to protect the Cahaba’s 

rare and endemic aquatic species and natural communities from its headwaters to 

the confluence with the Alabama River near Selma. 

In the cities and suburbs situated in the headwaters of the Cahaba River, the 

Conservancy is working with many stakeholders to implement a comprehensive network of greenways to maintain the water quality of the Cahaba River, the primary 

drinking water source for the one million residents of the metropolitan area. Participants in this partnership include representatives of a comprehensive array local city 

and county governments, business and economic development interests, and 

33

environmental groups. The Black Warrior-Cahaba Rivers Land Trust, funded by Jefferson County, and the Birmingham Waterworks Board are actively acquiring land 

to protect riparian buffers in the upper watershed to protect water quality for drinking water and a healthy river. 

Along the first thirty miles of the Cahaba River downstream from the suburban 

edge of Birmingham, there is a strong interest on the part of the State of Alabama 

in eventually acquiring lands currently leased on a short term basis to establish a 

permanent Cahaba State Wildlife Management Area for public hunting, fishing, and 

other outdoor opportunities. 

In the lower eighty miles of the river in the Coastal Plain, partners plan to work 

with farmers and other landowners to help them participate fully in the existing 

Farm Bill programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve 

Program and others. In addition, the Conservancy hopes to acquire inholdings from 

willing sellers along the Cahaba and its tributaries where they pass through the 

Oakmulgee Ranger District of Talladega National Forest. In the lower Cahaba watershed, the Conservancy is working in partnership with various city and county 

governments, the State of Alabama and Alabama Power Company to protect the 

river and provide public access for recreational purposes. 

The Proposed Expansion of the Cahaba Refuge is a Highly-Leveraged Investment 

The proposed expansion of the Refuge would expand the list of biological resources 

protected many-fold. For example, the list of species documented would increase 

from about five rare plants and 25 rare animals, to at least 66 rare plants and forty 

rare animal species. 

This expansion would provide an outstanding opportunity to protect and recover 

populations of many Federally-listed species on public land. At least twelve Federally-listed plants and animals are present in the area of the proposed expansion (almost ten percent of the total Federal threatened and endangered list for Alabama). 

A further four threatened and endangered species were historically present, presenting an opportunity for eventual recovery of these species too. 

The proposed expansion area includes virtually all of the unique Ketona dolomite 

glades, and almost all populations on earth of the eight plants new to science discovered here in the past dozen years. In total the proposed expansion area harbors the 

world’s largest populations of at least twelve globally imperiled plants on the glades, 

and in the surrounding forests. Unexpected discoveries of rare animals also continue 

to be made in the proposed area. A very significant recent (2002) discovery of the 

Septima’s clubtail dragonfly was made in the Little Cahaba River portions of the 

proposed Refuge expansion area. Scientists had not seen this globally imperiled species in Alabama, despite intensive searches, since its original discovery and description in the 1940’s. 

The proposed expansion would increase direct protection of the banks of the 

mainstem Cahaba River from three-and-a-half miles to more than twenty miles and 

more than four miles of the Little Cahaba. Almost as important, it would also add 

protection for key feeder tributaries and watershed lands that are deemed critical 

to maintaining the water quality and flow of this biologically rich middle section of 

the river. These rivers and streams provide extensive high quality habitat for many 

additional common and rare aquatic animals. These waters are renowned for the 

healthy populations of game fish such as the Coosa (red-eyed) bass, spotted bass and 

southern walleye, and dozens of other less obvious species. 

The proposed expansion lands include extensive remnant and restorable riparian 

and bluff hardwood forests harboring breeding populations of many migratory songbirds. The federal/state/private Partners in Flight Partnership for North American 

bird conservation has ranked several of these birds to be declining and of conservation concern, including Kentucky Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Acadian 

Flycatcher, Swainson’s Warbler and Worm-eating Warbler, amongst others. The proposed expansion offers an opportunity to have large enough areas of stable habitat 

that would host large viable populations of these declining songbirds over the long 

term. 

The additional lands also present a major opportunity to protect and restore 

blocks of the longleaf pine forests which once covered the higher, drier ridges. This 

will contribute to the conservation of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, and may help 

the U.S. Forest Service meet recovery objectives for the bird in the nearby 

Oakmulgee Ranger District. Other declining birds that would gain significant areas 

of stable habitat are the Northern Bobwhite Quail, Brown-headed Nuthatch, and 

perhaps, Bachman’s Sparrow. 

