[Senate Hearing 106-1051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1051
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 6, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
74-731 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
Ivan A. Schlager, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SLADE GORTON, Washington DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 6, 1999......................................... 1
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 1
Witnesses
Garcia, Terry D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, accompanied by Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Keeley, David, Maine State Planning Office....................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Cooksey, Sarah W., administrator, Delaware Coastal Management
Program, and President, Coastal States Organization............ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Eichenberg, Tim, program counsel, Center for Marine Conservation
(CMC), on behalf of the CMC, the American Oceans Campaign,
Coast Alliance, and Natural Resources Defense Council.......... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Earle, Sylvia A., Ph.D., explorer in Residence, National
Geographic Society............................................. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to:
Terry D. Garcia.............................................. 57
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to:
Sarah W. Cooksey............................................. 62
Sylvia A. Earle.............................................. 61
Tim Eichenberg............................................... 68
Terry D. Garcia.............................................. 64
David Keeley................................................. 58
Comments from NERRA.............................................. 70
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Olympia J.
Snowe, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Staff present at this hearing. Sloan Rappoport, Republican
counsel and Stephanie Bailenson, Republican professional staff;
and Margaret Spring, Democratic senior counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. The hearing will come to order. Before I
begin, I would like to welcome the witnesses and others here in
attendance today. We will be addressing in the course of this
hearing the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act,
or the CZMA.
The United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline
along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans; the Gulf of
Mexico; and the Great Lakes. Nearly 53 percent of all Americans
live in the coastal regions that account for only 11 percent of
the country's total land area.
This small portion of the country supports approximately
200 seaports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves
as the critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals.
Further, it is expected that the United States coastal
population will reach 165 million by the year 2015, up from 110
million in 1990. With this rise in population, there will be a
tremendous increase in the demands that are placed both on the
coastal resources and infrastructure.
To help meet these challenges, Congress enacted the Coastal
Zone Management Act in 1972. The CZMA provides incentives to
States to develop comprehensive programs balancing many
competing uses of coastal resources, and to meet the needs for
the future growth of coastal communities.
So far, 32 of the 35 eligible coastal States and U.S.
Territories have federally approved plans. Two of the remaining
eligible States are currently completing their plans. I am
proud to say that my State of Maine has had a federally
approved plan since 1978.
The approved plans encompass 99 percent of the eligible
U.S. coastline. As a voluntary program, the framework of CZMA
provides guidelines for state plans that address multiple
societal, cultural, economic, and environmental objectives.
This allows the states the flexibility necessary to prioritize
management issues and utilize existing state regulatory
programs and statutes wherever possible.
As an incentive for their participation, the States receive
Federal funds to help implement these programs. The states
provide matching funds for many of these activities. Under the
CZMA, States with approved plans also have the right to review
Federal actions to ensure that they are consistent with state
policies.
The coastal zones managed in the CZMA are quite varied.
They range from Arctic to tropical islands, from sandy to rocky
shorelines, and from urban to rural areas. They include
wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and coral reefs. Because of these
varying habitats and resource types, management issues differ
from state to state. No two state plans are the same.
Likewise, there are multiple uses of the coastal zone.
Coastal managers are asked to strike a balance among the
residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial
development; harbor development and maintenance; controlling
shoreline erosion; and commercial and recreational fishing.
Coastal programs address these competing needs for resources,
steer activities to appropriate areas of the coast, and attempt
to minimize the effects of these activities on coastal
resources.
As we can all imagine, being able to balance economic
development while protecting public resources requires the
cooperative effort of the Federal Government, the coastal
states, local jurisdictions, nongovernmental organizations, and
the public. There are many of these partnerships working
together within the state coastal programs.
An excellent example of this collaborative approach can be
found in the Maine coastal program. During the fall of 1996,
they conducted an intensive outreach effort to gauge public
opinion about coastal issues and needs. The results of these
efforts have been used to shape priority areas for the programs
through the year 2000, and I am sure that our witnesses will be
providing us with more examples of how the States have tailored
the CZMA to address their needs.
The authorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act
expires at the end of the current fiscal year. The 1999
reauthorization of the CZMA provides us with a unique and well-
positioned opportunity to provide a vision and framework for
coastal and ocean resource management into the next century.
We have assembled an excellent slate of witnesses to tell
the committee what should be the best course of action, and
what kinds of issues we should address during the course of
this reauthorization. Certainly, this reauthorization process
affords us the opportunity to begin to examine any additional
issues that we ought to consider and other challenges that are
before us with respect to the coastlines across this country.
So I would like to welcome our first panel. First, we have
Terry Garcia, who is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere. I was happy to participate--it does not
seem that long ago--in your confirmation, but it was 2 years
ago, and I welcome you back. How time flies when you are having
a good time. [Laughter.]
Senator Snowe. I welcome you back, Mr. Secretary. Thank you
for being here, and you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF TERRY D. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, ACCOMPANIED BY SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Thank you, and good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. I am
accompanied today by Sally Yozell, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. I have a
written statement which I would like to have inserted into the
record, and will make some brief oral remarks.
Senator Snowe. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Garcia. The Coastal Zone Management Act has created a
unique State and Federal partnership, providing States with a
framework, assistance, and resources to manage the land and
water uses of the coastal zone. federally approved State
coastal management programs balance conservation of the coastal
environment with human uses that depend on the coastal zone.
State coastal management programs receive annual grants
from NOAA to help leverage State and local funds for coastal
management activities to address a wide range of issues of
national importance, including coastal erosion and storms,
declining coastal habitat and water quality, public access,
coastal development, and waterfront revitalization.
Among other examples, the coastal zone management program
has undertaken the following. In Maine, the coastal management
program worked with Washington County to develop and implement
a strategy that currently focuses on building economic
development in the marine resource business and ecotourism
industries.
The Massachusetts coastal management program, working with
many interests and agencies, is leading the State's efforts to
improve the economic viability of its ports and harbors by
developing municipal harbor plans for various communities, and
administers the State seaport bond funds to ensure that
infrastructure improvements are made to complement the harbor
plans.
There is no better testament to the success of the CZMA
than the fact that 32 of 35 eligible States, commonwealths, and
territories have received Federal approval of their coastal
management plans and that two more States, Minnesota and
Indiana, are seeking to join the national CZM program in the
months ahead.
The strong partnership developed with the States through
CZMA is also seen in the 23 federally designated National
Estuarine Research Reserves, in 20 coastal States and
territories, including the new Jacques Cousteau Reserve
designated in New Jersey just last year, and most recently,
Kachemak Bay in Alaska in February. Four additional reserves
are in development in Mississippi, Florida, California, and New
York. Reserves provide an array of education, research, and
other stewardship activities.
I want to commend the chairwoman and the subcommittee for
scheduling this hearing. The Nation's coastal regions are of
critical importance to the economy and the environmental health
of the United States. The 425 coastal counties generate $1.3
trillion of the GNP, and coastal industries account for over
one-third of the national employment, 28.3 million jobs. In
1995, just under a billion tons of cargo worth $620 billion
moved through coastal ports and harbors.
Coastal estuaries are among the most biologically
productive regions in the Nation, as well as providing
recreational opportunities for more than 180 million Americans
each year. Quite frankly, however, our country's coastal
resources continue to be under siege, and the need for the CZMA
is greater now than ever.
I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the CZMA. The
Administration's steadfast support for CZMA was reinforced
recently with a submission to Congress of the Administration's
proposal called the Coastal Management Enhancement Act of 1999,
and with the announcement of the President's Lands Legacy
Initiative.
Under the Lands Legacy Initiative, which is part of the
administration's CZMA proposal and the President's fiscal 2000
budget request, NOAA would receive an additional $105 million
over current funding levels. A significant portion of these
funds is for the Coastal Management and Estuarine Reserve
programs.
The Administration's CZMA proposal provides an overall
increase of $30.6 million over fiscal year 1999 levels for
State coastal management programs. These funds and the
Administration's CZMA proposal will help address three critical
coastal concerns, smart growth, protection of coastal habitat,
and polluted run-off.
Coastal communities are the most densely populated and
fastest growing areas of the Nation. Over 3,600 people a day
move to the coast. 40 percent of new commercial development and
46 percent of new residential development is occurring in
coastal communities. This growth and resulting development
fuels sprawl and impacts coastal communities by degrading water
quality, marine resources, fragmenting coastal habitat, and
reducing the quality of life for coastal residents.
Twenty eight million of new funding under the Lands Legacy
Initiative is included in the Administration's CZMA proposal to
develop smart growth strategies and land use planning
innovations, to revitalize waterfronts and improve public
access to the coast. In addition, to protect our pristine
estuary resources from the ever-growing pressures of sprawl,
the Administration's CZMA proposal includes an increase of
$14.7 million for the Reserves to purchase buffers, boundaries,
and easements from willing sellers.
The coastal communities initiative will fund projects such
as the one in the City of Glen Cove, New York, where CZMA funds
helped the city revitalize its waterfront for commercial and
recreational purposes by cleaning up a brownfields site.
Coastal habitats, including wetlands, estuaries, and coral
reefs, provide critical spawning and nursery areas for living
marine resources. In the southeast, over 90 percent of the
commercial catch, and 50 percent of the recreational catch, are
fish and shellfish dependent upon wetlands. Under the
Administration's proposal and the Lands Legacy Initiative,
funds will be provided to initiate research and monitoring and
cooperative restoration projects, and to leverage additional
funding for on-the-ground restoration.
Polluted runoff from sources such as urban streets and
parking areas is seriously impacting the coast. Polluted runoff
is a prime suspect in contributing to shellfish harvesting
restrictions and conditions that have led to pfiesteria and
other harmful algal blooms. Our economy has lost well in excess
of $1 billion over the last decade as a result of such events.
Polluted coastal waters also result in closure of beaches to
swimming.
Under the President's Clean Water Action Plan, $12 million
in funding, an increase of $4 million in fiscal year 2000, is
requested under the Administration's CZMA proposal to develop
and implement on-the-ground State polluted run-off control
measures and to leverage other State and local resources.
In conclusion, the CZMA is one of the Nation's landmark
natural resource management laws, and stands today as our most
successful voluntary tool allowing comprehensive and
cooperative management of our country's coastline. We urge the
committee's active support of the reauthorization and the
Administration's proposal.
On behalf of the Administration, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to working with
you, Madam Chairwoman, and the committee on this important law
and the legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY D. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon, Ms. Chairwoman, and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Terry Garcia, and I am the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). I thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the
reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The CZMA
is a landmark resources management law that has benefitted the Nation,
the States and the citizens of our country since its enactment in 1972.
My testimony will focus on the President's Lands Legacy Initiative, the
benefit of the CZMA to the nation, and the Administration's proposal to
reauthorize the CZMA. The Administration's proposal has previously been
submitted to the Subcommittee.
THE PRESIDENT'S LAND LEGACY INITIATIVE
The President recently announced a $1 billion Lands Legacy
Initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural
treasures. The Lands Legacy Initiative would provide $105 million to
NOAA to protect America's valuable ocean and coastal resources and to
strengthen state and local efforts to address the problems caused by
sprawl.
America's ocean and coastal areas are under siege by a whole suite
of activities, including coastal population growth, development,
maritime commerce, commercial and recreational fishing, and tourism.
The economic and environmental well-being we derive from the essential
natural resources and beauty provided by these areas is being
undermined by the economic and aesthetic uses that make these diverse
areas valuable to the Nation. Escalating losses and degradation of
coastal wetlands, fisheries habitat, and coral reef ecosystems must be
reversed.
The Lands Legacy Initiative will target funds to strengthen and
expand protection of the nation's most significant ocean and coastal
areas; restore critical coastal habitat and vibrant coral reef
ecosystems; and provide states and local governments with the tools and
resources for environmentally-sound smart growth strategies. This
includes $32 million for Partnerships to Promote Community Based Smart
Growth; $15 million for the enhancement of our National Marine
Sanctuaries; $14.7 million to enhance the protection of critical
estuaries through the National Estuarine Research Reserve System; $10
million to determine ways to use dredged material in environmentally-
sound beneficial ways; $10 million to help restore fragile coral reefs
injured by human impacts; and $22.7 million to increase the number and
geographical scope of community-based fish habitat restoration efforts.
The Lands Legacy Initiative provides us with a unique opportunity
to ensure that our coastal and ocean areas are used, conserved and
protected for the benefit of present and future generations.
THE BENEFIT OF THE CZMA TO THE NATION
The CZMA's goals and objectives, as provided for in the Act's
findings and policy statements, describe the importance to the nation
of the coastal zone for its variety of natural, commercial,
recreational, ecological, industrial and aesthetic resources; and the
need to preserve, protect, develop and restore or enhance these
resources for this and succeeding generations. The CZMA defines and
authorizes the Coastal Zone Management Program and the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System. It emphasizes a partnership with the
states. It is a critical national authority that works with all sectors
of government to comprehensively manage and address the many and
increasing essures on the use of our coastal areas and our coastal and
ocean environments.
The coastal management program is implemented by state coastal
management programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves, in
partnership with the federal government. Participation is voluntary and
eligible states may develop coastal management programs or reserves
pursuant to federal requirements. As part of federal approval, state
coastal management programs and reserves receive annual operating funds
through cooperative agreements with NOAA. These funds are used by state
agencies and local governments for a variety of management, research,
permitting, enforcement, education andproject specific activities. In
addition, federal approval of a state coastal management program
activates the CZMA federal consistency requirement. Federal consistency
requires that certain actions, in or outside the coastal zone, that
affect any coastal use or resource must be consistent with the
enforceable policies of state coastal management programs. The federal
consistency requirement is a powerful tool that states use to address
effects on coastal uses or resources that are the result of federal
actions.
For over twenty-five years the CZMA has provided national goals,
priorities and guidance for how states and the Federal Government
manage the nation's coastal and ocean resources. States have made great
strides implementing federally approved management programs which
reduce threats to coastal wetlands, improve coastal water quality,
expand public access to the coast, revitalize urban waterfronts and
educate the public about the need to manage and protect coastal and
ocean resources.
While the goals of the CZMA are clear, much remains to be done.
Implementation of the CZMA's goals by state coastal management
programs, estuarine research reserves, and NOAA requires ongoing
vigilance, effort and resources to meet increasing pressures on coastal
and ocean resources. Stresses on coastal and ocean resources are
increasing dramatically, and so are the resulting management
challenges. For example, from 1996-2015, the coastal population is
projected to increase from 141 million to 161 million with the
accompanying increases in solid waste production, urban runoff, losses
of green space and wildlife habitat, water quality declines, and other
stresses on the coastal and marine environment. These challenges
include continued rapid population growth in coastal areas at much
higher rates than inland, loss and degradation of habitats and
biodiversity, water quality problems, continued user conflicts, and
increased separation of coastal residents from natural resources. This
is why the reauthorization of the CZMA in 1999 is so important to NOAA,
the coastal states and to the nation.
The CZMA has received the near-unanimous non-partisan support among
Congress over the years, and the wide-spread support of state and local
governments, interest groups and the public. The benefits of the CZMA
and the support it fosters can be seen in the effectiveness of the
national system of state coastal management programs, the growing
network and use of estuarine research reserves, the vitality of our
coastal economies, and the protection and sustainability of important
coastal resources and habitats.
Some of the accomplishments include the following: The national
system of coastal management programs is nearly complete with 95,142
miles, or 99.7 percent, of the 95,439 miles of the nation's shoreline
under management by 32 federally-approved state, territorial, and
commonwealth coastal programs. Twenty nine of these states have also
received conditional approval of their coastal nonpoint pollution
control programs. Demonstrating the growing state interest in this
federal program, three new state coastal management programs, those of
Ohio, Georgia, and Texas, have been approved by NOAA within the past
three years. The nation's 33rd coastal management program, Minnesota's,
only awaits final action by the new Governor, before approval by NOAA.
In addition, we anticipate receiving Indiana's draft program for review
later this year. Of the nation's 35 coastal states and territories
eligible for participation under the CZMA, only Illinois is not
currently participating.
The benefit of the CZMA is also seen in the growth and importance
of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Reserves are
protected land and water areas in 20 states and territories that are
part of a national system administered by NOAA. The states operate the
individual reserves, participate in developing goals for the System,
and implement System-wide activities. Reserves protect representative
examples of estuarine habitat and conduct a suite of activities that
improve the stewardship of estuaries, including: long-term research,
system-wide water quality monitoring, technical training for coastal
decision makers, public education and interpretation programs, and
demonstration projects. Reserves are important for habitat protection
since they manage discrete protected lands and waters and help forge
community-based solutions to estuarine environmental problems, such as
voluntary changes to farming practices, development of new septic tank
standards, or restoration of wetlands.
There are 23 federally designated National Estuarine Research
Reserves in twenty states and territories, including the Jacques
Cousteau reserve designated in New Jersey just last year and the
Kachemak Bay (Alaska) reserve designated in February of this year. Four
additional reserves are in development in Grand Bay (Mississippi),
Guanama-Tolomato-Matanzas (GTM)(Florida), San Francisco Bay
(California), and in the St. Lawrence River in upstate New York. The
Grand Bay and GTM reserves are on schedule to be designated by NOAA in
the Summer of 1999. Over 900,000 acres of estuarine habitat are now
protected by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Habitat
protected by the System will increase this year to over 1,000,000 acres
with additional acquisitions by existing reserves, and with the
designation of the Mississippi and Florida reserves. Visitors to
reserves now number over 1 million per year.
The reserve system has initiated a unique system-wide monitoring
program for water quality and weather parameters that can link short-
term events to habitat changes. Reserves also are helping local
decision makers and professionals in coastal areas apply new and
innovative methods and technologies. In response to the
Administration's Clean Water Action Plan, Reserves are joining their
efforts with EPA's National Estuary Programs (NEPs) to share more
broadly lessons learned with coastal programs andcommunities. In
addition, the coastal management programs are working to further
enhance their links with NEPs and to work together in providing support
to local coastal communities to address impacts and pressures on
estuary resources.
The Biennial Report that NOAA sends to Congress documents the
benefits of these programs. The report, as required by the Act, is a
comprehensive account of the accomplishments of NOAA, the coastal
states and reserves, in advancing the goals of the CZMA during the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Before I move on to the Administration's
reauthorization proposal, let me highlight for you some specific CZMA
and Reserve success stories.
In San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, a federally approved CZMA program, has reversed
wetland loss from 2,300 acres per year to only 4 acres per year. This
effort has been aided by the efforts of the California Department of
Fish and Game, and other Federal agencies including the Department of
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineer.
Under section 306A of the CZMA, the Coastal Resource Improvement
Program, states have used federal and state funds to provide
substantial public access to the coast through coastal parks, fishing
piers, boat launches, dune walkovers, foot and bike trails, beach
clean-ups, parking lots and access roads, land acquisition, historic
structure restoration, urban waterfrontrevitalization and other
projects. Rough estimates show that states have used over $50 million
in federal funds, equally matched with state and loca funds, since 1985
for over 1,000 access and resource protection projects.
State coastal management programs have provided support to numerous
coastal communities for environmentally-sound waterfront
revitalization. Virginia has used limited CZMA funds to spur
development of an eco-industrial park in Cape Charles, Virginia. The
City of Wilmington, North Carolina used CZMA funds to develop a
riverfront plan that served as a catalyst for $4 million in public
investment and $100 million in private investment along the Cape Fear
River. This project restored dilapidated warehouses and piers, created
vessel and public access to the City's waterfront, and turned the
waterfront into a vibrant economic and social center for the City.
These are just a few of the examples of the benefits of the CZMA
program. The Biennial Report provides additional examples.
the administration's 1999 czma reauthorization proposal
Turning now to the 1999 reauthorization of the CZMA, NOAA fully
supports the CZMA and is committed to working with Congress, the
coastal states, and other interests, to continue the Act's national
programs. The Congress and the Administration have an opportunity to
position the CZMA to meet the requirements of the next century, while
maintaining the aspects of the CZMA that have served the country well
for over a quarter of a century. These include the flexibility of the
state-federal partnership, using state programs as the ``on the
ground'' delivery mechanism, and consideration of the national interest
in coastal uses and resources.
The Administration's proposal is built around the following four
concepts to address these issues and challenges. These concepts are
then discussed in more detail below.
strengthen the CZMA's habitat focus;
support coastal communities;
support national coastal management objectives; and
strengthen the National Estuarine Research Reserves.
Strengthen the CZMA's Habitat Focus. The Administration's proposal
addresses emerging habitat issues, such as protection of coral reefs,
protection of essential fish habitat, and habitat restoration. This is
accomplished by the addition of these issues in the Act's findings and
declaration's of policy and, primarily, by focusing the implementation
phase of the coastal nonpoint pollution control program within the CZMA
on NOAA's traditional habitat protection and restoration mission, and
specifying state coastal management program agencies. responsibilities
in the management of polluted runoff.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO
THE ACT
CZMA section 306(d)(16) is proposed to be amended to
clarify that state Coastal Management Program (CMP) agencies
should focus their polluted runoff efforts on habitat issues
and to specify the responsibilities of state CMPs for
implementing their coastal nonpoint pollution control programs.
Addressing polluted runoff issues in the CZMA would not impose
any new requirements on states or citizens. The
Administration's proposal would provide an important mechanism
to address polluted runoff, a major contributor to the decline
of coastal habitat and resources and effects the economic
viability of coastal communities. The increasing numbers of
algal blooms and closed shellfish and fishing areas is linked
to polluted runoff from our streets, lawns and farms. This
polluted runoff is linked to the degradation of coastal habitat
and coral reefs, the ``dead zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico, and
the outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscidia in the Chesapeake Bay. The
CZMA offers a unique opportunity to protect and restore coastal
waters and abitat by bringing multiple programs and people
together to address polluted runoff problems.
CZMA section 306(c) is proposed to be amended to
provide for funding to implement the coastal nonpoint programs.
It is important to note that, the Administration's proposal
would not fund the nonpoint program at the expense of base
program funds. Essentially, the Administration's funding
proposal would continue to build on the funding and progress
already made by the states to control polluted runoff through
the $8 million appropriated in FY 1999 for polluted runoff
activities. In addition, the efforts of coastal states to
control polluted runoff are at a critical juncture. Coastal
states have invested substantial effort in developing their
programs and need increased financial support to successfully
implement their plans for improving management of polluted
runoff. Otherwise, the state coastal nonpoint programs will be
in limbo, with little guidance as to how coastal management
programs should proceed in addressing polluted runoff.
CZMA section 309 is proposed to be amended to include
habitat as an eligible enhancement area. This would include
development of, enhancements to, and satisfying the conditions
of, a state's coastal nonpoint pollution control program.
Support Coastal Communities. The Administration's proposal provides
support to local and tribal coastal communities to develop
environmentally protective solutions to the impacts and pressures on
coastal uses and resources by encouraging revitalization of previously
developed areas. To accomplish this, the Administration proposes the
following changes to the Act:
The findings of the CZMA are proposed to be amended to
provide for the support of coastal communities.
