79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–649

STUDY OF KEALIA POND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE,

HAWAII

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

the Union and ordered to be printed

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

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 3176]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 3176) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a

study to determine ways of restoring the natural wetlands conditions in the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii, having

considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment

and recommend that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 3176 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior

to conduct a study to determine ways of restoring the natural wetlands conditions in the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 3176 directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study

on restoring the natural wetland conditions of the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge on the island of Maui, Hawaii. The refuge

was established in 1992 to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl

and shorebirds, particularly for three endangered Hawaiian birds.

The refuge provides over 700 acres of habitat that these birds, and

other migratory birds, need to survive. Over two million tourists

visit the island of Maui each year, and many of these visitors spend

time at the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge.

Kealia Pond is the central feature of the refuge. Water levels

vary drastically in the pond. In the winter, the pond may cover up

to 400 acres to a depth of several feet. In the summer dry seasons,

2

the pond may be no more than a few inches deep covering less than

50 acres. The pond contains brackish water and is periodically

flooded by seawater. Seasonal fluctuations in the pond acreage are

important for maintaining biological diversity at the Refuge. The

Refuge provides overwintering habitat and food for a number of

waterfowl and shorebirds, including Hawaiian ducks, coots and endangered stilts. However, in recent years, the fluctuations in the

Refuge have been so severe that the wetland areas have dried up

completely, resulting in fish kills and the loss of aquatic habitat.

In other years, a nonnative insect—the spotted wing midge (a

small fly)—hatches in numbers so great that it is a nuisance for

neighboring landowners and towns.

Land use changes in the watershed surrounding the Refuge are

thought to be responsible for the water level fluctuations. Sediment

from the surrounding lands has gradually filled in the basin. Agriculture (primarily sugar cane) is the predominate land use in the

watershed. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the Refuge, believes that active water management is needed to maximize

habitat benefits, minimize the fish die-offs, and reduce blooms of

the exotic midges. A workshop between government and private

groups was held in February 2000 to discuss water management

strategies for the Refuge, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has not

developed a final water management plan. The Committee encourages the Secretary of the Interior to share the results of the study

authorized by this legislation with local citizens, and to continue to

seek the input of these citizens as he moves forward with water

management efforts.

H.R. 3176 authorizes $250,000 for a hydrologic study to be carried out by the United States Geological Survey and requires the

Secretary of the Interior to complete the study within one year.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 3176 was introduced on October 28, 1999, by Congresswoman Patsy Mink (D–HI). The bill was referred to the Committee

on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. On March 30, 2000,

the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On April 6, 2000, the

Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. There were no amendments, and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the Full

Committee by voice vote. On May 24, 2000, the Full Resources

Committee met to consider the bill. There were no amendments,

and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in

the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

3

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

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

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

bill.

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, June 1, 2000.

Hon. DON YOUNG,

Chairman, Committee on Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3176, a bill to direct the

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine ways of

restoring the natural wetlands conditions in the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii.

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

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

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 3176—A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct

a study to determine ways of restoring the natural wetlands

conditions in the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii

H.R. 3176 would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to study ways of restoring the natural conditions of

Kealia Pond, a national wildlife refuge in Hawaii. The bill would

authorize the appropriation of $250,000 for the study, which would

have to be completed within one year of funding.

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO esti- mates that the USFWS would spend $250,000 in fiscal year 2001

to complete the required study and report its findings. H.R. 3176

4

would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-yougo procedures would not apply. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State,

local, or tribal governments.

The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget

Analysis.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or tribal

law.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

Æ