[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
______
89-515 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
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 Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Randy Neugebauer, Texas Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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. 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 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 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:
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 income-producing 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 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.
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.''
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 Brown-
Waite'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,
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
NC-07P, 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 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 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
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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
Commission 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 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).
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
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 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 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----
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.
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 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.]