CZMA section 309 would include coastal communities as
an eligible enhancement area for state efforts.
CZMA section 310 would be used to provide grants to
local, tribal and regional governments, through state coastal
management programs, to support, plan and build capacity for
coastal communities' to address environmentally protective
smart growth and community revitalization efforts, and to
provide much needed technical assistance in these areas. The
Administration's proposal strengthens coordination between
states and American Indian tribes. Including tribes will help
address emerging tribal and state coastal management issues and
implement Administration policy regarding consultation with
tribes, but will not affect the current state-federal
partnership in the Act. There are many community-type projects
that could be accomplished by tribes.
Supporting National Coastal Management Objectives. The
Administration's proposal recognizes that coastal management decision-
making can be improved by strengthening the ability of coastal states
and NOAA to make sound coastal management decisions and plans. The
Administration proposes to amend CZMA section 310 to clarify the use of
section 310 funds and provide the authorization and funds needed to
adequately address the demand for NOAA technical assistance,
management-oriented research, innovative technology development,
mediation services and coordinated NOAA capabilities. Of the $28
million in the Administration's proposal and the President's FY 2000
budget request for section 310, the Administration expects that 15 to
20 percent of this amount would be used for these technical assistance
efforts, with the remainder available for the coastal community grants.
Strengthening National Estuarine Research Reserves. The
Administration's proposal enhances the link between the estuarine
reserves and coastal management programs by making technical amendments
that would strengthen the capabilities of estuarine research reserves
to address coastal management issues. These technical amendments would
also forge a stronger link between the reserve program and state
coastal management programs. Reserves are also eligible under the
section 310 coastal communities initiative.
Other Technical Amendments. The Administration's proposal also
makes other technical, but important, amendments to the CZMA to improve
the effectiveness, efficiency and flexibility of the CZMA's state-
federal partnership. These are detailed in the Administration's
proposal.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the 1999 reauthorization of the CZMA provides a unique
opportunity to provide a vision and a framework for coastal and ocean
resources management and stewardship into the 21st century. The
effectiveness of the CZMA and the broad-based st support for the Act
can enable the Administration and the Congress to accomplish the Act's
objectives. A reauthorized and enhanced Act, as described in the
Administration's proposal, will set in motion the means by which we can
ensure that the Nation's coastal and ocean uses and resources are used,
conserved and protected for the benefit of present and future
generations. The Administration looks forward to working with you on
this task. That concludes my remarks and I would be glad to answer any
questions.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, for your testimony. I
am going to begin with the Lands Legacy Initiative being
proposed by the President. Exactly how would that work? First,
how would NOAA develop the criteria for grants under section
310 of the Administration's CZMA proposal?
Second, how would the money be implemented? I gather the
grants are issued on a competitive basis, and again, how would
you determine what would be included in the award process?
Also, how would NOAA grapple with the whole issue of population
growth and sprawl, which is at the core of this whole issue?
Urban sprawl is obviously spilling over to the coastal areas,
and it will have a major impact in future years.
Mr. Garcia. As I mentioned, the Lands Legacy Initiative
would provide a total of $105 million of new funding for NOAA
programs. These funds would come from off-shore oil and gas
leasing activities. Approximately $35 million would be for the
Coastal Zone Management Program. Another $15 million for the
National Estuarine Research Reserve program.
Of that $35 million, 28 is proposed for competitive grants
under section 310 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and this
would be to provide grants on a competitive basis to States,
local communities, to encourage activities that provide smart
growth, that promote revitalization of already developed areas,
as well as to provide certain technical assistance from NOAA to
these localities to assist them in developing these plans, but
again, it would be on a competitive basis, and these would be
nonmatching funds.
Senator Snowe. Have the criteria been developed yet?
Mr. Garcia. The criteria has not yet been developed. We
would obviously want to work with the committee and the States
in developing that criteria.
Senator Snowe. Do you think NOAA has the capability to
determine exactly how the States ought to be grappling with the
issue of urban sprawl?
Mr. Garcia. Well, we are not trying to tell the States
precisely how they are going to spend the money, but rather, we
have identified this as a critical area deserving of attention
and deserving of resources. I do believe that we have the
expertise to evaluate, with the assistance of other outside
parties, the relative merits of proposals, but we view this as
a partnership. We intend to work with States as partners in
addressing these concerns.
The problem of sprawl and growth in these coastal areas is
now manifesting itself in a number of ways, as you are well
aware--as you took the leadership role last year in introducing
legislation to deal with harmful algal blooms. We are now
seeing the consequences of this growth. We are seeing the
consequences of not controlling nonpoint pollution.
It has to be dealt with, but it can be dealt with in a way
that does not involve the Federal Government proscriptively
issuing conditions, but, rather, working with the States and
communities to develop proposals that work for both of us. The
CZMA is the intersection of environmental policy and economic
development, and I think we have got a good track record in
that regard.
This is one of the programs, I think, that enjoys
widespread bipartisan support throughout the country, so I am
confident that we can implement this in a way that will be
satisfactory to all.
Senator Snowe. Was this included as a result of input by
the various States that have submitted management plans with
respect to this initiative and nonpoint source pollution?
Mr. Garcia. It certainly was done in consultation with the
States. I do not know if the specific proposal was submitted by
any one State or organization, but we and the States have
identified nonpoint pollution as an issue that has to be
addressed, and the Administration feels very strongly that
sprawl and uncontrolled growth has to be a priority and has to
be addressed in the coastal zone.
Senator Snowe. Yes, and I agree, but also I think that the
approaches that have been taken in the past in the Coastal Zone
Management Act have been rather flexible. I think that one of
the concerns that has developed on this issue is a question of
how we approach the issue of nonpoint source pollution, whether
or not we are going to mandate it as a percentage of the
State's allocation. I think this approach changes fundamentally
the direction that has been taken historically within this
legislation. The question is whether or not the
Administration's approach is preferable, or, rather, is it
better to maintain the provisions in the current statute?
Mr. Garcia. Let me be clear, the States will draft and
prepare their own competitive proposals and we will be
flexible, as we have been in the past.
I think that there has been some misunderstanding between
us and the States on what we have proposed on nonpoint, and
that somehow we may be, by suggesting in the legislation that
10 to 20 percent of the section 306 funds should be set aside
for nonpoint, that somehow that is taking away from core
programs. It is not. That is not the intention. We are merely
adding to those core programs' funding for dealing with
nonpoint.
Senator Snowe. But are we not taking away the States'
flexibility to determine exactly what the needs are by setting
a certain allocation? After all, it is whether or not we have
confidence in the States to determine what their needs are and
what are the most egregious problems that they are facing.
Mr. Garcia. I do not think so. I do not think we are taking
away from them the flexibility. We are saying, however, and
this is the case under the current law, that they have to
address nonpoint pollution.
Senator Snowe. Right.
Mr. Garcia. Run-off pollution must be addressed, and they
will continue to have flexibility to do that, but we think it
is important that nonpoint be included in this legislation.
This is the only Federal law that deals with the creation
of partnerships, with States and communities. It is the only
Federal law that brings together all of these various agencies
that have responsibility for authorizing or managing growth in
coastal areas, and nonpoint is one of the most significant
issues that we face, and so we felt it was appropriate to be in
the legislation. We think there is flexibility for the States.
We intend to work with the States to ensure that there is
that flexibility, but we also intend that the nonpoint issue be
addressed.
Senator Snowe. Are you saying that you have not heard
concerns from States with respect to the Administration's
proposal that would require not less than 10 percent and not
more than 20 percent of section 306 funds to be set aside for
nonpoint source pollution?
Mr. Garcia. No. I have heard from the States on that, or at
least from their organization on that. We understand that they
are concerned that this will take away from core funding of the
CZMA grants, and again, our view is that it will not. What we
are proposing to do under our legislation is to add additional
funding to those core programs. That additional funding is well
within the 10 to 20 percent that we are talking about.
Now, if the appropriation should decline, we made it a
percentage so that the other programs would not be adversely
impacted, but they would still have to spend resources and
money on nonpoint pollution control.
Senator Snowe. Finally on this issue, is it the
Administration's belief that the States are not doing enough?
Mr. Garcia. No, we think that the States have been very
proactive in this, but we have a responsibility to see that
this issue is addressed, to make sure that funds are provided,
and to ensure that those funds are used in the most effective
way possible.
Senator Snowe. How did the Administration come to the 10 to
20 percent allocation? How was that determined?
Mr. Garcia. The 10 to 20 percent allocation would be
roughly equivalent to the funding that we would propose to add
in addition to those core programs.
Senator Snowe. How does this dovetail with the EPA programs
and the Clean Water Act on nonpoint source pollution?
Mr. Garcia. Well, our programs focus more on the impact of
nonpoint on the resources, on coastal resources, and the
measures necessary to mitigate or reduce the impact on those
resources, whereas EPA has a different focus, principally on
human health.
Senator Snowe. Would the entire Federal nonpoint source
pollution program be reviewed for performance, or just this
section that is included under the Coastal Zone Management Act?
Mr. Garcia: Reviewed?
Senator Snowe. Reviewed for performance.
Mr. Garcia. Well, the entire program under the CZMA would
be subject to review.
Senator Snowe. OK, but just under the Coastal Zone
Management Act. Only the nonpoint source pollution program
under the CZMA would be subject to review in terms of its
performance, but not the nonpoint provisions under the EPA and
the Clean Water Act?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Snowe. You would be able to distinguish between the
two?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, we can.
Senator Snowe. On your administrative cost, I understand
that the base program funds have been insufficient to meet all
of the States' needs, but that you also told the States that
you will be retaining a portion of their funds for the purposes
of meeting the shortfalls that occurred in the administrative
expenses for NOAA, and that the administrative expenses would
be paid for under section 308. Is that correct?
Mr. Garcia. I am not sure about 308, but yes, it is true
that we have proposed to pay for certain overhead cost from
these grants.
Senator Snowe. Aren't your administrative expenses paid for
in another section of the CZMA?
Mr. Garcia. Well, there is an administrative fund that
takes care of the operation of this program, but NOAA's
administrative cost, such as security, accounting, various
other costs associated with running the agency, including these
programs, grants administration, for example, have gone up, and
each program in NOAA, including each grant program, shares a
portion of that cost each year. In fact, the only program that
did not share was the CZM grant program.
We have proposed that 2 percent be applied to these
overhead costs, which is much lower than most of these other
programs are paying right now, and if there were some other way
of funding it, we would certainly have welcomed that, but the
fact is, there is no other way.
Senator Snowe. Well, it was my understanding we paid $4.5
million for administrative expenses, and obviously that was
insufficient for fiscal year 1999. Is that right?
Mr. Garcia. Well, yes. That money is for operating the
coastal zone program itself, for the CZM office, but it is not
sufficient to cover these other costs. In fact, it is not
sufficient to cover all of the costs associated with running
the program.
Senator Snowe. So that must have been the case in the past.
Other than expanding responsibilities, what is attributing to
the increase in administrative expenses? Why not just come in
and ask for an increase in administrative expenses as opposed
to taking it out of the States-based allocation?
Mr. Garcia. Well, we have not been very successful in
getting increases for our administrative expenses, Senator.
Senator Snowe. What is the shortfall?
Mr. Garcia. The shortfall, or at least the amount that is
proposed to be moved from the CZMA program, is about $1
million, I believe. The total increase in administrative cost
for NOAA, though, is $12 million, and as I said, it is a wide
range of activities, such as grants administration or security.
One of the problems that we have had, all agencies have
had, is with security. For example, we have had to increase
security at all of our facilities because of some well-
publicized incidents. These are costs that simply have to be
borne. We cannot ignore them, and we have to find a way of
paying them, if not through an increase in the administrative
line item, then from the programs. There is no other source of
funding.
Senator Snowe. The States have already developed their
plans for fiscal year 1999. How will it affect their programs
and the implementation of their plans if they now find
themselves in the position where funds are being rescinded?
Mr. Garcia. I do not think it is going to affect their
performance. This is the first time, this year, as I said--it
is 2 percent, it is about $1.3 million. I do not think that it
is going to adversely impact them or affect the way they
perform under the program.
Again, if there were some other way to do this, we would do
it. This is the first time we have had to do this. All
programs, though, in NOAA, whether they are CZM or not, have
had to pay administrative costs in the past. We have been able
to avoid taking it out of CZM, but we just could not do it this
year.
Senator Snowe. I guess the concern that I have is whether
or not it impacts the States' ability to implement their
programs, and whether you are going to take that into account
when they are being reviewed for performance. $1 million may or
may not affect them. I do not know what impact you have had
from the various States.
Mr. Garcia. As I said, I do not think it is going to impact
them, but if it does, if their performance is impacted as a
result of something we have done, then yes, that is taken into
account.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
appreciate this hearing very, very much, and thank you for your
leadership, and I apologize for being late.
Let me just make a couple of comments if I can, and then
perhaps ask a few questions. I will submit my full prepared
statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
I want to thank Senator Snowe for holding this hearing and our
panel of witnesses for joining us today. Our witnesses bring a range of
expertise, including law, policy and science. I congratulate the Chair
for assembling them.
In 1972 when the Congress first enacted the Coastal Zone Management
Act it made a critical finding: ``Important ecological, cultural,
historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone are being
irretrievably damaged or lost.''
As we consider reauthorizing the Act this Congress, I believe that
we must measure CZMA's performance against this finding.
Have we stopped coastal damage and the loss of habitat? Have we
reversed that trend and are we now restoring damaged habitat? For me,
these questions are at the heart of today's hearing and the discussion
we will have over the coming months.
First, I want to discuss what is at stake in our consideration of
the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Coastal habitat is enormously valuable. It has ecological,
cultural, historic and esthetic value, but it also has great economic
value. Since we last reauthorized this Act in 1990, economic analysis
has been done that I hope will inform our discussion today and help us
understand just how valuable coastal areas are.
In 1997, economist Robert Constanza of the University of Maryland
estimated the dollar value of coastal ecosystems worldwide at $27
trillion.
His work was groundbreaking--not because it argued that healthy
ecosystems have economic value--we all understood that. It was
groundbreaking because it quantified that value in dollars and made it
comparable to the other assets in the modern economy.
In his analysis, Dr. Constanza evaluated the ``ecosystem services''
that a healthy habitat provides. This includes the cleansing of air and
water, regulation of watersheds, waste treatment, renewal of soil
fertility and other environmental processes that we often take for
granted.
He estimated that a single hectare of healthy wetlands provides
almost $15,000 in ``services.'' In other words, it would cost nearly
$15,000 to purchase water filtration, flood control and all of the
other services that a hectare of wetlands provides to a community.
In a single case in New York, he concluded that the City could
spend $1.5 billion to protect a watershed in the Catskills or spend 4
times that amount--or $6 billion--on the construction of a water
filtration plant that would replace the clean water provided by the
healthy watershed.
Of course a great deal more than just clean water is at stake when
we lose wetlands and other coastal areas.
In my State of Massachusetts, healthy fisheries depend on a healthy
coast. Over the past fifteen years, we have faced a dramatic rise in
shellfish bed closings, which have been caused by pollution from septic
systems, farms and other runoff. When we are forced to close a
shellfish bed, we are forced to put fishermen out of work.
The problem is not only the pollution, it is also that in
Massachusetts, as in so many other states, development is encroaching
on the coastal wetlands and overwhelming their ability to act as
natural filters.
Protecting our coastal land meanings protecting the environment,
biodiversity, open space and other societal benefits. It also means
protecting an enormously valuable economic resource.
Second, I want to highlight the flexible, community-based and
collaborative nature of the CZMA program. This is one of the best
features of the CZMA, and I would like us to build on it.
Let me offer one example from Massachusetts: Cape Cod is facing
significant environmental stress from increased development and runoff
pollution. One of the challenges the state faces in solving this
problem is monitoring coastal water quality. Environmental managers
need good information to set a baseline for water quality and periodic
measurements to evaluate progress.
Without this kind of information we cannot know what works and what
doesn't work, and we cannot be certain we are using our limited
resources wisely.
The CZMA program helped Massachusetts find a cost-effective and
environmentally-effective solution to this problem.
There are 17 citizen groups that monitor water quality on Cape Cod
and the Islands. Four years ago the staff at the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve realized that if each of these groups used
comparable methods and sought comparable data, a regional water quality
monitoring system could be created.
The Reserve established a Volunteer Water Quality Coordinator
position to provide training, communication, technical and funding
assistance, and now these groups are working together and comparable
data are available for the entire region.
This solution was possible because of the flexibility of the CZMA
program. It allows states to set priorities, collaborate and use
resources as efficiently as possible. I commend NOAA, Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management and the staff at Waquoit Bay for this work.
Third, I want to discuss the financial support for the CZMA
program.
I understand that the Clinton Administration is seeking to increase
funding for the program to $102 million as part of the President's Land
Legacy Initiative. This would amount to a $35.7 million increase over
last year--which is just more than a 50 percent increase.
In general, I support the President's CZMA request. This Committee
will, of course, craft is own proposal, and I look forward to working
with Chairman Snowe in that process. But, I want to state that I
strongly support the Administration request for additional funds. In my
opinion, this program has been drastically underfunded.
I have examined the appropriations for CZMA since 1980. Although
appropriation levels have varied, when you examine the base programs
and account for inflation, you find that funding has generally
stagnated. This current fiscal year CZMA has been better funded than it
was in the past few years, but it is receiving far less than it did in
1980 and other years. This is not a criticism of past Congresses. Many
programs have faced cuts because of tough fiscal times.
But nevertheless, at the same time that federal support for this
coastal program has lagged, coastal population growth and its
associated environmental stresses have continued to grow rapidly.
In 1960, about 95 million Americans lived on our coast. By 1980,
that number climbed to almost 120 million. Today, there are 145 million
Americans living on the coast. And projections show that by 2010, more
than 159 million Americans will live on the coast.
We have not kept pace with our needs. More people, more development
and more stress, have created a greater need for the CZMA programs.
Unfortunately, we have provided less to our states and communities for
coastal protection as the challenge has grown.
I want to add that I believe that this program will use additional
funding efficiently and effectively, particularly in the effort to
control nonpoint source pollution.
CZMA programs to control runoff have been drastically underfunded,
in part because of resistance from states. We need to get funding to
states that are ready to act and not hold the entire program hostage to
states that are moving at a slower pace--too slowly some have
suggested. I hope that we tackle that issue in this reauthorization so
that states that are ready to act will get the assistance they need.
In closing, I want to thank the Chair and witnesses again. I look
forward to our discussion today and to working with the Committee in
the coming months to reauthorize this important program.
Senator Kerry. The majority of the State CZMA programs came
into reality between 1978 and 1982. I came here in 1985. In
1990, during the CZMA reauthorization, we tried to respond to
what we felt were some ongoing needs of the program.
Now, I am not going to bear down on you, because I know the
degree to which the money is restricted, not just to you, but
in so many sectors of our agencies today. We have built a
system here where through the budgeting process everybody gets
to run for cover by hiding under the caps, or hiding under the
budget rules, and we do, too.
I am not just talking about OMB. The budget caps are a
great way for Congress to dodge responsibility these days.
We've got to live within the caps, but somebody sets those
caps, and somebody decides where money is going to be spent.
This is an area that enormously concerns me.
In 1972, Congress first enacted the CZMA, and it made the
following critical finding. It said, important ecological,
cultural, historical, and aesthetic values in coastal zones are
being irretrievably damaged or lost, and it strikes me that in
1999, in what will really be a millennium act, we have got to
measure the realities of where we find ourselves against the
standard that we set back then and the reality of what is
happening now.
If I ask whether we have stopped coastal damage and loss of
habitat, I think you would have to say no, and you would. If I
said, have we reversed the trend, and are we now restoring the
habitat, you would have to say no, and I would have to say no.
That is the standard against which, in my judgment, we have to
measure what NOAA does, what the CZMA is doing, and what each
of the States are doing.
Maybe it is a factor of time passing, but I get more and
more impatient about this, Mr. Garcia. I am wondering if we
should take stronger action, as in the Magnuson Act, where we
finally said, enough monkey business, we are going to give the
power to the Secretary of Commerce to make the decisions,
because local councils are not doing so.
That power has now been exercised by the Secretary in
several ways: on scallop fishing, amendment 5, George's Bank
and so forth. Many have disagreed with this but, frankly, I
think it will be judged as the only act that may wind up saving
the fishing industry.
Now, that said--and I do not want to answer my own
questions here.
Mr. Garcia. You are doing fine, though. [Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. Believe me, it is tempting. [Laughter.]
You are familiar with Professor Costanza's work, and how he
quantified the value of wetlands and what is happening to these
areas. When we began our efforts, to control wetlands and
habitat loss in 1980, more than half the wetlands in the
contiguous United States had been destroyed. That is where we
began.
Now, while loss of wetland acreas has slowed, we are still
witnessing a loss rate of over 100,000 acres a year. In
addition, I do not think we have begun to fully measure the
long-term impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal
waters and habitat. We are going to hear in the next panel
about some of these impacts. But the President's budget
requests about a 50 percent increase of some $35 million in the
CZMA program.
Now, I think it is terrific to see an increase, but the
fact is, a lot of States are not proceeding forward on their
nonpoint source programs because other States are not agreeing
to do so, so they do not get their money, even though they are
prepared to move forward.
We are just stalled--I hate to say it--but every State,
every population is in a process of sleep-walking through an
enormous long-term potential negative impact of polluted run-
off, which contains spilled oil, gas from gas stations,
pesticides, and fertilizers. Polluted run-off is having a
profound impact on our bays, estuaries, rivers, and in the long
run on our wetlands. When you combine the current impacts with
the continued rate of growth, I think we are behind the curve.
The purpose of the CZMA is not, obviously, to simply slow
this process. It is to reverse the process, it is to protect
our coastal areas, and I do not think we have yet achieved
that.
So the question is, as we approach this reauthorization,
does the Administration believe, do you believe that we can
simply proceed with a reauthorization that simply puts a little
more money in the program and chooses to highlight a few areas,
or do we need to dramatically alter our course and think out of
the box about how we are approaching this entire question?
While progress has been made, is it sufficient to simply
measure that progress in and of itself, or must it be measured
against the mission that we set for ourselves in 1972, and the
task that we are trying to accomplish?
I would ask you if you would address that rather long
introductory comment and question.
Mr. Garcia. You have raised several interesting points and,
I must say, I have to agree with you, not enough money has been
raised. I will hide behind the budget. We have submitted a
budget here that we think is adequate.
I do want to say that, while we have not made enough
progress, and while we have not reversed the decline of these
coastal resources, we are beginning to make progress. I do not
know what specifically you might refer to when you say dramatic
changes to the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, but it is my belief that if we are going to make
progress on this issue or, for that matter, any of the various
resource issues we are confronting, and these are all difficult
management issues, the only way we are going to do it is if we
do it cooperatively.
I do not think we can--as we have sometimes tried in the
past--impose solutions on people. It has not worked. It has
encountered resistance. I think that this law, while imperfect,
and yet to achieve its full potential, is still very promising.