Several caves are known from the proposed Refuge expansion area, especially 

along Sixmile Creek. These are biologically unexplored and, based on findings at 

34

caves in other nearby counties, quite possibly may harbor unique, cave-adapted animals found nowhere else. 

The proposed expansion would authorize eventual ownership of up to about 

26,000 additional acres. The majority of these additional acres are owned by three 

landowners; all have indicated a willingness to be included in the expansion, and 

would be willing to consider selling at fair market value. The Nature Conservancy 

anticipates that acquisition of the additional 26,000 acres for the Refuge would cost 

between twenty-five and thirty-five million dollars. The length of time for acquisition of these lands obviously would be contingent on several factors, including the 

availability of appropriated funding for acquisition. 

Ongoing Support for Restoration and Stewardship is Critical for Conservation 

Success 

The expanded Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge would protect significant 

habitat for many imperiled and declining birds, fish, mussels and plants, several of 

which are found nowhere else in the world, but especially unique is the land management partnership emerging between the USFWS, the U.S. Forest Service, The 

Nature Conservancy, Bibb County, and Hancock timber company. The Conservancy 

is working with Hancock to develop a timber restoration plan on their lands within 

the proposed Refuge expansion area. Hancock will harvest the loblolly pine plantations as they become mature, and the Conservancy will assist Hancock in meeting 

the slightly higher costs of replanting with native mountain longleaf pine rather 

than simply replanting ecologically inappropriate loblolly pine. In this way, we are 

getting a major head start on ecological restoration of the area in advance of more 

permanent protection. 

The local citizens from Bibb County strongly support the refuge concept. Included 

with this testimony is a resolution adopted unanimously by the Bibb County Commission expressing their strong support for the expansion of the Cahaba River 

National Wildlife Refuge. As direct evidence of their commitment to the Refuge, the 

Bibb County Commission, in conjunction with the Cahaba River Authority (a committee appointed by the Commission to monitor activities regarding the river) has 

set aside in escrow $68,000 to support operations and management of the Refuge. 

In the spirit of cooperation with local citizens, elected officials, and the federal 

government, The Nature Conservancy has also pledged $150,000 towards the establishment of this refuge. Service and Conservancy staffs are currently looking into 

various grant-funding programs, for example through the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, in an effort to leverage these and the Bibb County funds further. 

The Conservancy is currently working on two crucial operations and management 

projects with Service staff that will result in direct savings to the agency, and allow 

management and restoration activities to commence on the ground sooner. In collaboration with faculty and students from Samford University, Conservancy land 

management staff is using Geographic Positioning Systems to develop an accurate 

and detailed GIS map of the road network in the Refuge for the Service. In close 

consultation with Refuge staff, Conservancy land managers are also developing a 

draft Vegetation Management Plan for the Refuge. 

Clearly, more acres will result in increased operations and maintenance costs for 

the Refuge. However, the proposed increase will not necessarily lead to a substantial 

increase in staffing at the Refuge—one of the primary operating expenses. The 

planned staffing level of the existing Refuge is six FTEs. When one factors in the 

strong existing (e.g., Bibb County, The Nature Conservancy and others) and promising new partnerships (e.g., with U.S. Forest Service), the Service will be in a very 

strong position regarding tangible assistance toward meeting their operations and 

maintenance needs. 

Public Support for Protection of the Cahaba is Strong 

A very low percentage of Alabama is publicly owned. Tremendous support exists 

from people who want additional public recreational opportunities, such as hunting, 

fishing, hiking and canoeing. Evidence of this support can be seen in the passage 

of the Forever Wild land acquisition program, which was approved in a statewide 

referendum by 84% of the voters in 1992. More than one million people—a quarter 

of Alabama’s population—live within a one-hour drive of the Refuge. As proposed 

for expansion, the Refuge is clearly one of the best areas for an increasingly urban 

population to maintain their links with their natural heritage, and of critical importance for citizens’ quality of life. 

The Nature Conservancy has received hundreds of calls from local citizens, conservation organizations, and public corporations expressing their support for the establishment of the Refuge and inquiring how they can help with this project. Local 

press coverage indicates strong support and we have not heard of anyone opposed 

35

to the expansion of this refuge. In addition to the Bibb County Commission, other 

supporters include the Cahaba River Society, Cahaba River Authority, Cahaba 

Trace Commission, Black Warrior-Cahaba Rivers Land Trust, Alabama Department 

of Conservation & Natural Resources, Alabama Rivers Alliance, and Alabama Environmental Council, amongst others. 