This notion that we can develop partnerships with State and
local communities has not been fully realized or fully
exploited yet, but we are making a lot of progress, and if we
can continue to devote the kind of resources that are
necessary, I think we are going to achieve our goals.
Senator Kerry. You say we should continue to apply
resources. What do you mean by that? If States are not
cooperating and coming to closure on nonpoint source
pollution--you are suggesting there is no leverage?
Mr. Garcia. No, there is leverage, but States are starting
to come to terms with that. We have conditionally approved I
think 29 of the nonpoint plans.
I concede the point that we have not made as much progress
as we would like. I concede the point that we still confront
serious problems in coastal areas. We saw that last year. We
saw it the year before, with the increasing level of outbreaks
of harmful algal blooms and pfiesteria around the coast.
Senator Kerry. Let me ask a question on that. Is it
sufficient to say, we are making progress, while we are
experiencing increased problems? Again, I am not dumping this
on you. I am trying to get to the definitions and to the
realities of the problem.
We have got whole dead zones that are being extended and
growing, increased coral die-off, and more and more clam beds
closed. We have had increased developmental problems and so
forth. I am not sure how you measure the programs progress
against events that can be a literal killing of a system, where
mitigation and retrieval become almost impossible, if not
impossible. If we are not willing to put the money into saving
these are as, what on earth makes you believe we will ever put
the money into the rekindling, of life in these areas?
Mr. Garcia. I agree. It is a question of priorities. We
have, within the confines of the budget, submitted a proposal
that we think will advance our objective of addressing these
problems.
As I said earlier, more is always better. The States have
told us they need additional resources to implement these
programs. We have provided the resources that we think we are
capable of providing. We will be happy to work with the
Committee and explore other alternatives, but as you say, it is
a question of priorities, and what is important to this
country.
Do we have to wait for another disastrous season of
outbreaks of harmful algal blooms, or another dead zone in
another part of the country to realize the impact that this
phenomenon is going to have on our economies and on the health
of our citizens, on resources we depend upon? Hopefully not.
Senator Kerry. What about the possibility that, just as we
did in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we put an exasperation clause
in the Act providing that if States do not respond within a
certain period of time to the goals and standards set out, we
will do more than have this loosely networked implementation
process and be perhaps more defined and rigorous in what we
empower the Secretary to do to ensure those standards are being
met?
Mr. Garcia. Well, I do not know. I do not know if that is
necessary at this point. We are just now moving into the
implementation phase of nonpoint, so it is a bit early to say
whether or not the States are going to be successful in
implementing these various plans.
If at some point we determine that these efforts are
failing, or that communities are not implementing the plans
that have been approved, then we are going to need to reassess
where we are, but we are not at that point.
Senator Kerry. Would the States be more likely to take bold
action and implement rapidly if they knew there was that
dreaded prospect that the Federal hand might reach in with its
dirty tentacles and tell them what to do?
Mr. Garcia. I guess there are two points there. One, we are
going to have to make sure that the resources are there for the
States, and only then could we ask such a thing. Number 2, I am
not sure how effective the threat of Federal preemption or some
Federal action is in encouraging the States to move forward on
these programs.
As I had said earlier, the only way we are going to be
successful in addressing this problem is through the
development of effective partnerships. If it is a one-sided
deal, I am not sure we will be effective. We can throw a lot of
money at the problem, but the kind of resistance that we would
encounter would presumably take away from the effectiveness of
the program.
I would like to give this program and the voluntary efforts
that it represents a chance to succeed.
Senator Kerry. You think that the 25 years of experience
are not a legitimate period of experiment with respect to that?
Mr. Garcia. I do not know. I think that the 25 years of
experience in large part, is a success story. We do have an
effective program in place. The fact that we have not solved
the nonpoint problem should not be evidence that it is a
failure.
The fact is that we, the Federal Government, State
governments, the scientific community, are just now beginning
to grapple with this. We have dealt with the point source
pollution problem. This is the last problem in terms of
pollution that we have to deal with, and it is a difficult one.
It is complex.
It is nonpoint. There is no single source you can point to
that says, this is responsible for the problem. There are
hundreds, thousands of different reasons for the problem that
have to be dealt with, and the only way you are going to deal
with it is through some kind of very comprehensive and a
cooperative effort at a State and Federal level.
Senator Kerry. Do you think that our science has
sufficiently established the sources of polluted runoff, i.e.,
how much of it is agricultural versus how much of it is
whatever other component you want to pick? Is the breakdown on
that adaquate, or are we going to need as a part of this effort
to build a greater scientific, factual foundation on which to
be able to build the coalition necessary to achieve our goals
for the programs?
Mr. Garcia. I think we have made substantial progress on
that, and we have been devoting, at least within the Department
of Commerce, increased resources. The Administration as a
whole, through the ECOHAB program that we have testified before
the Committee on in the past, is a multiagency, Federal effort
to address the research and monitoring needs in this area.
The fact is, as with so many of these issues, we do not
know as much as we would like to know, and I suppose that will
probably be the epitaph of this agency and of man, that we did
not know as much as we would have liked to know. We base our
actions on the best knowledge we have in front of us. It is
getting better.
The information, I would say that we have now, is not
comforting. We are witnessing significant changes, and you
alluded to it a moment ago. Changes in coastal and ocean
waters. Sea surface temperature has increased over the last 2
decades. The chemistry of the ocean is changing, and it is
changing in a significant way, and the impact of that change is
going to have a very profound effect on all of us, maybe more
profound than the changes we are seeing in climate, and that is
why we are proposing that these matters have to be dealt with.
We can discuss whether the level of funding is adequate to
deal with those, but there is no disagreement from me or the
Administration that these are critical issues, and that they
must be dealt with. There really is no option.
Senator Kerry. Can you tell me something about the time
line for the grant distribution? Some have complained that it
takes 6 months or so for States to receive allotments. Is there
a reason for that, or is that accurate? Is there something that
can be done about it?
Mr. Garcia. I am not sure that is accurate. I would have to
ask my staff.
Well, I am told that the grants office says it takes
approximately 60 days on average. If, in fact, there is a
problem in getting grants out, and it is taking 6 months----
Senator Kerry: Does it vary by State for any particular
reason?
Mr. Garcia. It may. I do not know. We will have to look
into that.
Senator Kerry. Would you? It might be helpful to get us--
and I will ask my own staff if we could look at whether there
is a cross-State differential there.
[The information referred to follows:]
To address the question on the time required for processing of CZM
grants - please refer to this table which shows, for the last 3 fiscal
years: each eligible state, and a listing of the number of days between
submission of state grant applications to NOAA and NOAA's final
approval and payment of grant funds to states.
For the information provided below, the date is when the final
application was sent to the NOAA grants office by OCRM. The number of
days in parentheses is the grants office's actual processing time for
the award until award of funds to the state. (Please note that even if
the grants office's processing time went beyond 60 days, and approval
of the grant occurred after July 1 or October 1, the effective award
date was specified as the July 1 or October 1 start date so that the
state will not have an unfunded gap in time.)
Senator Kerry. Now, you have made the CZMA request part of
the Lands Legacy Initiative. Is there a rationale for wrapping
it in? Is there a point being made there? Does that affect how
the CZMA may fit into your overall agenda?
Mr. Garcia. Well, the point is that--as you know, the Lands
Legacy Initiative is relying upon funds from off-shore oil and
gas leasing activities, and it is the Administration's position
that since we are taking something out of coastal areas,
something very significant, then we should be putting something
back into those coastal areas, and that is what we are
proposing to do here.
Senator Kerry. Fair enough. That makes sense.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
You will have a report shortly with respect to the
evaluation of the State programs. Is that correct?
Mr. Garcia. Yes. There is a report on the effectiveness of
the program that is due out soon.
Senator Snowe. When would that be? I think it would be
helpful, as we become active in the reauthorization, to have a
chance to examine it as we are drafting the legislation.
Mr. Garcia. Let me see if we can at least provide you with
a preliminary result. I am not sure the final report will be
out in time, but we can certainly get you the preliminary
information.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Effectiveness Study group has just published their findings in
the most recent volume (Vol. 27) of the journal Coastal Management.
This journal will be provided to the Subcommittee shortly. The Study
found that state Coastal Management Programs were effective, but also
recommended that a national set of outcome indicators be developed.
Senator Snowe. I understand you are developing a process
for outcome indicators.
Mr. Garcia. That is part of the discussion with the States
on the effectiveness study.
Senator Snowe. Are you doing this in consultation with the
States?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Snowe. Well, I guess that concludes my questions
for Mr. Garcia.
Senator Kerry. Just a couple of quick ones. You have a $5.5
million outlay for administering CZMA. Is that a sufficient
amount, or does NOAA have a greater demand to be able to
accomplish the goals we have set for you?
Mr. Garcia. What we have proposed in the reauthorization is
to pay for administrative costs out of the operations research
and funding line. The fund itself, which relies upon repayments
of loans, has been inadequate in the past to cover the cost of
operating the program.
The loan collections are projected to be approximately $4
million over the next several years, and the costs have been
running in excess of that, so rather than do something that we
know is going to result in a shortfall, whatwe are proposing is
that the funds be appropriated for the expenses of operating
the program, and that any loan collections, any revenues that
come in, be used as offsets to the appropriation.
Senator Kerry. Fair enough. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. The next panel, we are pleased to welcome
Mr. David Keeley, who is the State Planner for the Maine State
Planning Office, the lead agency for Maine's coastal zone
management program. Mr. Keeley served as the Director of the
Maine Coastal Program from 1987 through 1994.
Also before us is Ms. Sarah Cooksey, President of the
Coastal States Organization. Ms. Cooksey is also the
Administrator of the Delaware Coastal Management Program.
We will also hear from Tim Eichenberg, Counsel for the
Center for Marine Conservation. Mr. Eichenberg will also be
testifying on behalf of the American Oceans Campaign, Coast
Alliance, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Our final witness for the afternoon will be Dr. Sylvia
Earle, the National Geographic Explorer in Residence at the
National Geographic Society. While many of us are familiar with
Dr. Earle's deep sea work, she has also conducted many coastal
studies.
I thank you all for being here today. We will include your
statements in the record. So we would ask you to summarize your
statements. Please try to limit your statement to 5 minutes,
because we have a vote in probably 20 minutes. We would like to
see if we can move it along as best we can.
Mr. Keeley, why don't we start with you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID KEELEY, STATE PLANNER,
MAINE STATE PLANNING OFFICE
Mr. Keeley. Sure. Thank you. I am David Keeley, with the
State Planning Office in Maine. Your timing is excellent,
because I need to fly back home this afternoon. So moving this
along is just great.
Today I would like to just touch on three things. You have
my testimony before you. One is Federal agency coordination.
The second is technical assistance. The third is community
planning.
Before I get into that, every time I come to D.C., I am
made aware that somehow as we begin to discuss Federal support
for coastal zone management programs, we forget that in fact
the States are contributing significant sums of dollars to
these programs. I appreciate that the revolving doors on this
building and many other buildings around the Hill, people
continually have their hand out for additional resources. In
that context, it is just important to say that all States are
making significant investments, whether it is on land
acquisition or nonpoint source pollution or other programs, to
address priorities in the CZMA.
I can say, for the good State of Maine, that when we do a
very quick review, we are probably 7 to 1 in terms of State
dollars to Federal dollars to support coastal zone management.
So we obviously believe in the coast and are investing in it.
There are clearly national interests in the coast, and that is
why it is appropriate that the CZMA continue to strike that
balance between State and Federal interests.
I do have to rise to the occasion, given our last speaker,
and say that the notion of--my term--NOAA skimming off
resources off of State grants is simply unacceptable. This is a
gimmick to me. We would much prefer, as you suggested, Senator
Snowe, to see NOAA come forward and document what they need for
their resources, and have Congress decide what the appropriate
level is.
I know that in our Statehouse, that if I come forward with
a State request and my legislature provides it, those are the
funds I am able to work with. I think then do not turn around
and try and work through the back door and get other funds that
in fact the legislature was unwilling to give me. So I need to
live within my budget, and I am suggesting that they need to do
the same.
In terms of Federal agency coordination, there is a chronic
lack of Federal agency coordination working on coastal and
marine issues. Through the CZMA, NOAA is designated as the lead
agency. They often say that they are too small of an agency or
that their budget is too small to work with some of the larger,
more aggressive, shall we say, agencies. I am suggesting that,
through the Oceans Act that you had envisioned last year, there
was clearly a suggestion that there would be improved Federal
agency coordination. I believe that whether it is in the CZMA
or some other statute, there needs to be recognition that NOAA
needs to be empowered to lead on ocean and coastal affairs.
My second point has to do with management-oriented research
and technical assistance. That is Section 310 of the Act. NOAA
has been self-described, and described by other States, as a
dense and impenetrable agency, with some of the best-kept
secrets. They do high-quality science but, for whatever
reasons, cannot seem to get it out to the States who are so
desperately seeking it.
So the suggestions of providing increased funding for
support for research and development is really on point. They
know that the information transfer is an area where substantial
improvements are needed, and in fact are working in a number of
areas. So I applaud those efforts. But, needless to say, there
is much more that needs to be done.
The suggestions of management-oriented research really
originates from the States, who have suggested that there is
great efficiencies in having that research done once, rather
than five times or 10 times all around the Nation. But we want
to be sure that in fact the clients of that research are
engaged in both the design and the dissemination of that work.
Finally, in terms of technical assistance, the best example
I can offer is we were working with someone in senior
management in NOAA several years ago. We needed some help in
putting together a monitoring program. As I say, a great
example of technical assistance was they provided somebody to
sit in the State Planning Office for about 3 weeks. They worked
with a number of State agencies and, in a very short amount of
time, helped us make considerable gains. To me that is genuine
technical assistance.
We, in turn, do the same kind of thing at the State level,
and I know other States do, as well, in terms of hands-on,
technical assistance to municipalities. That is the hallmark of
what the State Planning Office does.
My last point has to do with community planning. It is real
bright spot of the Administration's reauthorization proposal.
In fact, much of the idea came from the States, suggesting that
this was an area the CZMA needed to be more involved in. In
Maine, we have been working on this kind of a program since
1987, through something we call the Coastal Planning and
Investment Program. Capacity building is definitely a long-term
effort. We should not enter that lightly.
Like nonpoint source, we created these problems for years;
it is going to take us years to respond to them. We are
certainly willing to offer some lessons learned if you are
interested. We also have some suggestions on how those funds
might be used in Maine if they were appropriated.
Thank you. I would be glad to answer some questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keeley follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Keeley, State Planner,
Maine State Planning Office
Senator Snowe and members of the Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries, I am David Keeley. Thank you for providing me with an
opportunity to testify on behalf of the State of Maine. I am the State
Planner within the State Planning Office--the lead agency designated by
the Governor over twenty years ago for Maine's Coastal Zone Management
Program. I served as the Director of the Maine Coastal Program from
1987 to 1994.
People throughout the world know the State of Maine through our
lobsters, our 3,500 miles of coastline and the renown independent
Mainer. Fewer people however are aware that although our coastal zone
consists of only 12% of the state's land area, it is home to over 60%
of our population and over 70% of all employment. These statistics are
mirrored in virtually every other coastal state where coastal
populations are burgeoning.
We treasure our coastal resources and have the distinction, along
with Oregon, of being one of the first states to enact environmental
legislation in the early 1970's--before it was in vogue. At this very
time a woman from Auburn, Maine stepped into the spotlight and defeated
her opponent Alfred Brodeur in a 2-1 landslide victory for a seat in
our State House of Representatives. Representative Snowe served in the
State House for two terms and in 1977 became a State Senator.
Throughout her State House career she was associated with marine issues
of importance to Maine. So it is of no surprise that I sit here before
you today. I applaud your leadership in seeking reauthorization of the
Coastal Zone Management Act and for your other efforts to strengthen
the manner in which our nation wisely manages its coastal and marine
resources.
Before I offer some specific reauthorization suggestions let me
touch on two things, first to reinforce what the CZMA is all about and
the second is to share Maine's vision for our coastal and marine
environment. We just celebrated twenty-years of coastal management
through the CZMA. We did this on the very year that the world was
celebrating the International Year of the Ocean. In Maine we took stock
of what we have done through the CZMA. The incredibly diverse list of
resource conservation and development accomplishments is impressive and
addresses real-world issues Maine and the other 34 states participating
in this national program are dealing with.
Dredging our harbors Managing our Providing public
beaches access to the
shore
Protecting coastal ecosystems... Purchasing public Improving coastal
lands water quality
Regulating land use activities.. Improving Strengthening
fisheries local capacity
management.
Increasing aquaculture jobs..... Collaborating in Training volunteer
the Gulf of Maine. stewards
Our Legislature has invested millions of dollars each year in these
and related activities that we have determined to be vital to our
environment and economy. I highlight this because I believe this state
commitment of resources, which is happening throughout the nation,
often gets overlooked as Congress discusses what the appropriate levels
of federal investment are in the CZMA. This Subcommittee is well aware
the CZMA is a partnership program and there is no better way to see
that partnership at work than when someone is committing financial
support. Indeed Maine is providing approximately $7 dollars for every
federal dollar we receive through the CZMA.
My second point has to do with clarity of vision for the future.
Our vision for the Maine coast includes clean water and healthy shell
fisheries, working waterfronts, retention of marine related jobs and
creation of new marine technologies, use of remote sensing for applied
research, preserved public access to the shoreline, well planned
communities, reduction of properties at risk to coastal hazards .....
and the list goes on. Every coastal state has looked ahead and is
preparing to address those issues of greatest importance. In this
regard the CZMA is a very important tool to ensure the national
interest in these issues is considered and addressed.
czma reauthorization
As you are aware, the Coastal States Organization has prepared a
series of amendments to the Administration's proposed reauthorization
bill. These amendments represent a collaborative approach by the 35
coastal states to come to consensus as an organization. Maine is
supportive of these changes although on specific provisions we might
have a more strident view.
#1. Nonpoint Source Pollution--Declining water quality due to
nonpoint source pollution is a priority for Maine. This is best
demonstrated by the level of activity that municipalities and state
agencies are engaged in. Our Department of Environmental Protection has
reorganized to better address this issue, the legislature has
strengthened state construction, agriculture, forestry and water
quality statutes, and Maine voters have authorized, by general
referendum vote, bond funds for nonpoint source control purposes.
Maine has received conditional approval of our coastal nonpoint
source plan but we need additional funding, beyond base funds in the
CZMA, to affect change in coastal water quality.
Recommendations--With regard to the Administration's bill we
take exception to the proposed requirement that a percentage of
core funds (e.g., Section 306) that support Coastal Program
implementation be set aside for NPS purposes. We believe the
states, and not a federal agency are in the best position to
determine how these core funds should be expended. Yes, it
should be an eligible activity. No, the statute should not
prescribe the amount.
The Administration's bill also proposes to include state
performance on nonpoint source program implementation in the
periodic reviews required in Section 312. We believe
accountability is important and that it is appropriate to
address these issues within an overall Coastal Program
evaluation.
#2. Community Planning and Investment--Maine enacted a locally-
based growth management program in 1987 and has developed considerable
experience in program management and evaluation. One issue I would
bring forward is that our efforts have focused almost exclusively on
developing municipal growth management solutions in the form of
comprehensive plans, capital investment strategies, and land use
ordinances. While this effort is producing fruit we have not adequately
addressed associated regional issues where governmental efficiencies
are significant and when solutions to natural resource management
issues transcend municipal boundaries.
Recommendations--Substantively the Administration's proposals
in Section 310 (Providing for Community-based Solutions for
Growth Management and Resource Protection) are thoughtful
however a competitive grants delivery mechanism seems unduly
complicated. Our experience convinces us that capacity building
at the local and regional level requires years of sustained
investment. Consequently a performance-based formula allocation
to the states is a more reliable and hence preferable way to
proceed. Finally, there is no matching requirement contained in
this Section. We believe this is a very important initiative
that must be state supported. Consequently we would not be
adverse to a matching requirement that in essence doubled the
level of resources committed to this effort.
#3. Management Oriented Research and Technical Assistance--NOAA, as
the nation's lead coastal agency, must take a more proactive role in
sponsoring management oriented research, in working with other federal
agencies to improve the dissemination of those agencies sponsored
research and to serve as a single point of entry for state coastal
programs seeking to access the coastal and marine expertise of the
federal government. I've lost count of the NOAA work groups that I have
participated on over the past 15 years that have made incremental and
modest changes in this regard. In each of these NOAA has been described
as a ``dense, impenetrable federal agency with some of the nation's
best keep research and management secrets.'' The Administration has
acknowledged this problem and in 1998 put in place a reorganization of
the National Ocean Service including the formation of a Science Office.
This effort and others just begin to address this issue.
Recommendations--Through Section 310A of the Administration's
CZMA reauthorization proposal seeks to strengthen NOAA's role
in research and technical assistance. We applaud that effort
but believe the proposed language should be clarified. First,
that NOAA will be a sponsor of the research meaning that they
may conduct research as well as support the work of others.
Second, there is no mention of NOAA providing technical
assistance to their state partners on environmental monitoring,
data management, resource assessment, to name but a few issues
all states are addressing. Third, we would highlight that NOAA
funding for the international Gulf of Maine Program was
critical at the inception of the program in 1989. It provided
us with the initial planning funds which has allowed us to
become an international model others are emulating.
Consequently we urge that ``regional and interstate projects''
be given a higher priority within Section 310A. Finally, in the
spirit of efficiency in government NOAA should be empowered to
coordinate federal agency activities that are within the scope
of the CZMA.
#4. Outcome Indicators--The public is demanding accountability in
government. In Maine this has resulted in a performance budgeting
initiative that is now codified in state statute. At the state level we
must describe, through our agency strategic plans and budgets, what the
taxpayer can expect for the dollars they pay. This same standard should
apply to the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Recommendation--Maine supports the proposal by the Coastal
States Organization that would amend the CZMA to establish a
common set of measurable outcome indicators that would be used
to evaluate the effectiveness of state Coastal Management
Programs. It seems appropriate for this concept to be
integrated into Section 316--Coastal Zone Management Reports.
These measurable results and outcomes should embrace the model
contained with the 1972 CZMA that articulated national goals
and priorities which the states then responded to in their own
way. Each state's coastal conditions are different and require
an approach specific to their needs.
#5. Authorizations--The Coastal Zone Management Act is Congresses
plan for managing coastal resources. It was a bold initiative in 1972
when it was enacted and remains so today. However over the past 25
years the scope, complexity and sophistication of the nation's coastal
zone management programs has changed dramatically. Flat or modest
increases in federal appropriations have not kept pace with these
changes placing an ever increasing burden on state legislatures to
``make up the difference.'' In addition I mentioned earlier that state
investments in coastal management far exceed federal support lending
credible evidence that this is a partnership effort between the states
and federal government.
Recommendations--Maine supports the authorization levels
proposed by the Coastal States Organization. In particular, I
would highlight the separate line items for Section 306A
(resource improvement), 310 (technical assistance), and 315
(Research Reserves). Maine also believes there should be
separate funding for nonpoint source pollution control.
As CZMA appropriations increase the level of funding for states
like Maine are constrained by a Congressional cap. I would urge
this committee to examine this issue to ensure an equitable
distribution of funding.
In light of the continued decline of coastal resource quality it is
time we became serious and committed the resources necessary to do the
job.
Finally, we were stunned to learn that NOAA is proposing to use
funding Congress committed to the states to pay for NOAA's overhead and
operating costs. This seems highly inappropriate and we hope this
Congress will quickly clarify their intent.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Keeley.
Ms. Cooksey.
STATEMENT OF SARAH W. COOKSEY, ADMINISTRATOR, DELAWARE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND PRESIDENT, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION
I want to thank you for inviting me here today. My name is
Sarah Cooksey. I am the Administrator of the Delaware Coastal
Management Program and our Estuarine Research Reserve. I am
here today in my role as Chair of the Coastal States
Organization.
Since 1970, CSO has represented the interests of the
coastal States, including the Great Lakes and island
territories, as an advocate for sound and balanced coastal,
Great Lakes and ocean resource management. I am here to
represent the people working at the State and community level,
that make the day-to-day decisions that impact the long-term
effect of those decisions on our Nation's coastal zone.
For example, in Maine, the State Planning Office is working
with the Port of Portland and Federal agencies to help
facilitate the dredging of the harbor, while assuring the
protection of lobster resources. The Massachusetts CZM program
is supporting statewide efforts to develop harbor master plans
and to identify priorities for investments in harbor
infrastructure and develop a statewide dredging material
disposal plan.
In Louisiana, they are working with communities and a
variety of Federal agencies, and they recently completely a 50-
year plan to restore up to 25 miles of coastal wetlands that
are lost each year.
States from Washington to Texas need to provide assistance
to communities to help them help themselves to make better-
informed local decisions regarding the cumulative impacts of
the hundreds of coastal management decisions they make every
day.
I will focus my oral comments on basically two things.
First, we need tools to assist communities to address the
unprecedented growth in development in these precious areas,
and to assure the conservation of vital resources, and to
increase support for the administration, implementation and
enhancement of State coastal zone programs to further the
protection and restoration of our coastal resources, while
allowing for reasonable coastal economic growth.
I will also address some of the comments that you all
mentioned earlier. In addition to the basic objectives of the
CZMA to have good coastal land use planning, wetlands
preservation, assure public access, restore waterfronts, and
minimize coastal hazards, there are three other fundamental
coastal issues that the CZMA can help us address. They are the
pervasive and persistent effects of land-based sources of
coastal pollution, the cumulative and secondary impacts of
increased development in coastal areas on habitat and assisting
local communities in revitalization efforts and waterfront
developments, and identifying and implementing key coastal
conservation needs.
I have a couple of examples of things that we have done in
Delaware. We have done a special area management plan for Pea
Patch Island, where we brought together parties that commonly
disagree--agriculture, developers and environmentalists--to
agree that the largest heronry on the East Coast is worthy of
protection. Together we are implementing strategies to protect
it, while ensuring that the industries in the region are not
adversely impacted.
The CZMA should be amended to include a new section to
provide dedicated support to States, to assist in the
development and implementation of local, community-based
solutions to the impacts on coastal uses and resources caused
by increased development. In 1998, there were 124 ballot
initiatives approved by voters, calling for improved management
of development and conservation of open spaces.
For example, the Massachusetts CZM program provided support
for the four towns abutting Pleasant Bay on Cape Cod, a State
area of critical environmental concern, to develop local
consensus around a resource management plan. However, the State
does not have the resources to support plans in the remaining
13 other ACEC's in the coastal area.
Last year, Congress approved billions of dollars for
highway investment. In the State of Delaware, a significant
portion of those funds will undoubtedly go, as they should, to
improve access to our increasingly popular coastal resort
communities. $700 million were spent to manage 10 summer
weekend tie-ups, and only $1 million was spent on beach
nourishment. Even less on helping beach communities that may be
impacted by the increased use and development of those areas.
In response to Senator Kerry's comments earlier, I think it
is time for a comparable commitment to coastal resource
conservation. I think the time is now.
While the development of computer-generated geographical
information systems, commonly known as GIS, have greatly
expanded the ability to identify the relationship of existing
development, future growth patterns and natural resources, few
local governments have the capacity to utilize these or other
sophisticated tools to help plan and accommodate this growth,
while preserving the quality of life and ecosystem vitality.
In Delaware, our CZM program is working with Kent County,
which is in the metropolitan area of Dover, our State capital,
to design and build the capacity to create build-out scenarios,
determine prime areas for environmentally compatible
development, and control urban sprawl. The project has also
resulted in decreasing preliminary permit reviews from weeks to
minutes. We would like to expand this to other communities, but
we cannot because of lack of resources. I have an example of
that.
We recommend that $30 million be authorized to support
these community revitalizations and management efforts. Despite
clear national benefits and increasing demand, Federal support
for State CZM management has not kept up with growing
challenges. Funding for State coastal programs in real terms
has declined due to inflation and the addition of States
participating in coastal programs. Texas, Ohio and Georgia are
new. Minnesota will have a new CZM program. In larger States,
grants have been capped at $2 million for the past 8 years.
In increasing authorization levels for 306/309 programs, we
recommend $75 million in order to address this shortfall. This
will also help States address polluted runoff, consistent with
their coastal program responsibilities and priorities,
including interagency and State/local coordination.
We also approve of NOAA's commitment of the application of
science and research to on-the-ground decisionmaking. This was
clearly demonstrated last year during the Pfiesteria crisis.
Current provisions under Section 310 of the CZMA, calling for
management-oriented research and technical assistance from NOAA
to the States should be strengthened. The Secretary should be
required to prepare a report and recommendations to this
committee regarding the effectiveness of NOAA.
Before I conclude Madam Chairman, I would like to briefly
address a few concerns regarding the Administration's bill.
First, the Administration, like the States, proposes amendments
to the CZM to support community planning and assistance grants.
However, it appears as if their proposal would set up a Federal
competitive grants program rather than provide the funds
directly to States through the CZMA formula. There is no need
for a new Federal administrative program. These funds are best
administrated at the State and local level, in consultation
with the communities.
Second, although the States recognize that polluted runoff
is a significant problem in coastal States, we do not support
the provisions of the administration's proposal that would
mandate the Secretary withhold up to 20 percent of State 306-
based programs to implement polluted runoff.
I will be happy to answer any questions that you might
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooksey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sarah W. Cooksey, Administrator, Delaware Coastal
Management Program, and President, Coastal States Organization
introduction
I want to thank Chairman Snowe and the other members of the
Subcommittee for the invitation to testify on the reauthorization of
the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). My name is Sarah Cooksey, and I
am the Administrator of Delaware's Coastal Management Programs. I am
testifying today in my role as Chair of the Coastal States Organization
(CSO). Since 1970, CSO has represented the interests of the coastal
states, including the Great Lakes and island Territories, as an
advocate for sound and balanced coastal, Great Lakes and ocean resource
management and development. CSO's membership consists of Delegates
appointed by the Governors of the 35 States, Commonwealths, and
Territories bordering the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of
Mexico and Great Lakes. We greatly appreciate the early attention the
Subcommittee is giving to the reauthorization of the CZMA, and urge
Congress to complete action this year on this important legislation.
summary
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) provides a flexible
framework to develop collaborative, innovative community-based
strategies to balance the challenges posed by growth and development
with the need to preserve and restore critical habitat and other
natural resource values. The CZMA is unique among federal statutes. It
provides incentives to the states to identify their own coastal
management priorities consistent with broad national objectives. In
developing their coastal management programs, States determine the
right mix of regulation, cooperation and education needed to address
those priorities. Where states adopt enforceable policies, federal
activities, licenses and permits must be consistent with those
policies.
The population of coastal communities and coastal tourism continues
to grow at a steady pace, placing ever increasing demands on coastal
resources. The population densities of coastal counties are already
five times the national average, and coastal areas are becoming more
crowded every day. From 1996-2015, coastal population is projected to
increase from 141 million to 161 million. Yet, funding for coastal
programs under the CZMA not increased.
The CZMA should be amended to take advantage of its inherent
strengths to provide increased support for state coastal programs under
Sec. Sec. 306 and 309, and provide support for direct assistance to
coastal communities assess and manage the impacts of growth and
conserve critical natural coastal resources. Funding for community
assistance under the CZMA has been very limited and, where it is
available, it competes with coastal program administration,
implementation and enhancement funds. This puts the states in the
untenable position of choosing between preserving and improving its
ongoing CZM program or providing assistance for communities to
undertake specific priorities protection or restoration in critical
areas. For example, while the Massachusetts CZM program provided
support for the four towns abutting Pleasant Bay on Cape Cod, a state
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), to develop local
consensus around a resources management plan, the state does not have
sufficient funds to support plans in the remaining 13 ACEC's in the
coastal area.
These amendments, which are discussed in more detail below, seek to
redress this by providing direct assistance for communities, in
addition to that provided by increases to base program administration
and enhancement grants under Sections 306 and 309 of the CZMA, that
will enable states to:
(1) improve their ability to assist local decision-makers to
understand the impacts and manage growth and development more
efficiently, to identify a compatible mix of residential,
commercial and open space uses, and to revitalize communities;
(2) provide for increased protection, conservation and
restoration of critical coastal resources;
(3) access management-oriented research which provides new
technology and tools that enhance the capacity of coastal
decision-makers to assess, monitor and cumulative and secondary
impacts.
CSO supports other technical changes and clarifications of the CZMA
which will: (i) assure funding under the Coastal Zone Management Fund
for regionally significant projects, international projects; emergency
response to coastal hazards, and innovative demonstration projects;
(ii) provide for the development, in consultation with the states, of
outcome measures to assure effectiveness ``on the ground''; and, (iii)
increase support for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(NERRS.) CSO supports the reauthorization recommendations of the
National Estuarine Research Reserve Association which are included in
the attached outline.
background
Our nation's history, economy and culture are inextricably linked
to and dependent upon the natural resources and economic development of
the coasts. Our future is linked to their continued health. The story
of our coast is, in many respects, the story of our nation which
includes...the ports around which our nation's largest cities grew....
the fishing and beach communities along the coast of Maine and Cape
Cod; the habitats of Galveston Bay....the indigenous cultures unique
coastal needs of Alaska and the Pacific islands....the wetlands of
coastal Louisiana....I am sure that each one of us can add to the list.
It has been estimated that economic activity in coastal areas
currently supports 28.3 million jobs while generating incalculable
indirect economic benefits. Significant sectors of our nation's
economy, including maritime trade, fisheries and mariculture,
recreation and tourism, and oil and gas development depend directly on
a healthy coastal ecosystem. Neither our picture post card memories nor
our current economic prosperity will last for without careful
``stewardship.'' By stewardship, I mean the actions we take (or refrain
from taking) to ensure that we are able to sustain both the coastal
natural resources and the coastal economic opportunity for future
generations.
States have recognized the importance of conservation of open
space, discouraging sprawl development in rural areas, and protecting
agricultural lands. The public also has indicated its strong support
for these initiatives. In 1998, 124 ballot initiatives were approved by
voters calling for improved management of development and the
conservation of open space.
the coastal management challenge
Activities last year in connection with the Year of the Ocean began
to focus attention on the critical coastal and ocean resources
challenges that we face. These challenges include: the pervasive and
persistent effects of land-based sources of coastal pollution; the
cumulative and secondary impacts of increased development in coastal
areas on habitat and water quality; the potential for inefficient
investment in public infrastructure resulting from urban sprawl; and
the inefficient investment in environmental protection resulting from
conflicting mandates and lack of adequate multi-objective planning.
As States and the federal government continue actively to support
initiatives to enhance our nation's prosperity and economic
development, we have a joint responsibility to address the increased
demands that growth and development places on our coastal resources.
That is particularly true along the coasts where thriving economies
rely directly on healthy ecosystems. Healthy coasts support maritime
activity, fisheries and other marine life, the aesthetic and natural
resources values coastal tourism and recreation, the wise management of
mineral and energy resources, and numerous other activities.
In both economic and human terms, our coastal challenges were
dramatically demonstrated in 1998, by the numerous fish-kills
associated with the outbreaks of harmful algal blooms, the expansion of
the dead zone off the Gulf coast, and the extensive damage resulting
from the record number of coastal hurricanes and el Nino events.
Although there has been significant progress in protecting and
restoring coastal resources since the CZMA and Clean Water Acts were
passed in 1972, many shell fish beds remain closed, fish advisories
continue to be issued, and swimming at bathing beaches across the
country is too often restricted to protect the public health.
Last year, the H. John Heinz Center III Center with support from
NOAA brought together a cross-section of leaders from all major sectors
concerned with coasts and oceans to identify key issues affecting the
nation's coastal and ocean future. In May 1998, they issued a Report
entitled ``Our Ocean Future'' which, among other specific
recommendations, concluded that:
To meet the challenge of protecting and conserving the coastal
environment, the United States will need to manage the oceans
and coasts in new ways. The economic and other consequences of
coastal storms and erosion need to be reduced, and sustainable
economic growth needs to be achieved in maritime recreation,
marine resource development, global trade, and other
activities. Progress in these areas increasingly lies beyond
direct federal control. A rich experience base is emerging on
partnership approaches that build on the roles and capabilities
of the private sector; the knowledge base provided by
scientific researchers; and the conservation and economic
development tools of local, state and federal governments.
the czma
The CZMA is the only federal statute which sets forth a federal-
state partnership to achieve the goal of maximizing sustainable
economic and environmental objectives. The CZMA incorporated the
essential principles of the ``smart growth'' and ``sustainable
development'' movements over twenty years before the terminology came
into vogue. Congress was prescient in 1972 when it passed the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) to provide incentives:
to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively
their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the
development and implementation of management programs to
achieve the wise use of the land and water resources of the
coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological,
cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs
for compatible economic development programs . . . . (16 USC
1452(2))
With the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972
(CZMA), Congress improved the management of the coasts in two
fundamental ways.
First, it provided incentives that encouraged states
to develop and implement plans, based on local priorities, to
achieve a variety of national economic, environmental and
societal objectives related to the coasts.
Second, it provided states with the authority to
ensure that federal activities, licenses and permits would be
consistent with the enforceable policies of federally approved
state coastal zone management programs.
It is not surprising that the principles of smart growth and
recognition of the need to balance environmental and economic concerns
was recognized first as essential to proper management of coastal
resources because that is where the concentration of people and their
demand for the use of natural resources was, and still is, the most
acute.
Over the past six months, CSO has solicited the views of the
states, NOAA, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association and
others about how the CZMA reauthorization can help to address these
challenges. There are clear needs which have emerged from our
discussions.
There is a need to support coordinated decision-making
across programs and at the federal-state-regional and local
level.
The focus of resource protection must expand from the
resource specific mandates of the past to developing tools to
accommodate multiple objectives and improve the quality of
life.
The focus of problem solving is increasingly shifting
to locally-based solutions, which should be developed and
applied within the context of broader ecosystem and regional
systems.
Few local governments have the capacity to address
adequately the complex social, scientific, technical, fiscal
and legal dimensions of the problems resulting from the growth
of coastal communities.
34 of the 35 eligible state have either developed or are developing
programs to protect and restore wetlands, increase public access to the
shore, address the threats of coastal hazards, identify and manage the
potential cumulative and secondary impacts of development, and
revitalize waterfronts. In that time, states have measurably--
Reduced the loss of wetlands and are beginning to
reverse those losses through restoration;
Assured that federal activities are consistent with
state coastal management plans;
Increased public access to coastal resources, and;
Revitalized rundown waterfronts .
In Louisiana, where 25-35 miles of wetlands are lost each year, a
50 year plan for coastal restoration has just been completed. Other
states have set out equally ambitious agendas for the future protection
of coastal resources.
Other success stories are set out in two recent NOAA publications
the ``Coastal Zone Management 25th Anniversary Accomplishments Report''
and the Biennial Report to Congress, ``Coastal Stewardship Towards a
New Millennium: 1996-1997.'' These reports just scratch the surface of
the activities in the states, and I hope each Member will have a chance
to contact their states directly to find out not only what they have
done so far to address coastal management challenges but, more
importantly, what they need to accomplish in the future and how we can
support these efforts through the reauthorization of the CZMA.
new challenges--community revitalization and conservation planning
Despite the accomplishments, we have also learned some surprising
lessons. In some cases we have discovered that the solutions of the
past are part of the problem of present. For example, transportation
investment can operate as an indirect subsidy for sprawl, creating
demand for housing, school construction and other public infrastructure
while destabilizing the urban tax base. Overly rigid environmental
regulations can discourage downtown revitalization and encourage
development in distant underdeveloped areas.
In 1997 the National Research Council issued a study entitled:
``Striking the Balance: Improving Stewardship of Marine Areas'' that
concluded, in part, that:
The governance and management of our coastal waters are inefficient
and wasteful of both natural and economic resources. The primary
problem with the existing system is the confusing array of laws,
regulations, and practices at the federal state and local levels. The
various agencies that implement and enforce existing systems operate
with the mandates that often conflict with each other. In many cases,
federal policies and actions are controlled from Washington with little
understanding of local conditions and needs.
The multi-purpose objectives of CZMA and its recognition of the
need to coordinate activities among various agencies and levels of
government make it an excellent vehicle for addressing these conflicts.
Zoning intended to protect residents from offensive development can
lead to the segregation of activities in general. We live in one place,
work in another, shop inanother. The result--we drive to work, our
children are driven to school, drive to the mall, and (for those whom
shopping at the mall is not sufficiently recreational) drive to the
park. State, local and community officials and planners will tell you
that the resulting sprawl costs money and lots of it. Sprawl is coming
to be understood as economically inefficient land use. In addition to
the much greater infrastructure costal, traffic congestion associated
with sprawl results in substantial economic losses in terms of time and
energy consumption. Most frustratingly, planners have found that sprawl
is self-sustaining in that it inevitably leads to demands for
transportation by-passes which open up new areas for similar
development and result in the economic stagnation and decline of areas
only recently developed.
Few local governments have the capacity to plan adequately to
accommodate the inevitable future growth of communities while
preserving the quality of life and ecosystem vitality. For example,
while technological advances, such as the development of computer
generated geographic information systems (GIS), have greatly expanded
the ability to assess the impacts of infrastructure placement in
relation to existing development, future growth patterns and natural
resources, local community officials and planners do not have the
resources to get past the entry-level threshold of acquiring the
equipment, expertise and data to make use of these technologies. It is
important to recognize that advances like GIS are simply tools and that
their effectiveness in improving decision-making will depend assuring
that the data is scientifically valid, current, accessible and usable
by constituents at the state and local level.
CZMA provides a ready-made framework for addressing these issues.
The focus of coastal management has begun to change in response to the
realization that a process and project oriented approach to coastal
management is not going to keep up with the demands being placed on
coastal communities and resources. It is becoming increasingly clear
that coastal communities need help to improve their ability to plan and
manage growth and development efficiently, and assure conservation of
remaining critical open space in crowded coastal areas.
It is time for a major commitment through the CZMA to support state
efforts to provide new and improved planning and management tools to
assist local communities to understand better and address the complex
economic and ecological dynamics of coastal systems and communities.
This can be done both through improving the responsiveness of NOAA
research to state and local management needs and providing assistance
directly to states to work with local communities.
While all of our natural resources are valuable, some are more
important than others in their relation to an ecosystem, and some are
critically essential to the long-term viability of an ecosystem. For
example, small tidal creeks have been identified as one of these
essential areas. In their natural condition, these areas are among the
most productive biologically, but because of their interface with the
land and shallowness, they are also the more easily stressed. Advances
in management-oriented science and technology are not only allowing us
to identify these critical areas, but can assist us to establish impact
thresholds, such as tolerance and impact levels for specific
percentages of paved or other impervious surface area. This kind of
information allows us to both protect resources and accommodate growth
through improved design and location.
administration's czma reauthorization proposals
While CSO's reauthorization proposals (which are explained in
detail in the following section) agree in large part with the
Administration's proposals, they do differ in a few significant ways.
First, both CSO and the Administration agree that Section 310 of
the CZMA should be amended to authorize substantial new resources to
support community revitalization and conservation assistance grants.
However, while CSO proposes the allocation of grant funds to all states
under the CZMA formula for providing direct assistance which can be
tailored to meet community needs; the Administration's proposal creates
a competitive federal grant program using CZM programs as
intermediaries. CSO believes that decisions are best made at the state
and local levels and that all states should participate in the program
without requiring new bureaucratic federal administration and oversight
responsibilities.
The Administration's proposal also establishes a confusing
relationship between the community assistance provisions of section 310
and the NOAA technical assistance provisions of the proposed section
310A. For example, the amendment to section 310 provides that the
secretary shall allocate a ``substantial portion'' of funds to
community assistance grants. Does this mean that funds directed from
section 310 grants provide funding for NOAA technical assistance and
programs under 310A? To what extent, if any, is funding authorized for
section 310 for community grants under section 318 available for
section 310A activities? CSO would like to assure that NOAA is more
accountable for utilizing its significant science, research and
technical capabilities to provide ``management oriented research'' that
is relevant and accessible to the states.
Secondly, CSO strongly opposes the provisions proposed by the
Administration to amend section 306(c)(2) to mandate that 10-20 percent
of the 306/306A grants be retained by the Secretary to reduce the
impacts of polluted runoff. This change would fundamentally alter the
framework of the CZMA which is based on the principle that states
should have the flexibility to set priorities among the national
objectives established under the CZMA. Rather than providing additional
funds, the proposed set-aside would divert funds form the base CZM
programs undermining a broad range of CZMA objectives including
waterfront revitalization, wetlands protection, increased public
access, and the reduction of coastal hazards. As proposed, the
Administration's bill does not authorize any additional revenues for
state administration and implementation of the broad purposes of the
CZMA under section 306 and 306A. As a result of the mandate, all
increased authorizations proposed would be available only to the
Secretary to target polluted runoff and not to the states to address
other state-based priorities such as wetlands protection, public
access, coastal hazards and waterfront development.
While the states agree that polluted runoff is a significant
concern in coastal areas, these decisions are best made at the state
and local level, not based on top-down directives. Establishing
specific funding set-asides undermines the federal state partnership
that is the cornerstone of the CZMA. When the CZMA was amended in 1990
to add the requirements for the development of coastal nonpoint source
pollution programs, funding was proposed to supplement, not compete
with, CZM program funding. Additional funding for state CZM programs to
administer coastal nonpoint should be incorporated into CZMA without a
mandated set-aside or provided as a separate authorization, and be in
addition to funding levels authorized for implementing 306, 306A and
309. CSO also opposes the Administration's proposal to have coastal
nonpoint programs reviewed as part of the section 312 CZMA review
process.
cso's czma reauthorization proposals
The following draft legislative proposals are offered for
consideration of the Committee in drafting the CZMA Reauthorization
legislation We look forward to working with the Committee, states and
other interested constituents to reach a consensus on final amendments.