Members of the Congressional delegation for Alabama have demonstrated strong 

support for the Refuge. U.S. Representative Spencer Bachus and Governor (then 

U.S. Representative) Bob Riley co-sponsored the legislation to establish the Refuge 

in 2000, and both U.S. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions have shown 

strong support for both establishment and subsequent appropriation of funding for 

land acquisition. Virtually all land in the original Refuge boundaries have been acquired with funds appropriated within the two federal fiscal years after establishment. 

Since the very beginning of this partnership, The Nature Conservancy has been 

working very closely with the USFWS on the establishment and subsequent management planning and implementation steps. In light of the significant additional 

biological resource and other public trust values outlined here, and the strong collaborative partnerships that are developing to assist the agency with operations and 

management, we strongly support this proposed expansion. 

The proposed expansion of the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge represents 

an outstanding opportunity to protect a large number of some of the rarest species 

and habitats in the nation via a remarkable public private partnership. The Nature 

Conservancy requests Committee support of H.R. 2623. 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberholster. I appreciate it. We may have a vote within about 5 minutes, so we’re going 

to move on right away to questions. 

I would like to ask either Judge Westmoreland or Miss King or 

Mr. Riley—maybe you can speak to the issue in Florida. Based on 

your testimony, the Fish and Wildlife Service made a mistake in 

their mapping of these areas based on the Act. Can any one of you 

tell me who found the mistake and when was it found, as far as 

the mapping errors that took these people out of the National Flood 

Insurance Program? 

Mr. RILEY. I can speak to that, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, because there’s as common answer to all three, in some sense, and 

that is that, as I believe you’re familiar, we are working——

Mr. GILCHREST. Are you remapping, are you digitizing existing 

maps? 

Mr. RILEY. Exactly. 

Mr. GILCHREST. How did you find the error? 

Mr. RILEY. The error in Cedar Keys was specifically found when 

there was a request from an individual about whether their property was within the unit or not, and in the process of digitizing 

that area to provide a precise answer to that individual——

Mr. GILCHREST. When they first asked the question, did you have 

an answer, whether they were in or out of the program? 

Mr. RILEY. These three individuals were given an answer previously. A separate individual more recently asked the question 

and, given the more current technology when providing an answer 

to that person, we discovered that had we used the digitized technology, which hadn’t been available the first time, we would have 

had a different answer to the first three individuals. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So the first three individuals were told they were 

not covered? 

Mr. RILEY. They were told that they were——

36

Mr. GILCHREST. So they built, and are they covered now by Federal flood insurance? 

Mr. RILEY. They would not be covered by Federal flood insurance 

according to the correct interpretation of the maps. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So they’re not covered now? 

Mr. RILEY. They would not be covered. But they were told they 

would be covered. 

Mr. GILCHREST. But they’re not covered? 

Mr. RILEY. Correct. 

Mr. GILCHREST. What’s happening with them? They’re just not 

covered? 

Mr. RILEY. At the moment, the current law would have to be 

that—They have been under the assumption that they could build 

and have flood insurance. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So there was a mistake at Fish and Wildlife 

thinking they were not inside the boundary. Who discovered that? 

Do you work with the Mitigation Division within FEMA that deals 

with Federal flood insurance, who gets it and who doesn’t? 

Mr. RILEY. Right. They contact us. They may be the ones to contact us frequently, and it’s in response to a request from someone 

wanting to know which side of the boundary they’re on. 

What we do now, any time anyone requests that information and 

they’re anywhere close to a boundary, we do make a digital read 

of the map to ensure that we’re giving a precise answer. In doing 

that, other landowners near where we may be doing that analysis, 

we can, as happened here, could discover that previous answers 

provided some years ago before we were capable of a digitized answer may have been given an incorrect determination. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Are you digitizing the entire system now? Is it 

done? 

Mr. RILEY. Currently we’re not. We are conducting a pilot study 

to——

Mr. GILCHREST. You only do it when a request comes in? 

Mr. RILEY. We are looking forward to providing information 

about a pilot study that we’re undertaking, and we hope that the 

information in the pilot study would demonstrate——

Mr. GILCHREST. So right now you’re only doing it when a request 

comes in. You’re only using the digitizing and mapping technology 

when a request comes in to ask whether or not they’re in or out 

of the system. 

Mr. RILEY. The priority would be when someone requests it or 

it’s part of the pilot study. We do hope to digitize everything. Currently, the resources are allowing the pilot study to go forward, or 

upon request. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I think we have three requests today to be removed from the system. Can you tell me how many requests are 

out there? 