1. better enable states to build community capacity for coastal
management
The CZMA should be amended to provide dedicated support to states
for the development of local, community-based solutions to manage the
impacts on coastal uses and resources caused by or which may result
from, increased development or urban sprawl. These initiatives should
be directed to revitalize previously developed coastal areas,
discourage development in undeveloped, environmentally sensitive or
other coastal areas of particular concern, and emphasize water
dependent uses. Targeted support for these placed-based, community and
critical area initiatives is necessary to address problems in the most
sensitive watersheds and coastal communities.
draft proposed language
Amend the CZM Findings to add the following:
There is a need to enhance cooperation and coordination among
states and local communities and to increase their capacity to
identify development, public infrastructure and open space
needs and to develop and implement plans which provide for
continued growth, resource protection and community
revitalization.
Delete section 310 and insert the following new section:
Section 310--Planning and Managing Community Growth and
Resource Protection.
(a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with state coastal management programs to provide
assistance to coastal communities to support the planning,
development and implementation of local, community-based
initiatives which will increase their capacity to identify
development, public infrastructure and open space needs and
which provide for resource protection and restoration while
addressing the need for community revitalization and continued
growth consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(b) In developing and implementing the program, states shall
provide such assistance as needed to improve community capacity
to:
(1) identify and provide for better planning and management of
critical coastal habitat, land use and growth patterns;
(2) identify and plan for the impacts of the placement of new
public facilities, housing, and commercial and industrial
development and for efficient investment in transportation and
other public infrastructure; revitalize and restore coastal
waterfronts communities and water dependent uses; and preserve
open space areas for recreation, habitat and scenic views; and
(3) enhance public awareness of and participation in planning
and managing growth and conservation in coastal communities
consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(c) States shall demonstrate that projects have the support and
participation of affected local governments, and maximize
environmental benefits to the extent practicable while
supporting coastal dependent growth and development consistent
with the purposes of the Act. Funding shall be distributed to
the states pursuant to the formula established under Section
306(c) (16 USC 1455(c).
2. direct noaa to provide management-oriented research and technical
assistance
Current provisions calling for ``management-oriented'' research and
technical assistance from NOAA to the states should be strengthened to
provide greater accountability and closer coordination with the states,
including a request for a report and recommendations to Congress
regarding the effectiveness of NOAA in providing such research and
assistance.
draft proposed language
Delete provisions of section 310; insert a new section 310A as
revised:
Section 310A--Management-Oriented Research and Technical
Assistance
(a) The Secretary, in consultation and cooperation with the
states and National Estuarine Research Reserves, shall
undertake a program for management-oriented research and
technical assistance necessary to support the implementation of
coastal management objectives, identification and development
of innovative technology and technology transfer which
addresses coastal management issues, and such technical
assistance and training as may be needed to increase the
capacity of state and local communities as provided in Section
310. In implementing this section, the Secretary shall provide
for coordination of support for the services and activities
under this section with all other activities that are conducted
by or subject to the authority of the Secretary.
(b) The Secretary shall identify services and activities
undertaken by other departments, agencies or other
instrumentalities of the Federal Government which support the
purposes of this section, and enter into memoranda of agreement
or other arrangements as appropriate which provide for
coordination and mutual support.
(c) In carrying out programs under this section, the Secretary
may enter into contracts or other arrangements with qualified
persons but shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
coordinate with and utilize state coastal management programs
and estuarine research reserves for the purposes of carrying
out this section.
(d) By January 2001, the Secretary shall provide a report to
the Senate Commerce Committee and House Resources Committee
evaluating the Agency's effectiveness in providing management-
oriented research and technical assistance; identifying the
applicable services and activities and steps that have been
undertaken to provide for coordination and mutual support of
coastal programs, and making specific recommendations on
changes that should be made to improve the delivery of such
services. In preparing the report, the Secretary shall include
participation from representatives of the Governors of the
coastal states and National Estuarine Research Reserves.
3. increase support for the administration and enhancement of czm
programs and the protection and restoration of coastal resources
Despite clear national benefits, federal support for state Coastal
Zone Management programs has not kept pace with growing challenges.
Funding for state coastal programs in real terms has declined due to
inflation and the addition of states participating in coastal programs.
Federal support for state and local communities efforts to plan for and
manage our nation's coasts is diminishing despite increasing demands.
This is particularly true in larger states where state grants have been
capped at $2 million a year for the past eight years, despite
substantial increases in population in the coastal areas and an
increased recognition of the importance of improving management of
polluted runoff, habitat protection and restoration, and community
growth patterns.
Adequate funding should be provided under Section 306/309 state
grants to assure states' abilities to address polluted runoff
consistent with their coastal program management responsibilities,
including interagency and state-local coordination of initiatives to
address the causes and impacts of nonpoint pollution, particularly as
they relate to land use and linking state water quality with other
coastal resource protection objectives. The states recommend increasing
appropriations levels for base 306/309 programs for administration and
enhancements to $75 million, in order to address this shortfall and
provide for equitable distribution among all coastal states and
territories.
In addition, existing authorities under Section 306A of the CZMA
(16 USC 1455A) provide adequate authority to preserve or restore
specific areas of the state with particular conservation, recreation,
ecological or aesthetic value, as well as to provide public access and
address revitalization of waterfronts of particular concern. However,
funding for these targeted place-based activities to protect and
restore ``priority areas'' competes with base program administration
and enhancement funds and is limited to 10 percent of overall
appropriations. This puts the states in the untenable position of
choosing between preserving and improving its CZM program or providing
support for addressing its most significant problems. These limitations
should be removed and specific funding authorized for 306A to enable
states to address preservation and restoration of these ``priority''
areas. CSO has proposed a modest annual funding level of $12 million to
be targeted to 306A activities. For example, along the Louisiana
coastline, the Sanfrancisco Bay Delta in California, and Florida
Everglands, coastal management agencies are participants in large-
scale, multi-year wetland restoration efforts involving coordinated
efforts of numerous agencies.
These changes will enable state coastal programs to target
preservation and restoration in areas of the state where they are most
needed. It will also help support integration of state activities with
federal, state and local initiatives including, but not limited to,
efforts under State Unified Watershed Assessments to address polluted
runoff and restore the most degraded areas, as well as activities to
address the protection and restoration of fish habitat and coral reefs.
draft proposed language
Sec. 1464. Authorization of appropriations (Section 318)
(a) Sums appropriated to Secretary. There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary, to remain available until expended--
(1) for grants under sections 306 and 309 of the Act (16 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1455, 1455a and 1456b), for grants under sections 306, 306A,
and 309 [16 USC Sec. Sec. 1455, 1455a, 1456b]--
(A) $ 75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $ 78,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(A) $ 75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(C) $ 82,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(A) $ 75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(D) $ 85,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(E) $ 90,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) for implementation of the purposes in section 306A of the Act as
amended, $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and such sums in excess of
$12,000,000 as are necessary for fiscal years 2000-2004. (3) for grants
under section 315 of the Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1461),; for grants under
section 315 [16 USC Sec. 1461]--
(A) $ 12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $ 14,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(C) $ 16,000,000 for fiscal year 20002; and
(D) $ 18,000,000 for fiscal year 20003; and
(E) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) for implementation of the purposes in section 310 of the Act as
amended, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and such sums in excess of
$30,000,000 as are necessary for fiscal years 2001-2004. These amounts
are in addition to those authorized in subsection (3); and
(5) for costs associated with administering this title, $5,500,000 for
fiscal year 2000; and such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2001-
2004.
(b) Limitations. Federal funds received from other sources shall not be
used to pay a coastal state's share of costs under section 306 or 309
[16 USC Sec. 1455 or 1456b].
(c) Reversion of grants to Secretary. The amount of any grant, or
portion of a grant, made to a State under any section of this Act which
is not obligated by such State within three years from when during the
fiscal year, or during the second fiscal year after the fiscal year,
for which it was first authorized to be obligated by such State shall
revert to the Secretary. The Secretary shall add such reverted amount
to those funds available for grants under the section for such reverted
amount was originally made available to States under this Act.
(d) Federal funds allocated under this title may be used by grantees to
purchase Federal products and services not otherwise available.
4. other changes
A. Clarify The Policy To Support Coastal-Dependent Development
Changes to the CZMA Congressional Policy should be made to clarify
that the primary objective of the CZMA and state coastal management
programs is to support ``coastal-dependent'' development compatible
with resource protection priorities, not to support any new commercial
developments adjacent to existing development. The objective of
steering development into existing developed areas regardless of
whether it is compatible with surrounding uses or state policy, has
been relied on as a ``national benefit'' in a successful challenge to a
state consistency objection.
draft proposed language
Amend Section 303(2)(D) (16 USC 1452(2) (D)) as follows:
(D) .... and the location to the maximum extent practicable of new,
coastal-dependent commercial or industrial developments in or adjacent
to areas where such development already exists.
b. utilization of non-profits to implement 306a projects
In some cases states have identified local non-for-profit groups as
the best suited to undertake projects or activities eligible under the
Coastal Resource Improvement Program under Section 306A. However, NOAA
has imposed unnecessary restrictions on states. Therefore, CSO proposes
that Section 306A(e) be amended to make it clear that funds can be
allocated to ``not-for-profit organizations.'' However, such grants
should be available only to undertake the objectives of section 306A
and not directly to benefit such groups.
c. coastal zone management fund (czmf)
For the past several years payments into the CZMF from loan
repayments under the old Coastal Energy Impact Program have been
earmarked to cover OCRM Administrative costs and diverted to offset
funding for the National Estuarine Research Reserves. As a result no
funds have been provided for other eligible purposes including
international, regionally significant and interstate projects, and
emergency grants to address disaster related circumstances. It is
projected that there will be appropriated $4-$3.8 million annually as a
result of loan repayments into the CZMF. Section 308 should be amended
to eliminate funding for OCRM Administration which should be funded
through a direct appropriations from NOAA operations accounts. (See 14
USC 1464(a) (5) above.) CZMF funds should be made available to the
states to support other eligible projects. Without these funds there is
no way to support innovative regional or interstate projects, or to
respond to emergencies resulting from coastal disasters which result in
increased demands on state coastal programs.
draft proposed language
Deletions are stricken and new language in italics
Sec. 1456a. Coastal Zone Management Fund (Section 308)
(a) (1) The obligations of any coastal state or unit of general purpose
local government to repay loans made pursuant to this section as in
effect before the date of the enactment of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 [enacted Nov. 5, 1990], and any
repayment schedule established pursuant to this title as in effect
before that date of enactment, are not altered by any provision of this
title. Such loans shall be repaid under authority of this subsection
and the Secretary may issue regulations governing such repayment. If
the Secretary finds that any coastal state or unit of local government
is unable to meet its obligations pursuant to this subsection because
the actual increases in employment and related population resulting
from coastal energy activity and the facilities associated with such
activity do not provide adequate revenues to enable such State or unit
to meet such obligations in accordance with the appropriate repayment
schedule, the Secretary shall, after review of the information
submitted by such State or unit, take any of the following actions:
(A) Modify the terms and conditions of such loan.
(B) Refinance the loan.
(C) Recommend to the Congress that legislation be enacted to forgive
the loan.
(2) Loan repayments made pursuant to this subsection shall be retained
by the Secretary; as offsetting collections, and shall be deposited
into the Coastal Zone Management Fund established under subsection
(b) (1) The Secretary shall establish and maintain a fund, to be known
as the ``Coastal Zone Management Fund'', which shall consist of amounts
retained and deposited into the Fund under subsection (a) and fees
deposited into the Fund under section 307(i)(3) [16 USC
Sec. 1456(i)(3)].
(2) Subject to amounts provided in appropriation Acts, amounts in the
Fund shall be available to the Secretary for use by the states for the
following;.
(A) Expenses incident to the administration of this title, in an amount
not to exceed for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 the higher
of--
(i) $ 4,000,000; or
(ii) 8 percent of the total amount appropriated under this title for
the fiscal year.
(B) After use under subparagraph (A)--
A (i) projects to address management issues which are regional in
scope, including interstate projects;
B (ii) demonstration projects which have high potential for improving
coastal zone management, especially at the local level;
C (iii) Emergency grants to State coastal zone management agencies to
address unforeseen or disaster-related circumstances;
(iv) Appropriate awards recognizing excellence in coastal zone
management as provided in section 314 [16 USC Sec. 1460];
D (v) program development grants as authorized by section 305 [16 USC
Sec. 1454], in an amount not to exceed $ 200,000 for each of fiscal
years 1997, 1998, and 1999; and
E (vi) to provide financial support to coastal states for use for
investigating and applying the public trust doctrine to implement State
management programs approved under section 306 [16 USC Sec. 1455].
(3) On December 1, of each year, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Congress an annual report on the Fund, including the balance of the
Fund and an itemization of all deposits into and disbursements from the
Fund in the preceding fiscal year.
c. outcome indicators
The success of the Coastal Zone Management Act can and should be
assessed with measurable outcomes. The establishment of outcome
indicators for the program should be developed in consultation with and
participation of State representatives, and should be flexible enough
to address the variations among state programs.
draft proposed language
Sec.---- (a) Not later than 24 months after the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit a report to the Committee
on Resources of the U. S. House of Representatives that contains
recommendations for a common set of measurable outcome indicators that
would provide a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of State
coastal zone management programs and activities in achieving one or
more of the objectives set out in Section 303(2)(A)-(J) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972. In preparing the report, the Secretary
shall include participation of representatives of the Governors of the
coastal states. Prior to submitting the report the Governors shall be
provided an opportunity to comment on the report and their comments
shall be included in the final report.
(b) Not later than 48 months after the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the House Resources Committee
recommendations for such legislation, regulation or guidance necessary
to implement a national coastal zone management outcome monitoring and
performance evaluation system.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Mr. Eichenberg.
STATEMENT OF TIM EICHENBERG, PROGRAM COUNSEL, CENTER FOR MARINE
CONSERVATION (CMC), ON BEHALF OF THE CMC, THE AMERICAN OCEANS
CAMPAIGN, COAST ALLIANCE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Madam Chair and Senator Kerry, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear today to testify on the reauthorization
of the CZMA. My name is Tim Eichenberg. I am Program Counsel
for the Center for Marine Conservation. I am also Co-Chair of
the Clean Water Network, a coalition of about 1,000 groups
nationwide, working together to strengthen our clean water
laws.
Today I am testifying on behalf of not only CMC, but also
the American Oceans Campaign, Coast Alliance, and Natural
Resources Defense Council, which support the CZMA and share a
strong commitment to protecting coastal resources. We commend
Senator Snowe for holding these important hearings, and look
forward to working with you and your subcommittee to
reauthorize the Act this year.
Prior to coming to CMC, I worked as Staff Attorney for the
California Coastal Commission, and taught coastal law at the
University of Maine, School of Law. I also worked on projects
for the Maine Sea Grant Program, the Casco Bay Estuary Program,
and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. So I am very
familiar with the benefits of the CZMA. I am very familiar with
its benefits in conserving valuable coastal resources,
providing public access, reducing marine debris, managing
coastal development, and protecting open space.
However, we believe that the CZMA's most significant
contribution may be the way it addresses the Nation's No. 1
water pollution problem--polluted runoff. The Clean Water Act
has made significant progress in addressing industrial and
municipal wastewater point source discharges. However, it has
had much less success in dealing with nonpoint sources of
pollution.
Polluted runoff is the major reason why 40 percent of our
Nation's assessed waters are not fit for swimming and fishing,
and for some of the impacts described by Senator Kerry just
earlier, including the dead zone, closed shellfish beds, fish
consumption advisories, and harmful alga blooms that may be
contributing to Pfiesteria and massive fish kills. Together,
these impacts are destroying coastal resources and costing
Americans billions of dollars in lost recreational
opportunities, health care, jobs, and property values. For this
reason, it is imperative that any reauthorization of the CZMA
also address this serious problem.
In 1990, Congress created the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program, under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments. This was based on a bill introduced
by Senator Kerry, S. 1189. The Coastal Runoff Program is the
only national program that deals with polluted runoff in an
effective and comprehensive manner. It requires States to
develop plans to control polluted runoff that meet national
guidelines.
In States like Massachusetts, South Carolina, California,
and Maryland, new initiatives are being developed to address
runoff from storm water, feedlots, marinas and other nonpoint
sources, according to NOAA's latest data. The Coastal Runoff
Program provides a model for an effective national program.
Progress has been slow under the Clean Water Act 319 grant
program. Despite the fact that it is the leading cause of water
pollution, nonpoint source pollution under the Clean Water Act
has received less than 3 percent of the funding provided to
States. Section 319 also lacks an effective management
approach. Although it requires States to prepare nonpoint
source management plans, it does not require that such plans be
implemented or enforced to control polluted runoff.
Despite its potential, the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program, established in 1990, has been hampered by lack
of funding. The authorization for CZARA, the Coastal Zone Area
Reauthorization Amendments, expired in 1995, and only $1
million in Federal funds were appropriated to run the entire
program between 1995 and 1998. Although Congress has
appropriated $8 million in fiscal year 1999, $1 million is
subject to a recision in the Senate supplemental appropriations
bill. Twenty-nine State coastal runoff programs have been
conditionally approved, but no State or territory has yet
achieved final program approval.
Significantly more funding is needed to help States meet
conditions for final approval, and implement improved program
elements. Given sufficient funding, we believe the Coastal
Runoff Program is the Nation's best chance for saving the
coastal zone from the damages inflicted by polluted runoff.
The CZMA has worked well for yesterday's coastal needs, but
must be updated to contend with the challenges of tomorrow.
These new challenges facing coastal States outpace the Act's
ability to deal with today's problems. Any reauthorization of
the CZMA must address the problem of polluted runoff.
Authorization levels must also be boosted, to take into account
future needs, so States can realistically address increased
populations that are moving into the coastal zone at the
astounding rate of 3,600 people per day.
Therefore, we urge the subcommittee to incorporate the
following concepts into any reauthorization bill, similar to
the approaches adopted in the draft administration CZMA bill
and in H.R. 1110, Congressman Saxton's CZMA reauthorization
bill. The approaches are as follows:
One, substantive changes are not needed in the current
provisions of Section 6217 of CZARA. However, the Coastal
Nonpoint Program must be reauthorized and integrated into the
CZMA in its current form.
Two, key provisions of the Coastal Runoff Program must be
retained to implement management measures to control polluted
runoff. Penalties must be imposed for failure to submit
approvable programs. Once those programs are approved,
evaluations must be conducted to assure that they are being
effectively implemented.
Three funds should be set aside for implementing the
program in Section 306 or 306(a), or somewhere else in CZMA, to
ensure that funding is targeted on federally approved Coastal
Runoff Program elements. The set-aside is wholly consistent
with congressional priorities for tackling the Nation's No. 1
water pollution problem, and is similar to the approach taken
in the Section 309 enhancement grant program. Furthermore, as
used in the Saxton reauthorization bill, this approach of set-
aside would actually boost the CZMA base program funding by
well over 30 percent, including increases of 42 percent for
Massachusetts and 55 percent for Maine and South Carolina.
Four, new grant programs or projects should be created in
the CZMA to address emerging coastal issues. However, they must
be environmentally protective and maintain the natural,
biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the coastal
ecosystem.
Five, sufficient funds should be authorized for supporting
the Coastal Runoff Program starting at a minimum of $12 million
per year. After the reauthorization, the subcommittee should
work with the committee of appropriations to ensure that
adequate funds are appropriated to States to implement programs
and management measures to avoid the situation that occurred
between 1995 and 1998.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our testimony for
the record and look forward to working with the subcommittee to
protect and manager our valuable coastal resources.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eichenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Eichenberg, Program Counsel, Center for
Marine Conservation (CMC), on Behalf of the CMC, the American Oceans
Campagain, Coast Alliance, and Natural Resources Defense Council
Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear today to testify on the reauthorization
of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). My name is Tim Eichenberg. I
am Program Counsel for the Center for Marine Conservation. CMC is a
nonprofit organization with 120,000 members committed to protecting
ocean environments and conserving the global abundance and diversity of
marine life through science-based advocacy, research, public education,
and informed citizen participation. CMC is headquartered in Washington,
DC, and has regional offices in California, Florida and Virginia. I am
also co-chair of the Clean Water Network, which has over 1,000 groups
nationwide working together to strengthen the Clean Water Act.
I am testifying today on behalf of CMC, the American Oceans
Campaign, Coast Alliance and the Natural Resources Defense Council
which share our commitment to protecting coastal resources. We support
the Coastal Zone Management Act and look forward to working with this
Subcommittee to reauthorize the Act this year. We commend Senator Snowe
for holding these important hearings.
INTRODUCTION
Enacted in 1972, the CZMA provides incentives for coastal states
and territories to plan and manage their coastal resources in
accordance broad national policies. The Act has succeeded in fostering
a unique federal-state partnership to address the concerns of coastal
communities. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has worked well with state coastal zone management agencies to help
them create state coastal zone management plans to manage our nation's
vulnerable coastal resources.
Currently, NOAA has approved 32 state coastal zone management
plans, covering 95,142 miles of shoreline or 99.7% of the country's
total coastline. This is a remarkable achievement for the CZMA. These
approved plans now provide states with an effective mechanism to manage
the challenges and threats posed by an explosion in population on our
coasts and the pollution resulting from new growth.
The coastal communities of the United States and its island
territoriescurrently face unprecedented development pressures. NOAA
estimates that 3600people move to coastal communities every day. At
this rate by 2015, 166 million people - 25 million more than today -
will live along our nation's coasts. Already, these communities are
struggling to try to find ways to save vulnerable wetlands, coastal
habitat, estuarine resources and preserve their quality of life while
accommodating new growth. The impacts of 25 million new residents to
the coastal zone will be severe. Any reauthorization of the CZMA must
address these new realities. Since many beach communities were
originally small towns, most do not have the capacity to plan for this
rapid expansion of their hometowns. From idyllic New England coastal
villages to the sunny beaches of Florida, the popular Jersey Shore and
the productive Gulf fishing towns of Texas and Louisiana, unchecked
growth threatens the very character of coastal America.
What exactly is at stake? The quality of life of current residents,
the quality of life sought out by new residents, the viability of
marine and estuarine ecosystems, and the sanctity and solitude many of
these towns rely on to attract tourists. The economic and social
culture of coastal regions dependent on healthy marine and coastal
resources is being jeopardized not only by rampant growth itself, but
the pollution it helps create, as well as the loss of critical marine
and wildlife habitat that inevitably result from new development. The
CZMA has worked well for yesterday's coastal needs, but must be updated
to contend with tomorrow's challenges.
We believe that thoughtfully crafted and well-defined amendments to
the Coastal Zone Management Act can offer much needed hope and support
to coastal communities in crisis. While the CZMA has succeeded in
addressing many important coastal issues by developing unique federal-
state partnerships to encourage interagency coordination and
comprehensive solutions, new challenges facing coastal states outpace
the Act's ability to deal with today's problems. This is especially
true with regard to authorized funding levels, which do not reflect
current needs of coastal states. Any reauthorization of the Coastal
Zone Management Act must take into account future needs by boosting
authorization levels so states can realistically deal with the
increased populations headed toward their coastal zones.
Any reauthorization must also address the number one source of
water pollution, polluted runoff. In 1990, Congress created the Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (Coastal Runoff Program) under
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. While
states have been making progress in preparing and submitting their
Coastal Runoff Programs to NOAA and EPA for approval under these
provisions, it is essential that the reauthorization of the CZMA also
incorporate and reauthorize funding for the Coastal Runoff Program to
ensure that the program will be sustained and implemented on a long-
term basis.
We are optimistic that Congress recognizes the importance of its
task with regard to coastal resource needs, and urge reauthorization of
the Coastal Zone Management Act this Session. We believe that in order
to achieve its goals, the Act must reflect the following principles:
1. To address the number one cause of water quality impairment
threatening coastal economies, aquatic resources and habitats, it is
essential that the funding for the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program be reauthorized and the Program be formally incorporated into
the CZMA, and that sufficient funds be authorized for its support;
2. The current provisions that distinguish the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program from other, less effective programs that
address polluted runoff must be retained, including the key requirement
to implement economically achievable measures to control pollutants
from existing and new nonpoint sources of pollution,and the option to
withhold financial assistance for failure to submit an approvable
program;
3. New projects or grant programs supported through appropriations
under the CZMA must be environmentally protective, maintaining the
natural biological, chemical and physical integrity of coastal
ecosystems. While the impacts of some projects such as beach
renourishment, dredging and shoreline stabilization may be a subject of
debate, there are certainly many sources of funding available for such
programs. Therefore, the financial resources made available through the
CZMA should focus on projects that provide agreed-upon benefits to
coastal resources, and not those with definite or potential ecological
risks.
THE COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Most water quality impairment - more than 60% - now comes from
nonpoint sources of pollution, or polluted runoff. (EPA National Water
Quality Inventory, 1996 Report to Congress) Polluted runoff occurs when
pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, nitrogen,
phosphorous, pathogens, salts, oil, grease, toxic chemicals and heavy
metals from the land are washed into rivers, lakes and, ultimately,
coastal waters. Runoff from agriculture (feedlots, grazing and crops),
urban and suburban evelopment, roads, bridges, construction sites,
logging and mining activities is the major reason why 40% of the
nation's assessed waters are not fit for fishing or swimming. It is a
major cause of fish kills, beach and shellfish bed closures, fish
consumption advisories, and the 7,000 square mile dead zone that
appears each year in the Gulf of Mexico. It is also associated with
doubling the number of harmful algal blooms, such as red tides and
pfiesteria, during the past 25 years, producing an estimated $1 billion
in economic losses to coastal communities in almost every coastal
state.
The creation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program,
under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
(CZARA) of 1990, was a significant step forward in combating the
nation's number one water pollution problem, nonpoint source pollution
or polluted runoff. The 101st Congress recognized that efforts to
control polluted runoff had not been successful and that coastal areas
were especially vulnerable to this type of pollution. The Coastal
Runoff Program is the only national program that requires the
implementation of minimum, cost-effective management measures to fight
polluted runoff.
Administered jointly by EPA and NOAA, the Coastal Runoff Program
requires state coastal programs with approved Coastal Zone Management
Plans to implement minimum, technology-based and economically
achievable management measures ``for the control of the addition of
pollutants from existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint
source pollution which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant
reduction achievable.'' 16 USC Sec. 1455b(g)(5). EPA and NOAA guidance
provide states with reliable and cost-effective measures in preventing
or controlling major sources of runoff from agriculture, forestry,
urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification,
and for protecting wetlands, riparian areas and vegetated treatment
systems. These management measures address the most prevalent sources
of runoff, offering real progress toward solving this vexing pollution
problem. Failure to submit a program that meets the minimum national
standards can result in reductions in funding under Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act and the Section 306 of CZMA. 16 USC
Sec. Sec. 1455b(c)(3) and (4). These penalties are additional
incentives to ensure that states will establish a workable plan to
combat polluted runoff.
Unfortunately, the success of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program has been hampered by lack of funding. After the
authorization for CZARA ran out in 1995, only $1 million in federal
funds were appropriated to run the entire national Program between
1995-98. In FY 99, Congress appropriated $8 million. While this is a
significant improvement, $1 million has been proposed for rescission in
the Senate Supplemental Appropriations bill (S. 544). More funding is
needed to assist states in developing and implementing their programs.
Although 29 state Coastal Runoff Programs have been conditionally
approved, no state or territory has yet achieved final program
approval. Therefore, funds are needed to help states meet conditions
for final approval, and to eventually implement their approved
programs. We believe that given appropriate funding, the Coastal Runoff
Program is our nation's best bet for saving our coastal waters from the
damage inflicted by polluted runoff.
With adequate resources we believe the Program has tremendous
potential and provides a model for a national program to address
polluted runoff. While some progress has been made under the Clean
Water Act Section 319 program, until recently EPA's nonpoint source
pollution grant program has suffered from a lack of funding. Despite
the fact that it is the leading cause of water pollution, nonpoint
source pollution under the Clean Water Act has received less than 3% of
funding provided to states. Section 319 also lacks effective
requirements to prevent polluted runoff. Although it requires that
states prepare nonpoint source management plans, there is no
requirement that such plans be implemented or enforced to control
nonpoint sources of pollution.
Since runoff is the prime suspect in so many coastal water quality
problems, achieving the goals of the CZMA depends on a successful
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. It is a cornerstone of the
CZMA, and is the only federal program designed to address runoff in an
accountable, targeted and enforceable manner, stressing coordination
among agencies as well as local solutions. As described in more detail
in a new port released by the Coast Alliance entitled, Pointless
Pollution: Preventing Polluted Runoff and Protecting America's Coasts,
the success or failure of this Program depends on three factors:
adequate plans to control the true causes of polluted runoff, the
presence of enforceable mechanisms to make sure those sources are
reduced, and adequate resources to implement these plans. To date,
states and the federal government have invested in the development of
runoff prevention and control plans that are on the verge of
completion. The pay-off from that investment should be realized by
ensuring the Program's completion. Therefore, any reauthorization of
the CZMA must retain the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program as
is, and integrate it fully into the Act.Congress can continue its
efforts to protect the coasts by ensuring that the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program is reauthorized and funded as part of the
Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization this year.
The CZMA is also strengthened by a provision that requires federal
actions in states' coastal zones to be consistent with state coastal
zone programs. 16 U.S.C. 1456. The Coastal Runoff Program benefits
enormously from the CZMA consistency provision, as it ensures that
federal projects adhere to states' pollution control requirements. This
prevents large scale federal projects from undermining state efforts to
protect their coastal zones. Due to the fact that the federal
government has long been known to be a major polluter, these
consistency provisions also serve an important purpose and must not be
weakened.
HR 1110 AND THE ADMINISTRATION BILL
Chairman Jim Saxton's Bill to reauthorize the CZMA in the House (HR
1110)authorizes funding for FY 2000 and for each year through FY 2004
at the following levels:
$55 million for the Section 306 and 309 grant program;
$5.5 million for CZMA administration;
$12 million for Section 315 construction grants
projects at National Estuarine Research Reserves, and $7-10
million for other grants; and
$20-35 million over 5 years for Coastal Community
Conservation Grants under section 306A.
We support these authorized funding levels because they represent a
significant much needed increase over current appropriations. We also
support setting aside funds for the Coastal Runoff Program in either
Section 306 or 306A of the CZMA to ensure that adequate funds for
approved program elements of the Coastal Runoff Program are provided.
We also support the draft Administration bill to reauthorize the
CZMA which the following in authorization of appropriations for FY 2000
and ``such sums as necessary'' for FY 2001 - 2004:
$61.7 million for grants under Sections 306, 306A, and
309;
$7 million for Section 315;
$28 million for Section 310; and
$5.5 million to administer the Act.
The Administration bill also contains an important environmental
safeguard that should be incorporated into any Senate CZMA
reauthorization bill. The Administration bill creates a new grant
program to support coastal communities against increased development
and urban sprawl (Section 310(c)), and requires that eligible projects
be ``environmentally protective'' to ensure that funds not be provided
for projects that might harm coastal resources such as unsustainable
and environmentally harmful dredging and erosion control projects.
For purposes of comparison with authorized levels of funding in HR
1110 and the bill, the table below shows recent figures (in
millions)requested for CZMA in the FY 2000 budget for the 32 states
with approved plans:
We urge the Subcommittee to support the increases proposed in the
FY 2000 budget.
We believe both the Administration's proposed bill and Chairman
Saxton's HR 1110 make significant improvements to current law. Both
bills integrate the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program into the
CZMA. Retaining that authority is absolutely critical if coastal states
are to make any real progress to combat polluted runoff. In addition,
both bills set aside funds to implement management strategies and
control measures of their approved Coastal Runoff Plans, and require
the Coastal Runoff Programs to be evaluated along with other
enforceable state program elements under Section 312 of the CZMA. Once
the Coastal Nonpoint Program's are fully approved, program evaluations
under Section 312 are one of the few ways to provide the necessary
federal oversight to ensure that Coastal Runoff Programs are
implemented adequately.
We favor this approach as we believe it will direct much needed
resources toward solutions for polluted runoff, the primary threat to
coastal water quality. A set aside in either Section 306 or 306A is an
important check to hold states accountable for the use of federal grant
dollars. We recognize that the Coastal Runoff Program has been woefully
underfunded, and that states need increased funding and flexibility to
meet federal guidelines. However, prioritizing federal aid to states
under the CZMA to address the most critical pollution threat (polluted
runoff) is common sense and good public policy. We are certainly open
to exploring other approaches so long as the goal of prioritizing funds
to the Coastal Runoff Program is accomplished.
We are also pleased that both the Administration bill and H.R. 1110
retain the enforceable policies and mechanisms in CZMA Section 306
(d)(16) and the penalty provisions for failure to develop approvable
programs. Since many states must still satisfy conditions before their
programs reach the stage of final approval, this could take several
years. It is imperative that these provisions be retained in the
reauthorization. These enforceable provisions make the Coastal Runoff
Program an effective tool in the war against polluted runoff, and are
crucial to the Program's overall success. New program guidance strikes
a balance by initially allowing the use of voluntary measures, so long
as enforceable mechanisms are phased in pursuant to timetables and
mileposts if voluntary measures fail. This federal backstop is
essential to an effective program and it must be retained if the
Coastal Runoff Program is to offer a real opportunity to control and
prevent polluted runoff, and avoid the costly degradation of America's
most valuable ecosystems.
CONCLUSION
It is no exaggeration to say that our coasts are under siege. We
must find a sustainable way to accommodate larger populations, or risk
losing coastal resources and creating unlivable communities. The many
pressures which threaten to degrade the viability of our nation's
coastal ecosystems are within the purview of the Coastal Zone
Management Act. The successful reauthorization of this fundamental law
is vitally important to the future of our coastal resources, and it is
essential that it be reauthorized this session of Congress. As time
passes, the threats to our coasts only loom larger. We urge that the
Senate start immediately to construct a carefully crafted
reauthorization of the Act that includes the integration of the Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program as provided in the language proposed
in Appendix A.
In summary, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to embody the
following principles in reauthorizing the CZMA:
1. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program in its current form
must be integrated into the Act, and sufficient funds must be
authorized for its support.
2. The Program's provisions requiring the implementation of management
measures to control polluted runoff, and sanctions for the failure to
submit approvable programs must be maintained.
3. Any new projects or programs supported through appropriations under
this Act must be environmentally protective, maintaining the natural
biological, chemical and physical integrity of coastal ecosystems.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our testimony for the
record. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee to protect
our invaluable coastal ecosystems.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Eichenberg. Dr. Earle.
STATEMENT OF SYLVIA A. EARLE, PH.D., EXPLORER IN RESIDENCE,
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
Dr. Earle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify concerning the reauthorization of the
Coastal Zone Management Act. I have a written statement that
has been submitted.
I am appearing here today as the former Chief Scientist of
NOAA, as the present Explorer in Residence at the National
Geographic, and I am also associated with the Center for Marine
Conservation, and a number of other organizations, but mostly I
am here as a private citizen, concerned about the future of my
country, aware as I am that whatever happens in the next
century, the next millennium and beyond, depends on decisions
that we are making right now about the land, water, the air,
the living and natural resources that most people, most of the
time, tend to take pretty much for granted.
Astronauts are not complacent about such things, because
when they go up in the sky they take their life support with
them and they know where every breath of air comes from, every
drop of water, et cetera. So do those of us who are lucky
enough to go down into the sea. You get a different
perspective, and it comes into focus very quickly what a life
support system is all about. What we are talking about here are
critical elements of our life support system--the parts of the
planet that give rise to the oxygen that we take for granted,
the water that, again, we have tended to take for granted.
I was interested in the comments about the level of
funding, and Senator Kerry's astute observation about budgets
and how they are limited, and how they are set. It is not
exactly arbitrary, but there are priorities that are
established. What we are seeing right now is a kind of priority
being set in the time of war to find funding for situations
that are really urgent. What we have here is, in a sense, a
kind of war that we unwittingly are waging on the environment
that supports us.
It is in slow motion, over 20 years or so, but,
nonetheless, it is something that is affecting all of us in a
way that really does impact our very lives. We should look at
this matter with a similar kind of urgency, and not hold back
from applying the resources needed to take care of those
systems that are presently threatened by us and by our actions.
We have predecessors to thank for good decisions in the
past about protecting the natural national assets in terms of
land, air and water. I especially focus on the coastal zones
here. We have the Estuarine Research Reserve System. We have a
system of a dozen marine sanctuaries that are steps in the
right direction. But they are just steps toward a much greater
kind of effort that we must take in order to protect those
systems that are vital to us.
In fact, about the budgetary issues, I agree totally that
we should try to live within our budgetary means. But we are
not living within our environmental budget, our environmental
means. We are spending assets, actually consuming the capital
needed to sustain us. We paying right now the cost for the loss
of wetlands, marshes, mangroves, forests, barrier beaches, the
natural dunes, and other systems, with increasing costs dealing
somehow with the services these systems once provided--the
storm damage, the benign recycling of waste, the natural
filtration, the cleansing of water, the production of oxygen--
all those things.
We are further paying for the price of damaging the
resilience of these systems through one of the key factors in
the Coastal Zone Management Act provisions, about the nonpoint
source pollution. Future generations will continue to pay and
pay and pay unless we can take measures right now to reverse
these costly trends.
The Coastal Zone Management Act has been doing just that--a
good job in at least trying to slow, and in some cases reverse,
those trends. As a nation, if we are to continue to effectively
deal with growing human impacts on the coastal zone, it is
critical that the Coastal Zone Management Act retain the
enforcement provisions for polluted runoff currently in the
law, and fully integrate the coastal nonpoint source pollution
control program into the reauthorized statute.
Without enforceable measures to prompt States to create
technology-based management measures to prevent polluted
runoff, the health of the ocean and, in a very close
relationship, our own health, our own well-being, is in
jeopardy. Those inspired to halt the contamination of our
coastal waters and the sea beyond really should think about
starting at the tops of mountains, at the headwaters of rivers,
the heartland of America, the fields, the farms, the backyards,
the lawns, the streets, the golf courses, the ball fields,
where excessive application of biocides, fertilizers and other
chemicals has yielded high concentrations of nitrates,
phosphates and other materials that eventually go into
groundwater, streams, into the ocean--some refer to this as the
ultimate sewer--and ultimately back to us.
How many States are affected by what happens in the coastal
zone? All of them.
How many States have an impact on the coastal zones? All of
them.
Because we are not talking about being able to carve up the
country into something that you can separate these things out.
All things are impacted by all other things.
I have some specific suggestions or proposals to make,
recommendations, concerning what should be perhaps done with
respect to the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management
Act. It comes certainly at an opportune time, a time when the
need is the greatest it has ever been. The Federal Government,
along with its partners at the State, county and local
government level, must make a concerted commitment to the
Nation's coastal and ocean resources.
So I recommend, respectfully, that with respect to the
grants made to the States, that there be commitments on the
order of $55 million each fiscal year through 2004; $30 million
for 306(a) grants to States for the polluted runoff programs in
fiscal year 2000; a strong coastal nonpoint pollution control
program. The whole idea of nonpoint pollution is that people
somehow miss the point that if you inject toxic materials
anywhere into the system, they are going to infect the entire
system.
Some say it does not bother or affect me if it is somewhere
far away. It is like saying it is OK to inject poison in your
ankle, but not into your shoulder. We have got to realize that
everything connects.
Finally, we need provisions to ensure that grants under the
Coastal Zone Management Act are environmentally protective.
Meaning that they not be used for such things as beach-
hardening projects, shoreline erosion structures or dredging
projects that harm coastal ecosystems.
By authorizing this Act to include the above provisions,
this subcommittee and the U.S. Senate will have lived up to the
responsibility that we all have right now on behalf of the
public, good, and will fulfill the objectives of the Act. This
is an exceptional opportunity for Congress to pass a bipartisan
bill, aimed at vital environmental and economic issues.
I urge you to take advantage of this momentous point in
history, a time when, as never before and perhaps as never
again, we can move forward into an era of greater stewardship,
of protecting and restoring health to the Nation's natural,
coastal and ocean assets. But at the same time, you will be
crafting an enduring legacy.
Madam Chairman, Senator Kerry, thank you for your work on
behalf of the coastal and ocean resources and for this
opportunity to testify before you today. I will be pleased to
work with you in any way I can.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Earle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sylvia A. Earle, Explorer in Residence,
National Geographic Society
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify concerning the reauthorization of the Coastal
Zone Management Act. I am appearing here today with a lifetime
experience as an oceanographer, formerly Chief Scientist of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; as a businesswoman,
founder of Deep Ocean Engineering, Inc., Deep Ocean Exploration and
Research, Inc., and member of various corporate boards; as Spokesperson
for the U.S. during the Year of the Ocean as well as for the
organization, Sea Web on ocean issues; as a member of the board for
numerous research and conservation organizations; as an author of
numerous scientific, technical and popular publications; as the
National Geographic's Explorer in Residence and Leader of a five year
program of exploration, research and education focussed on the National
Marine Sanctuaries--the National Geographic's Sustainable Seas
Expeditions, as well as serving as the Center for Marine Conservation's
``Ambassador for the Ocean.'' But most importantly, perhaps, I am here
as a private citizen concerned about the future of my country, aware as
I am that whatever happens in the next century, the next millennium and
beyond depends on critical decisions being made right now about the
land, water, air, living and other natural resources most people have
always tended to take pretty much for granted.
Astronauts are not complacent about these things, nor are those of
us lucky enough to venture deep in the sea. For us, the matter of
``life support''--not taking it for granted--soon comes into focus.
Those who are lofted into space must take with them every drop of
water, every breath of air, every bite of food, every bit of clothing,
and think and plan ro the ultimate disposition of very scrap of paper,
every bottle top, every cupful of wasted generated. The same is true to
those who journey in small submersibles far beneath the surface of the
ocean. When it is necessary to think about, provide for, and pack along
even the most basic goods and services required to stay alive, one sees
the world with new eyes and recognizes clearly that the hospitable
environmental circumstances here on Earth are special, rare, precious--
vulnerable. It also is clear that water is the cornerstone of earth's
life support system-and the most of it is ocean.
If I have learned anything in six decades it is that there is no
free lunch, yet people generally have a way of regarding natural
resources as free for the taking. In my lifetime and yours, there has
been unprecedented squandering of this nation's natural resources
representing an immense loss to the core asset abase that has enabled
us to come as far as we have with the power, strength, and leadership
position that the United States now enjoys. When Lewis and Clark set
out to explore the American west two centuries ago, the country was
naturally blessed with abundant forests, wetlands, and wildlife. The
skies above, the waters overall were essentially pristine. There was an
illusion then that in large measure persists, that natural resources
are infinitely resilient, and if by chance--or by design--parts of the
natural endowment were destroyed--species lost, fish and bird
populations diminished, forest cut, marshes drained, rivers polluted--
nothing was subtracted from the GNP to account for lessening the
nation's natural assets. Impacts on our life support system have
largely been ignored.
We are now paying for the loss of wetlands, marshes, mangroves,
forests barrier beaches, natural dunes and other systems with
increasing costs of dealing somehow with the services these systems
once provided--excessive storm damage, benign recycling of wastes,
natural filtration and cleansing of water, production of oxygen back to
the atmosphere, natural absorption of carbon dioxide, stabilization of
soil, and much more. Future generations will continue to pay, and pay
and pay unless we can take measure now to reverse these costly trends.
The Coastal Zone Management Act has been doing just that. As a
nation, if we are to continue to effectively deal with the growing
human impacts on the coastal zone, it is critical that the CZMA retain
the enforcement provisions for polluted runoff currently in the law,
and fully integrate the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program into
the reauthorized statute. Without enforceable measures to prompt states
to create technology-based management measures to prevent polluted
runoff, the health of the ocean-and our own well being--is in jeopardy.
Those inspired to halt contamination of our coastal waters and the
sea beyond must start at the tops of mountains, the headwaters of
rivers, the heartland of America--the fields, farms backyards, lawns,
streets, golf courses and ball fields - where excessive applications of
biocides, fertilizers and other chemicals has yielded high
concentrations of nitrates, phosphates, and other materials that
eventually make their way through ground water, streams and rivers to
the ocean--laconically referred to by some as ``the ultimate sewer.''
Anyone who doubts the land-sea connections should peer over the
shoulder of an astronaut, at least vicariously, to get the big
picture--not only about what flows from the land into the sea, but
also, to understand how the sea affects the land, no matter how far
from the shore we might live. Watching the T.V. weather station helps
make the connection. The sea shapes planetary climate, weather,
temperature, chemistry, and is home to most of life on earth.
Pollution of our coastal waters has yielded a legacy of degraded
rivers and streams, beach closures, loss of valuable shellfish
resources, and a so-called ``Dead Zone'' covering more than 6,000
square miles in the Gulf of Mexico. Polluted runoff has also promoted
the toxic Pfiesteria outbreaks on the Mid-Atlantic Coast, made bathers
sick on beaches in California, clogged important shipping channels in
the Great Lakes, and given rise to dramatic problems in Florida Bay and
the adjacent coral reefs in the Florida Keys.
Increased nitrates in coastal waters may be linked to spread of
diseases such as cholera. These are costly consequences of not paying
attention to the importance of taking care of the natural systems that,
in effect, take care of us.
As the same time, in our time, there has been a dramatic
reenactment of the wholesale consumption of wildlife in the 1800's and
early part of this century, only now instead of buffalo, passenger
pigeons, songbirds shorebirds, beaver, wolves and bears our attention
for mass markets of wildlife has been directed toward life in the sea.