Mr. RILEY. I can’t tell you exactly. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Are these the last three requests that we’re 

going to see over the next 20 years? 

Mr. RILEY. I very much doubt it, sir. I very much expect that 

over time, as we digitize the rest of the system, we will discover 

additional errors that would need correction. 

37

Mr. GILCHREST. So the pilot project is to take just certain areas 

within the system to see how accurate it is? 

Mr. RILEY. Fifty units in 25 OPAs, 75 areas generally are being 

digitized, and we believe it will demonstrate that a digital system 

will provide more accurate and more complete and quick——

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Is there a policy within the Service that 

if somebody is told they’re outside the system and they can get 

Federal flood insurance, and all of a sudden actually they are inside—for example, in this instance, inside the system, so they can 

get Federal flood insurance, but they built, I assume, because they 

thought they were protected, what’s the policy in the Service for 

those people? 

Mr. RILEY. Our policy is to follow the law and tell them we made 

a correction and the law requires them to not be eligible for Federal flood insurance. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Miss King, can you tell me what a maritime forest is? 

Ms. KING. A maritime forest——

Mr. GILCHREST. And welcome to Washington, too. Your testimony 

was very well delivered. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. I’m a business major, not an environmentalist, but I have been at Bald Head long enough to know what 

a maritime forest is. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It sounds like you’re from North Carolina. 

Ms. KING. I am. I do have that accent, I know. 

A maritime forest on Bald Head Island, there is almost 200 acres 

of maritime forest on the Island. It is primarily a dense forest 

where things just grow naturally. Bald Head Island I think is the 

northernmost point where palm trees grow naturally. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Really? 

Ms. KING. So our maritime forest is very dense and thick with 

live oaks, a lot of indigenous vegetation that has been unspoiled. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. It sounds like a beautiful 

place. 

Ms. KING. It is. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We have a vote on, so I’m going to yield now to 

Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. I’m going to try to be brief, too, because I know 

we want to finish with this panel before the vote. 

These questions are for Mr. Riley. You mentioned the digital 

mapping. When you talked about these future map errors that 

might be found, is it primarily in full units or in the OPAs? In 

other words, is the problem really with the OPA boundaries? 

Mr. RILEY. There could be problems with both. The cause of the 

problem is slightly different, of course. The OPAs would have problems because we are learning more about the actual boundaries, 

legal ownership boundaries of the conservation areas. We believe 

the intent of Congress was to follow those boundaries. The example 

in North Carolina is an occurrence there. 

Examples of errors with system unit boundaries would more likely be the example in Cedar Keys, where the more rough maps attempted to follow geographical markers where the coastal areas 

needed protection were, and more current technology allows us to 

38

follow those more precisely. So it could occur in either case, for 

slightly different reasons. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Turning to the refuge bills, in your statement 

you note that the Service is currently developing a plan to guide 

future growth and land acquisition for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. When would Congress expect to see a final plan from the 

administration? 

Mr. RILEY. I’m aware, Mr. Congressman, that you have been 

awaiting that for awhile. We do believe that within the very near 

future we will be contacting your staff and other interested congressional staffers to provide a briefing on that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Weeks, months, the near future? 

Mr. RILEY. Hopefully weeks at this point. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. 

I think I’m going to limit it to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The gentlelady from Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I also have a question that was on Mr. Riley’s list on H.R. 2619. 

Under the language of Public Law 100-653, which expanded the 

size of the refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service was instructed to 

complete a number of specific projects on the newly required lands. 

These goals included public access foot trails, an access road, a 

fence to protect wildlife, native plant restoration, and the establishment of a recreation area. 

What is the status of each of these goals? 

Mr. RILEY. I apologize, Madam Congresswoman. I’m not personally familiar with that. That’s certainly something I can try to provide to you after the hearing. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. No one else can answer that. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

We do have a vote on. We will be in touch with you over the next 

several weeks, if it’s all right, to ask additional questions as we try 

to close the book on some of these issues. 

Mr. Riley, thank you for coming today, representing the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Judge, good luck with your community down there 

in Texas. You are represented very well by Mr. Paul. Miss King, 

it sounds like you come from a stunningly beautiful area and we 

would like to help you with this issue and help preserve the natural beauty of that place. Mr. Oberholster, thank you for coming 

up to help Mr. Bachus preserve that wonderful place down there 

in Alabama. Thank you all very much for coming to testify here. 

We will adjourn the hearing and start the markup, my guess is 

within a half-an-hour. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other 

business.]

Æ