The extremely costly collapse of cod pollack, haddock, capelin,
flounder, swordfish, bluefin tuna and dozens of other commercially
valuable species has come about for many reasons, not the least being
in indifference to history. We might have learned from precedents set
on the land, yet we continue to extract wild creatures from wild
systems using highly destructive methods that undermine our nation's
natural treasury.
No species can withstand the relentless high-tech predation now
being imposed on hundreds of kinds of creatures that have developed to
natural means of defense against our present means of finding,
capturing, processing, and distributing them as commodities throughout
the world. Lost in the process are not just potentially valuable
sustained uses of marine life for food at more conservative levels, but
also for all the other valuable services they may yield in terms of
maintaining our ``life support system''. For example, shellfish in
Chesapeake Bay at the turn of the century filtered and thereby cleansed
the entire contents of the bay in a few days; now, with oysters reduced
to about 2% of what they were in the early 1900's, and with greatly
increased nutrient loads that stimulate plankton growth, it is
estimated that it takes more than a year for a shellfish to filter the
bay's volume.
The buzzword for addressing this problem today is ``sustainable
development.'' How can we, in fact, continue to use the natural
resources that sustain us--without using them up? The first step toward
resolving what may seem to be a hopeless catch-22 is recognizing that
problems exists. For many citizens of the United States, even those who
live by the sea, there has been widespread complacency and a troubling
sense of detachment about what is happening to the nation's coastal
region. But that is changing as the links between the health of the
ocean and our own well-being become increasingly obvious.
Last year was designated the Year of the Ocean, and 1997 was
celebrated internationally as the Year of the Reef--both drawing
attention to the problems now facing coastal areas worldwide. A clear
need was demonstrated to develop more responsible ocean policies than
those that have given rise to present degradation of valuable
resources. Since the Stratton Commission was formed over thirty years
ago, the United States has not had a national, comprehensive ocean
policy. Since that time, technological breakthroughs, transportation
improvements and global pollution have made the ocean sem a lot smaller
and proven that they are much more vulnerable than once was believed.
I am presently engaged in a five year program of exploration,
research and education--the Sustainable Seas Expeditions--a public-
private partnership involving the National Geographic Society and NOAA
with funding from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund in cooperation
with various private and governmental institutions including NASA, the
U.S. Navy, the EPA, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and
the Mote Marine Laboratory. Hundreds of scientists and educators are
involved as well as numerous student participants. Our focus is on the
coastal zone. There are several objectives, including the strengthening
of the nation's system of young but promising National Marine
Sanctuaries--an underwater counterpart of the National Park System.
Twelve are now included and a new one is soon to be designated in the
Great Lakes at Thunder Bay. The goal is to develop a stronger ethic of
caring, an ocean ethic that will reinforce and extend the stewardship
provisions of the CZMA. No doubt about it, the CZMA, if fully
implemented, will help us to better care for the nation's vital coastal
resources.
As policy makers, I urge you to back and to strengthen the CZMA for
a long list of good reasons ranging from sound short term economic good
sense to sound long term economic good sense to sound environmental
sense, near term and long term. These are not only compatible reasons;
they are inextricably linked reasons. Sound economy, sound environment.
It does make sense. There are ethical considerations, too, of course.
Protecting natural resources so your sons and daughters and their
children, the descendants of all of us for all time will either thank
us for our foresight because we took care of the assets and delivered
them safely into the future, as Theodore Roosevelt implored us to do. .
. ``enhanced, not impaired in value. . .'' or, they will look upon us
with disdain and despair for having squandered in our lifetime the
distillation of four and a half billion years.
Reauthorization of the CZMA comes at an opportune time--a time when
the need is the greatest it has ever been. The federal government,
along with its partners at the state, county and local government
level, must make a concerted commitment to the nation's coastal and
ocean resources. I respectfully recommend that the following provisions
be included in the reauthorization of the CZMA:
1. $55 million each fiscal year through FY 2004 for 306 grants to
states;
2. $30 million for 306a grants to states for polluted runoff programs
in FY 2000,
3. a strong Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program;
4. provisions to ensure that grants under the CZMA are environmentally
protective, meaning they not be used for beach hardening projects,
shoreline erosion structures or dredging projects that harm coastal
ecosystems.
By reauthorizing the CZMA to include the above provisions, this
subcommittee and the United States Senate will have lived up to its
responsibility to act on behalf of the public good and will fulfill the
objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
In addition to increased funding as outlined above, it is crucial
that any updated CZMA include a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program that can help states prevent the major sources of pollution
threatening water quality. The federal polluted runoff program,
administered jointly by NOAA and the EPA, must maintain the requirement
that state coastal programs contain enforceable policies and mechanism
to implement nonpoint pollution controls. Without enforceable
mechanisms, there is no guarantee that this federal program will be
effective. By requiring that funds be withheld under the CZMA and CWA
if adequate coastal nonpoint programs are not prepared, coastal states
are compelled to develop workable plans to prevent polluted runoff.
Once their plans are approved by NOAA, they will then be eligible for
additional grant money for implementation. This mild form of
encouragement is warranted given the urgency of the problem and the
high cost of inaction.
This is an exceptional opportunity for Congress to pass a
bipartisan bill aimed at vital environmental and economic issues. I
urge you to take advantage of this momentous point in history, this
time when as never before and perhaps as never again we can move
forward to an era of greater stewardship, of protecting and restoring
health to the nation's natural coastal and ocean assets. In the short
term, you will be acting on behalf of those now living--including you
and me--but at the same time, you will be crafting an enduring legacy.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for your work on
behalf of coastal and ocean resources and for the opportunity to
testify before you today. I shall be pleased to work with you and will
help any way that I can.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you all for your excellent
testimony.
We have a vote that has been called. Senator Kerry, did you
have any questions you would like to ask?
Senator Kerry. Just a couple of quick things. I am not
going to be able to come back after the vote.
Ms. Cooksey and Mr. Keeley, you are both practitioners at
the State level at this point. That is of enormous importance
to us as we think about this. You have heard the challenge from
those who are deeply involved but not within a State government
specifically at this moment. How do you respond to the
questions I asked earlier about the adequacy of the current
relationship?
Obviously you want your independence. You, I know, cherish
not being pushed around. But do you think that the capacity to
respond is adequate, or is there a gap at the Federal level
that leaves you sort of clawing uphill? What is your overall
assessment of where you find yourself?
Mr. Keeley. Well, from my Maine perspective, we enjoy
solving our problems at home. We certainly beg, borrow and
steal ideas from others who are successfully doing something.
But we believe that we know what our priorities are and know
how to work on them.
The issue of capacity--this is a scalable exercise that, if
we were looking today at a CZMA appropriation of $100 million
or $200 million, there is a lot of work that needs to be done.
My point is that at what CSO is suggesting, of $75 million a
year, that will allow us to go to the next level and make some
significant inroads.
Senator Kerry. Of course, Maine is the kind of State that
would stand out as a model, as are a few others, from New
England, I am happy to say. Perhaps this is because people in
these areas have always had a special relationship with the
environment and the sea. There are other places in the
country--I am not going to name them now, but some of them know
who they are, and we all know who they are--where there just
does not exist that kind of individualistic and independent
self-start capacity.
Some of them slow some of us up. For instance,
Massachusetts, which is ready to proceed with a nonpoint source
effort, is held up because other States have not signed off and
will not sign off. So we are sort of the prisoners in that
regard.
How do we break out of that mold? You would, I would think,
rarely be told what to do or imposed upon, but it is the other
states that we somehow need to leverage. Do you want to take
that on, Ms. Cooksey?
Ms. Cooksey. The statute has an existing section in it,
Section 312, the evaluation process, where NOAA comes every 2
to 3 years and reviews your program. I believe they have the
authority to make sanctions and withhold grants if you are not
performing up to your----
Senator Kerry. That is correct. But the effect of
withholding the grant is to guarantee that what you want to get
done does not get done.
Ms. Cooksey. Yes, it is difficult.
Senator Kerry. I am trying to find a mechanism for
guaranteeing that what you want to get done gets done.
Ms. Cooksey. It is very difficult. We, too, think of our
State as leaders. I think of us as doing a good job. I can
understand your comments about some other States that perhaps
are not as progressive and do not have the resources or the
political will to do what some of us would feel are the right
thing to do. It is tough.
I do not necessarily think sanctions work in all cases. I
think that people, in general, will do the best that they can.
We have talked a lot about nonpoint today. There are some
problems with the program. But we have made progress. But we
have a lot of work to do. Frankly, these funding levels are
minuscule.
Senator Kerry. Yes, they really are. I do not disagree with
you at all. They are absolutely minuscule.
Mr. Eichenberg and Dr. Earle, we have got to go vote
momentarily. I assume, Madam Chairman, you will leave the
record open so we could submit some questions.
Senator Snowe. Yes, I will.
Senator Kerry. Thank you. Do you want to quickly add
anything to the comments just made?
Dr. Earle. Well, that the funding is minimal. The good news
is that a request is being made for something on the order of
$100 million, or this is what is being put forward. That is the
good news. The bad news is that it is on the order of $100
million. We really do have some urgent, critical, here-and-now
problems to address. If we miss this window of opportunity, the
cost of not taking action now is enormous. It can be
preventative at this stage.
Senator Kerry. It would be terrific if each of you could
submit to us your order of priority for where additional funds
might be spent. That would be very helpful.
Mr. Eichenberg. Senator Kerry, my order of priority would
be the coastal runoff program. That is the No. 1 priority for
the Coastal Zone Management Act. The CZMA is not a prescriptive
statute. It was not adopted that way, except in 1990, when you
offered your amendment to the CZMA. It prescribed a solution to
the No. 1 water pollution problem that we had at that time. It
has only gotten worse.
I think that your analogy of the Magnuson Act is a good
one. I think sometimes you do need to have some minimum
standards. The CZARA amendments of 1990 did prescribe the only
national program that requires States to do something to deal
with polluted runoff.
Now, what they do and how they do it is, by and large, up
to them, pursuant to some broad Federal guidelines. That is the
way it should be, because each State is different. But there is
not really any sanction under that program, except for the
withholding of money. As you say, that is just shooting
yourself in the foot. I think we need to look at some other
paradigm, perhaps, than that.
Senator Kerry. Well, maybe we can model it off some of the
lessons we learned from the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which appear
to be having a better impact.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your graciousness. I
appreciate it.
I thank all of you for coming.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Senator Kerry.
One of the questions that is really critical to this whole
issue is about the nonpoint source pollution. I know, Mr.
Eichenberg, you were mentioning that the Clean Water Act has
been deficient in addressing that question. As Senator Kerry
mentioned, it does take the cooperation of a number of States.
We looked at the dead zone in Louisiana; we had hearings on
that issue last year. There is runoff from about 30 different
States. So, where do you begin?
The legislation proposed by the Administration takes a
fundamentally different course with respect to this particular
issue. I think--in terms of enforcement--that the
Administration is going to withhold funds, and that they are
going to require the States to use X percentage of funds for
this particular purpose. I think that is fundamentally
different from the direction this legislation has taken in the
past. That is my concern. I think that the States obviously are
on the front lines of nonpoint source pollution with respect to
their coastal areas and all parties want to correct this
problem.
So how can we work in a cooperative fashion to make sure
that we achieve the goal of addressing nonpoint source
pollution, but doing so in a way that is constructive? I
hesitate to think about the impact of legislation that says:
well, sorry, the States are not including an effective program
within their plan, therefore we are going to withhold the
money.
I am not so sure that is the most constructive approach to
take with respect to this issue, which, as you suggested and
others have suggested, is becoming one of the primary
challenges to our environmental concerns. It will continue to
be. It is going to take the cooperation of everybody, including
industry, I should say, who also should be included in this
dynamic if we are really going to resolve this question and get
everybody to participate in the solution to this significant
environmental challenge.
Mr. Eichenberg. Senator Snowe, you are right that the
Administration bill does take a different approach. It is
similar to the approach taken by Congressman Saxton in the
House with respect to the set-aside, the 10 to 20 percent. I
would only disagree with that in the sense that it limits the
States with respect to how much they can spend. I disagree with
the 20-percent cap on that.
I think there should be a minimum amount that is spent on
this coastal runoff program, if indeed it is the priority that
Congress has declared it was back in 1990, and in 1987, when
the Clean Water Act was amended to include Section 319.
However, I do not think that it limits how States address this
issue by simply saying: We in Congress believe this is such an
important program that you have to spend a minimum amount of
money, which we are putting into the program. It is not
limiting the amount of money. It is actually boosting the
amount that is in the base program funding by at least 10
percent. At least that is the Administration's request.
So I do not see it as a limitation, but I do see it as an
expression of priority on the Congress' part, to say that a
certain minimum amount of money should be spent to deal with
this extremely important problem that we are not making
progress on.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Keeley, Ms. Cooksey, did you want to
comment?
Ms. Cooksey. I would just comment that I do not think it
makes any sense to take away from our base program that has
been successful. Everybody knows there are serious coastal
nonpoint source pollution problems. We should fund it. We
should not take it from all the other things that we do well.
We should not take it from communities. We should not take it
from waterfront revitalization. We should not take it from
public access. We should not take it from making better
dredging projects. We should fund it. It should be funded
separately.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Keeley.
Mr. Keeley. Sure. I would just add that Congress
established national priorities in the Coastal Zone Management
Act in 1972. It has reaffirmed them in each of the
appropriations. Possibly what we are talking about now is we
have a set of priorities, and within those, we have additional
priorities. I would go back to my earlier comment that I think
it is up to the States to determine what their priorities are.
The CZMA is all about dealing with a diverse array of issues,
nonpoint being one of those.
Senator Snowe. Dr. Earle.
Dr. Earle. Well, I am a strong believer, whether it is
individual people or individual States, having a lot of control
over what they do. But it is within a framework of recognizing
that we have to work to the general good, as well. We live in a
community. We live in a country. We have to just make decisions
that have that as an uppermost characteristic. It is part of
just being good citizens, doing the right thing.
While I am not suggesting that the wrong thing would be
done by individual States intentionally, there is an overall
framework, because of the interconnectedness of particularly
the nonpoint source pollution issue, but it affects other
things, as well. Any part of the environment that is kept in a
good and healthy state affects in a positive way everybody,
just as a destruction or an eroding away of the good health of
any part of any State affects the Nation as a whole.
Senator Snowe. Well, I certainly appreciate your
observations and positions on this issue. I intend to pursue
the reauthorization. I know we have got some issues to work
out. They are very important, without a doubt. My primary goal
is to reconcile these issues, while, at the same time,
maintaining the goals that you have all set forth. Hopefully we
can do it in a way that achieves the overall objectives of the
program.
There is no question that the current authorization levels
are not sufficient to meet the challenges that we are facing
with respect to this issue, particularly the nonpoint source
pollution. There is no question.
So we will be working with each of you as we pursue this
reauthorization. I thank you very much for coming here today. I
will submit additional questions to you, and we hope that you
will have a chance to respond to them for the record. Any
additional testimony, any additional observations--we certainly
would welcome you to put those in the record, as well.
Again, I thank you. I have to conclude, at this point. So,
I thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Terry D. Garcia
Question 1.A. At the hearing, Assistant Administrator Garcia stated
that states receive their grant allotments from NOAA approximately 60
days from the time an application is filed. Please describe this grant
process review timeline, from date of application to receipt of funds.
Include in this timeline the number of days from receipt of application
to: (1) completion of application review; (2) submission of comments on
application to state; (3) review and approval of any necessary re-
submission by the state; (4) payment of grant funds to state.
Answer. The NOAA Grants Management Division (GMD) must receive the
final grant application 60 days prior to the start date of an award in
order to complete its review and processing and to get the approved
award package out to the state recipient. For example, the final
application for awards with a July 1 start date are due in GMD by April
30th. Final applications for awards with an October 1 start date are
due in GMD by June 30th.
NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management's (OCRM's)
processing schedule is derived by working backward from the date final
award applications are due in GMD. Following is a sample schedule for a
FY 1999 section 306 award with a July 1 start date:
Question 1.B. For the last 3 fiscal years, for each eligible state,
please list the number of days between submission of state grant
applications to NOAA and NOAA's final approval and payment of grant
funds to states under their application.
Answer: For the information provided below, the date is when the
final application was sent to GMD by OCRM. The number of days in
parentheses is GMDs actual processing time for the award (see response
to question 1.A.) and award of funds to state. Please note that even if
GMD's processing time went beyond 60 days, and approval of the grant
occurred after July 1 or October 1, the effective award date was
specified as the July 1 or October 1 start date so that the state will
not have an unfunded gap in time.
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
David Keeley
Question 1. The House bill, H.R. 1110, proposes that states provide
a 1-to-1 match of federal dollars under Section 309. Please explain
what effect such a change in current law would have on the Maine
Coastal Program.
Answer. Maine could, with little to no difficulty, provide some
level of match (state in-kind staff resources) for 309 enhancement
projects carried out by the state. For example, a Section coastal
hazards project in our 99/00 work program is funded by NOAA at $38,000
and (although not required), an estimated match of $16,000 is provided
in state resources (state-funded geologist and GIS support)
For projects involving local and regional partners however, a
required match (particularly a 1:1 match) might be difficult and might
impede progress on enhancement projects. A current project in Southern
Maine provides an example. Although not required by our NOAA grant, MCP
requested that towns participating in the regional beach management
planning process contribute one-half of the costs for the project, as a
signal of their commitment to manage sand beaches as regional
resources. Five out of nine towns in Southern Maine are now
participating but others cite the match requirement as an impediment to
their participation. Projects that are regional (watershed or
ecosystem) in approach often compete with municipal funding interests,
yet we know that the approach is beneficial to protection of coastal
resources.
The Maine program could most likely meet additional match
requirements (we suggest a 25-50% match) with no anticipated negative
impact, provided that the state was awarded flexibility in meeting
overall match requirements, could compensate for lack of local match,
and could continue to use in-kind resources as match.
Question 2.A. Is the State able to delineate between the CZM
portion and the Clean Water Act portion of the state's nonpoint source
pollution control program? If so, please explain in detail.
Yes, but the delineation is only clear with respect to
administrative details, such as financial management, oversight of
(some, but not all) 6217 funded projects, and separate lines of
communication with federal agencies. The Maine Coastal Program manages
6217 funds, coordinates a limited number of projects, provides
contractual funds for DEP to manage a limited number of projects and is
the point of contact with NOAA for 6217. The Maine DEP manages the 319
grant program, has oversight over environmental regulations and is the
point of contact for EPA for Clean Water Act programs. The Maine
Coastal Program and DEP staff have each provided staff support for the
many multi-stakeholder processes that have shaped the 6217 program.
The substance of our coastal non point efforts (use of BMPs, new
stormwater law, grants for remediation of non point, public education
campaigns), is firmly (and intentionally) embedded in the state's
overall non point source program. Also since NOAA's rejection of our
proposed (scientifically based) management boundary, the entire state
is proposed to be our 6217 management area.
B. Through Section 312 of the CZMA, NOAA conducts a review of the
extent to which the state has implemented and enforced the program. If
the State and NOAA were able to agree on a way to delineate between the
two, would the State support the inclusion of the CZM nonpoint source
pollution control program within the review of overall program
performance? Please explain in detail.
Answer. We think accountability is important and because Maine has
a networked coastal program, the performance of our partner agencies
(re: activities and projects in the coastal zone) is routinely examined
during our 312 program review. We would consider it well within the
purview of the 312 review process to: (1) look at the effectiveness of
our interagency partnership, (i.e. how the Maine Coastal Program, the
Maine DEP and other agencies cooperate on coastal non point), (2)
determine how 6217 funded efforts have enhanced coastal NPS research,
monitoring, prevention, remediation and education and (3) provide an
opportunity for DEP to present information regarding how 319 funds and
other funds have been used in the coastal zone.
It is necessary though, to somehow confine the scope of NOAA's
review in light of the following: EPA already has mechanisms in place
to review the Maine DEP's performance under the Clean Water Act and the
overwhelming majority of funding for non point source programs comes
from EPA to the Maine DEP. If proposed increases in the 319 program
come to be under the Clean Water Action Plan, Maine's 319 program will
be funded at a level that exceeds the entire CZM appropriation to the
State of Maine.
Question 3. Has Maine ever requested technical assistance from NOAA
and been told that such assistance for Maine was not available? If so,
please explain in detail.
Answer. We applaud NOAA's attempts in recent years to develop
targeted expertise among their staff to assist with states' TA needs in
the areas of dredging, federal consistency, etc. Maine has also
benefited from products and services available through the Coastal
Services Center and through recent improved coordination between NESDIS
and NOS. NOAA's new electronic reporting syciem will make searches for
information from other states easier and more productive. While we
cannot cite examples where we haven't been helped when asked, we would
like the cumulative expertise at NOAA to exhibit itself in the form of
proactive technical assistance.
In particular, we see two areas where service to the states could
be improved. (1) NOAA should be the gateway for states to access
coastal and marine expertise that exists at the federal level (FEMA,
the military, NRCS, etc.) (2) NOAA should be a conductor and supporter
of research that addresses state coastal management needs (cumulative
and secondary impacts of development, fate and transport of NPS in
different types of embayments are but two examples of Maine's research
needs.)
Question 4. A. In each of fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999, how
much base program money was withheld from the Maine program by NOAA to
pay for NOAA administrative costs?
Answer. Although discussed each year for the past several years, FY
99 (beginning 7/1/99) is the only year that base program funds will be
withheld. $16,000 will be withheld from Maine's Section 306 funding for
NOAA administrative costs during the coming year.
B. If such money had been available, what would you have used the
money for?
See C. below.
C. Do you currently have an alternative arrangement to cover such
costs? If so, please explain in detail.
NOAA increased allotments in Sections 309 and 310 funding and
allowed increased flexibility in moving program expenses and staff
costs betiveen 306 and other funding lines. If this flexibility had not
been provided for, we would have had to cut staff. We also were able to
transfer a Planning and Research Associate from 306 funds through
increased permit fees approved by the Maine legislature.
D. In fiscal year 2000, how much does the Administration propose to
withhold from the Maine program to pay for NOAA's administrative costs?
Not known at this time. Maine holds the position that NOAA
administrative expenses should be adequately funded through direct
appropriations from NOAA operations accounts and not charged to state
grants or Section 308 funds for regional and emergency projects.
Question 5. A. For several years, Maine has not allocated a portion
of its Section 306 funding to targeted projects under Section 306A.
Please explain in detail why this has occurred.
Answer. During the period of economic decline in Maine in the late
1980's, state budget cutbacks threatened to undermine the
administration and enforcement of the core environmental laws that
constitute Maine's approved coastal management program. Funding for
306A construction and acquisition ceased as CZM 306 base program funds
were reallocaied to support permitting and enforcement in the coastal
zone. NOAA's 312 reviews of the Maine program during that time also
directed increased investment of CZM dollars in core law
administration. A recent 309 funded project to reform the Site Location
of Development Law may, over time, result in decreased state oversight,
delegated authority for permit reviews to the municipalities and a
coincident freeing up of 306/306A dollars.
Although funds have not been made available for 306A projects, the
Coastal Program conducted a needs assessment that helped design, and
bolstered support for a state bond issue for small harbor improvements
(SHIP) and we assisted DOT with administration of that program. We also
devote staff time to Land for Maine's future efforts in the coastal
zone and administer a mini-grants program to help municipalities
identify and traditional coastal rights of ways.
B. Do you support the Administration's proposal to include a
separate authorization for Section 306A projects? Please explain in
detail.
Section 306A of the CZMA provides states with adequate authority to
preserve and restore areas of special value and to acquire public
access. However, at current appropriation levels, funding for
restoration, acquisition and waterfront revitalization in identified
priority areas competes with base program funding and is limited to 10%
of overall appropriations. Maine would like to see overall limits on
Section 306A spending removed along with sufficient funding to allow
for effective administration of core programs and program enhancement
as well as ``shovel in the dirt'' projects in priority areas of the
state. State's should retain the authority to determine priorities for
306 and 306A funding.
Question 6. Does Maine support a competitive grant program under
Section 310 as proposed by the Administration? Please explain in
detail.
Answer. While we have no doubt that Maine communities would be
competitive for community revitalization and conservation assistance
grants through a national competition, we think the Administration's
proposal sets up new federal bureaucratic responsibilities for
competitive grants, that are best designed, evaluated and awarded
directly by the State's CZM program. All states should be allocated
grants under this section by formula and states should have the
authority to shape local grant offerings to meet community needs--not
one size fits all federal guidelines. Maine's Coastal Plan (our
strategic plan) was developed with input of coastal communities,
coastal professionals and the public and would serve as our statement
of priorities upon which to design a local grants program.
7. Please explain in detail Maine's position on incorporating
Section 6217 nonpoint source pollution control into the CZMA. Include
comment on minimum and maximum spending limits.
Answer. Maine opposes further incorporation of Section 6217 of
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (``CZARA'') into
the Coastal Zone Management Act. The legislative history of CZARA
reflects Congress' intent to provide for joint administration of
coastal non-point source programs by CZM programs and state water
quality agencies. Maine supports continued efforts to integrate
planning and implementation of coastal non-point source programs with
other state water quality programs. In our view, joint program
administration is, at least for the foreseeable future, the better
means to efficient and effective integration of coastal and other non-
point source programs as features of the Maine's overall approach to
maintaining and improving water quality. Further amending the CZMA to
incorporate Section 6217 of CZARA risks inappropriately shifting the
burden of program administration to CZM programs and duplicating
aspects of the mission and functions of state water quality agencies.
In addition, despite the concerted efforts of NOAA and EPA, the breadth
and complexity of the 6217 program has at times in many states
generated uncertainty regarding program requirements, concerns
regarding deadlines, and on-going questions regarding the sufficiency
of federal funding to support this national program's extensive and
ambitious approach to coastal non-point source issues. Maine's 62l7
program, for example, remains conditionally approved pending further
discussions on the applicability of certain provisions and development
of further planning documents. We are hopeful that, with the guidance
furnished by NOAA and EPA's joint Final Administrative Changes to the
6217 program, Maine can secure timely approval of an efficient and
effective coastal non-point source program that is suitably tailored to
Maine issues and conditions and integral to a statewide approach to
non-point source pollution issues. Future federal funding
appropriations will be needed to help implement such a program.
Minimum and maximum funding--Maine opposes the Administration's
proposal for a 10-20% set-aside in 306/306A grants for reducing the
impacts of polluted runoff. When the CZMA was amended in 1990, funding
for development and implementation of 6217 management plans was
proposed to supplement, and not compete with, CZM base program funding.
Maine needs the flexibility to decide how base funds will he allocated
to priority issues. While polluted runoff is an important issue in
Maine, it should not compete with other identified priorities for
limited funding. Additional funding (beyond base program funding) for
planning and implementing coastal non point programs is needed. In
Maine, a minimum of $500,000 per year is needed to implement an
effective coastal NPS prevention and control program.
______
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Sylvia A. Earle
Question 1. What have you found to be the most effective outreach
tool when working with coastal communities?
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
Question 2. Do you have any new ideas which would provide
opportunities to increase the number of people in coastal communities
who are involved in coastal issues?
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
Question 3. In your testimony, you said that any new projects or
grant programs supported through appropriations must be environmentally
protective, maintaining the natural biological, chemical and physical
integrity of coastal ecosystems, and avoid controversial coastal
programs such as ``beach hardening projects, shoreline erosion
structures or dredging projects that harm coastal ecosystems.''
Answer. The objectives of the current CZMA law allows states to
develop comprehensive programs to balance the competing uses of coastal
resources and meet the needs for the future growth of coastal
communities, including investments in urban waterfronts and other
industries dependent on a waterfront location as well as the protection
from loss of life and property.
Question A. Is it your position such projects should not be funded
under CZMA? Please explain in detail.
B. Do you propose changing the purpose of the CZMA by eliminating
wording that relates to the promotion of economic development and
safeguard of loss of life and property in the coastal zone? Please
explain in detail.
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Sarah W. Cooksey
Question 1. Has CSO identified potential areas where the state
might disagree with NOAA about suggested outcome indicators to be used
to assess the success of the state programs?
Answer. At the House legislative hearing on the CZMA
reauthorization, Professor Marc Hirschman, who led a team conducting a
NOAA-sponsored effectiveness study of the CZM program, testified about
the difficulty in making such assessments. This is due, in large part,
to three reasons. First, many of the most significant accomplishments
of the state programs are evidenced by what one does not see. Although
state CZM programs continue to face many challenges, those problems
would undoubtedly remain to a worse degree and be compounded without
the programs. Second, as planning programs, the focus and objectives of
state programs are frequently changing and evolving. Coastal
communities and their environment are not static. It is important that
any national indicators reflect the dynamic nature of state coastal
programs. The changes within them require changes in emphasis and
approaches. Finally, state CZM programs vary greatly in their
priorities reflecting the vast diversity of the nation's coasts and
among states.
Nonetheless, measurable objectives can be established for CZM
programs. CSO supports the establishment of performance-based outcome
indicators. It is essential that states be active participants in the
development of indicators which should be based on state-based
objectives and priorities and be flexible enough to reflect the
diversity among state programs.
Question 2. Does CSO support a competitive grant program under
Section 310 as proposed by the Administration?
Answer. No. CSO recommends that such grants be provided to all
states according to the CZMA grant formula. States, not the federal
government, are in the best position to work with local governments to
identify projects and activities which meet the objectives of the
proposed 310 community assistance grants. The presumed rationale for a
competitive grant program is that it would provide an award and
incentive for states which are best meeting the objectives of Section
310. A competitive grant program appears to assume that all states are
equal and begin on a level playing field. Again, the difference among
the states needs to be kept in mind. Several states have coastal
management programs which predate the CZMA, while several others have
only recently been approved. Within some states, such as those where
the entire state has been delegated as with the coastal zone, the CZM
programs enjoy the status and resources of a statewide program. As an
exercise in grantsmanship, the effect of a competitive grant program
may be to simply reward states that already are at a great advantage
over states which are still trying to develop beyond the basic
infrastructure for federal approval.
Question 3. Please explain CSO's position on incorporating Section
6217 nonpoint source control into the CZMA. Include comment on minimum
and maximum spending limits.
Answer. States do not support amending the current CZMA provisions
as they relate to 6217. The current provisions of the CZMA, Section
306(d)16, already provide that the applicable enforceable policies of
the coastal nonpoint pollution control program be included as part of
the CZM program, while both the authorizing statute and legislative
history for Section 6217 make it clear that the coastal nonpoint
program was to be jointly implemented by the state CZM and water
quality agencies.
In 1990, States were strong supporters of strengthening the role of
CZM programs to address management and control of nonpoint source
pollution. States continue to view coastal nonpoint source pollution as
a priority issue, but the role of the CZM agencies should be focused on
coordination, administration and implementation of key coastal polluted
runoff activities that are consistent with the state specific CZM
program responsibilities. There would be no added value in requiring
the incorporation of programmatic elements which the state CZM program
has no control over, and may result in confusion regarding roles and
responsibilities among the agencies.
State CZM programs already incorporate many of the elements of the
Section 6217 program. Regardless of what may be intended by a new
requirement for State CZM programs to fully incorporate Section 6217,
the effect may be to shift the full burden of responsibility for the
implementation of the coastal nonpoint program on the state CZM
programs.
Recent Administrative changes have addressed some of the state
concerns that CSO and the states individually have voiced from the
outset of development of the program guidance for Section 6217, yet
there are still fundamental disagreements. It is nearly nine years
since the statute was enacted and NOAA and EPA have yet to find a
single state program fully meets the requirements for approval.
Although the program was intended to be limited in scope and to be
applied as necessary to protect coastal water quality, the agencies
have insisted that the requirements for implementation of the program
be universally applied regardless of whether it will result in
demonstrable improvement to water quality.
As to minimum funding requirements, CSO has repeatedly requested
EPA and NOAA to provide estimates of the cost of implementation of the
Section 6217 program. Apart from a summary of different sources of
funds available for controlling nonpoint source pollution, we have
never received a response other than staff comments that they were
unable to make such calculations. In the 6217 program development and
implementation guidance, there appears to be an assumption that the
costs of controlling nonpoint source pollution are assumed by those who
are responsible for implementing management measures. Completely apart
from the costs of actually implementing management measures, the costs
of administering the Section 6217 are substantial. Administering a
nonpoint source program is field intensive due to the vast number of
nonpoint sources. Such programs will only be effective with aggressive
monitoring and enforcement. Simply having a program on paper will not
ensure that Section 6217 has the effect of substantially improving
coastal water quality. Currently, most nonpoint funding available
through either the Clean Water Act Section 319 or agricultural programs
is dedicated to project, rather than program, implementation. In
addition to supporting program administration, providing additional
implementation funds through CZM program would enable coastal to target
programs priorities across state agencies.
A CSO needs survey conducted in 1997 identified an annual minimum
need of $400,000 per state, or $12,800,000 nationally, in order for
states to have the basic staff and resources to begin to effectively
administer the Section 6217 program in a targeted manner. Widespread
implementation of coastal nonpoint program elements called for in the
NOAA/EPA guidance would require substantially more resources, and
enable coastal states to support key coastal nonpoint priorities either
within their specific CZM authority or through networked programs.
CSO recommends that funding for Section 6217 be authorized in a
separate line item under Section 318 of the CZMA or by amendment to
CZARA Section 6217 with a funding authorization for program
implementation.
Question 4. CSO proposes $12 million in FY2000 funding for the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, while the Administration
proposes 57 million. Please explain why CSO believes the
Administration's proposal is inadequate.
Answer. The $12 million in proposed authorized funding for the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System is based a survey and
recommendations by site managers of the NERRS. In 1993, an independent
review of the NERRS, which has become known as the Knecht Report,
recommended a minimum funding level of $10 million annually for the 22
Reserve sites then in the System. At present, there are 23 Reserves
sites, with four additional Reserves being developed to complete the
System. In the 27 years since the CZMA was enacted, the NERRS program
has developed slowly. While the Reserves have a valuable role in
furthering coastal management in the states in which they are located
and to the nation, the potential envisioned for the Reserve System
remains unfulfilled. For the most part, funding for the Reserves has
been static and left site managers with much of their time being
consumed with ensuring that the most basic operations and facilities
needs are being met while diverting their attention from meeting the
research, monitoring and education mission of the Reserve System. CSO
strongly believes in the vision of the Stratton Commission which led to
the establishment of the Reserves. It is time to fulfill that vision
with a funding level that reflects the needs of the NERR System, rather
than the immediate needs of the Reserve sites.
Question 5. The House bill, H.R. 1110, proposes that states provide
a 1-to-1 match of federal dollars under Section 309. Please explain
what effect such a change in current law would have on the state's
coastal programs.
Answer. CSO does not support adding a new match requirement of
Section 309 enhancement grants. The Section 309 enhancement grant
program was intended to provide states with an incentive to upgrade
their programs to address specific national priority issues listed
under Section 309, and to adopt program changes that in some cases can
be controversial. As a general matter, the no-match incentive also is
intended to assure that all states continue to make progress in
upgrading programs to meet these national objectives. To require a
match for Section 309 grants would make it equivalent to Section 306
grants, perhaps, remove a significant incentive a state might have to
seek Section 309 funds, and undercut continued progress.
The no-match requirement for Section 309 grants has been especially
useful in assisting state CZM programs in getting new initiatives
started and gaining the implementation experience necessary to build a
broader base of support for the difficult or untried initiatives, in
addition, many states work through and with local governments to
upgrade management of coastal issues and the no-match incentive is
important to bring everyone to the table. While it is true that some
states could make the a new match requirement for 309 grants since
their state priorities may already align with the national interest
objectives, that is not true in all cases. It is in the national
interest to encourage all state to continue to upgrade their CZM
programs.
Question 6. Does GSO support the Administration's proposal to
include a separate authorization for Section 306A projects?
It is not clear that the Administration has proposed this but it is
in the House bill. CSO can support a separate authorization for Section
306A grants provided that base funding for Section 306 and 309 grants
is also increased to ensure that adequate programmatic and planning, as
well as project, funding is available to states. If separate funding is
provided, states should be able to continue to use Section 306 funds to
implement eligible 306A projects or activities. Providing a separate
funding authorization for section 306A projects will better delineate
between the programmatic functions of the CZM programs, e.g. program
administration, permit and consistency reviews, and project
implementation. A separate line item for Section 306A will place
greater emphasis on the local benefits from CZM programs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Terry D. Garcia
Question 1.A. Through Section 312 of the CZMA, NOAA conducts a
review of the extent to which each state has implemented and enforced
its CZM program. Is NOAA able to clearly delineate between the CZM
portion and the Clean Water Act portion of the states' Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program? If so, please explain in detail.
Answer. The Administration's CZMA proposal addresses this issue by
adding language (proposed CZMA section 306(d)(16)(B)) that defines the
roles and responsibilities of the state Coastal Management Program
agency in implementing its Coastal Nonpoint Program. While some state
authorities may be implemented by certain state agencies, there is not
a delineation between a ``CZM portion and the Clean Water Act portion''
under a state's Coastal Nonpoint Program. However, the Administration's
proposed language will enable NOAA to identify, in its CZMA section 312
evaluations, those Ccastal Nonpoint Program activities for which the
state Coastal Management Program agency is responsible. See also the
response to question 7.
As further background, the implementation of state Coastal Nonpoint
Programs is a shared responsibility of several state agencies and
programs, with leadership generally assigned to both state coastal
management and state water quality agencies. As part of the CZMA
section 312 evaluation process, NOAA will review how the states are
implementing the Coastal Nonpoint Program, just as NOAA currently
reviews the many authorities of state Coastal Management Programs.
These authorities may be the responsibility of several state agencies.
This is referred to as a ``network'' of state authorities and agencies.
NOAA recognizes that the lead state Coastal Management Program agency's
responsibilities under these networked authorities, including the
state's Coastal Nonpoint Program, may be limited and will take that
into account during NOAA's evaluations. See also the response to
question 1.B.
Question 1.B. How will the inclusion of the CZM Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program within the review of overall program
performance affect the states' funding? Please explain in detail.
Answer. The review of a state's Coastal Nonpoint Program as part of
the review of the overall program will not affect a state's funding.
NOAA currently reviews programs to identify program strengths and
weaknesses through the CZMA section 312 evaluation process, and makes
recommendations for actions that the state Coastal Management Program
should take to address program weaknesses. Then NOAA, if necessary, but
rarely, directs grant funding to address these identified needs. NOAA
does not expect that it will have to direct state coastal management
agencies' funding to address Coastal Nonpoint Program deficiencies for
which they have little or no control, e.g., failure to implement
agricultural programs. In such a case, NOAA will work cooperatively
with the state Coastal Management Program, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, state water quality agencies, and other resource
management agencies to improve program performance, seeking solutions
in which state coastal management agencies may play a role, but for
which they cannot be held directly accountable. As described in the
answer to question 1.A. above, this type of process is what is
currently used for ``networked'' state coastal management program
reviews.
Question 2. Has NOAA identified potential areas where it might
disagree with the states about suggested outcome indicators to be used
to assess the success of the state programs? If so, please explain in
detail.
Answer. NOAA has not proposed a set of outcome indicators, although
we have discussed the concept with states, as part of the Effectiveness
Study, and in other venues. Many states have voiced concerns that a set
of national indicators might not be appropriate, given regional and
state-by-state variation in coastal characteristics, issues and
cultures. States are also concerned with the cost of tracking
individual permit, planning, and funding outcomes that would be
necessary to develop trend analysis inherent in this type of
evaluation. Finally, several state managers have stated that the
benefits do not outweigh the costs and complexity of developing such a
system. These managers believe that the more traditional case example
or anecdotal reports provide adequate documentation of their program's
effectiveness.
However, NOAA has completed some of the preliminary steps toward
developing a set of outcome indicators to assess the success of
approved state Coastal Management Programs. In December of 1998, a
consortium of Sea Grant institutions completed the NOAA-funded National
Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness study which used various process
and outcome indicators, as well as case examples, to gauge the
effectiveness of state Programs. The Study found that state Coastal
Management Programs were effective, but also recommended that a
national set of outcome indicators be developed. The Effectiveness
Study group published their findings in the most recent volume of
Coastal Management. This journal will be provided to the Subcommittee.
NOAA has not pursued the development of a national set of
indicators during FY 1999 due to budget limitations which preclude the
hiring of staff or contractors to undertake the project. While the
Administration's FY2000 request for $28 million in section 310 funds is
not intended for the development of program indicators, it is
conceivable that some of these funds could be used to support such an
effort under section 310A of the Administration's proposed bill.
However, this would leave less funds to support the coastal community
initiative proposed under section 310. Any future effort is estimated
to take approximately two to three years and would include close
consultation with state Coastal Management Programs and other affected
interests, as well several pilot efforts to test the system.
Question 3. Contrary to the Administration's proposed bill, the
House bill, H.R. 1110, proposes that states provide a 1-to-1 match of
federal dollars under Section 309. What is the Administration's
position on the House provision requiring 1-to-1 matching for Section
309 funds?
Answer. Currently, CZMA section 309 enhancement grants are 100%
federal funds to encourage states to make improvements to their
programs. H.R. 1110 would require a 50% match for these grants. This
could result in less of an incentive for states to improve their
programs. The Department recommends that these grants remain l00%
federal funds. The 100% federal funds has been a real incentive for
states to make improvements. For example, using section 309 grant
funds, the Maine Coastal Management Program developed a ``Strategic
Plan for Aquaculture.'' The Plan outlines the actions necessary to
capitalize on the potential of aquaculture to become a major water
dependent coastal industry and the Maine Coastal Management Program is
working on legislation and regulations that would streamline the
existing aquaculture licensing process.
As another example, using section 309 grant funds, the
Massachusetts Coastal Management Program developed ``Guidelines for
Barrier Beach Management.'' The Guidelines are a comprehensive
compendium of state-of-the-art protection practices for beaches and
dunes. The Guidelines are used by local governments, state agencies and
the public to enhance the state's efforts to protect these important
resources.
Question 4.A. Under Section 310, the Administration proposes to
address the impacts and pressures on coastal resources, public
infrastructure and open space which are attributed to development and
sprawl. Please explain in detail how NOAA could successfully solve
problems relating to sprawl and development.
Answer. NOAA is uniquely positioned to work in partnership with
state Coastal Management Programs to support local efforts to address
sprawl in coastal communities. For over 25 years, the voluntary
partnership established through the CZMA has been an effective
mechanism for assisting states and communities in addressing the
impacts and pressures on coastal and marine resources resulting from
development and sprawl. For example, NOAA and state Coastal Management
Programs have assisted coastal communities with planning and
implementing tools and techniques to promote ``smart growth,''
watershed management, waterfront revitalization, brownfields
redevelopment, hazard mitigation, and port and harbor management. The
Administration's CZMA proposal would build on this CZMA foundation by
providing states, local governments and NOAA with improved capacity to
focus efforts on addressing the dramatic and increasing pressures of
sprawl on coastal communities and to revitalize these communities in an
environmentally sound manner. Coastal areas face a distinctive
challenge particularly due to increasing population pressures as
tourists, second homeowners, retirees, and residents continue to impact
the very place that provides them their reasons for being there--
extraordinary opportunities for recreation, reflection and beauty.
As part of the technical assistance that NOAA would provide under
the Administration's proposed CZMA section 310A, NOAA has expertise and
services available in many areas to assist the states and local
governments. These areas include: policy development, land use
planning, photogrammetry, geographical information systems, physical
and biological science, and innovative environmental technologies.
Question 4.B. Please explain why NOAA is qualified and capable to
determine the merit of development and sprawl related grants?
Answer. NOAA has over 25 years of experience working with states
and communities to address coastal community growth issues, including
sprawl and development. NOAA's Coastal Zone Management program hires
professionals with backgrounds in fields such as urban and regional
planning, sociology, natural resources sciences, public administration
and civil engineering. This combination of expertise gives NOAA the
necessary background and understanding of sprawl issues to evaluate the
merit of these grant proposals. The coast has been, and continues to
be, the location of most of the nation's highest growth rates. NOAA, in
partnership with state coastal programs, is positioned to assist
coastal communities in planning, developing and implementing community
based solutions to local problems. A major objective of the CZMA is
proper land use planning and management in coastal areas to reduce the
impacts of development on coastal resources, including efforts to reuse
previously developed areas such as underused waterfronts or
brownfields, and discourage development in environmentally sensitive
areas.
Question 4.C. If so, what criteria would NOAA use?
Answer: NOAA will work closely with states, local government
associations, and other potentially affected interests, to develop
appropriate criteria for CZMA section 310 awards. Priority will be
given to projects which have completed an initial planning process and
are ready to be implemented. See also the response to question 4.D.
Question 4.D. The Administration's bill proposes a competitive
grant program rather than distributing funds to the states through the
allocation formula. The states have indicated that the allocation
formula would provide them with stability in planning and
implementation of the community initiative program. What is the
Administration's rationale for the competitive grant program when it
does not afford future funding certainty to the states or the
communities which this program purports to assist?
Answer. The Administration's CZMA proposal does not specify how the
section 310 funds would he allocated. NOAA intends to work with the
states to develop project eligibility and selection criteria, pursuant
to the Administration's proposed CZMA section 310(b). At this point
NOAA anticipates that some form of competitive grants program is needed
to ensure that projects are well designed, innovative, and that funds
will be used in communities and for issues where the funds are most
needed. Certainly, any guidelines developed would have to account for
selected projects that will take longer than one grant cycle to
complete.
Question 5.A. The House bill, H.R. 1110, proposes an authorization
of $12 million in FY 2000 for the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System, while the Administration proposes $7 million. Does the
Administration support this higher funding level?
Answer. H.R. 1110 proposes $7 million for grants under section 315
for FY 2000. This is the same authorization level included in the
Administration's CZMA proposal. H.R. 1110 also proposes $12 million for
grants to fund construction projects at National Estuarine Research
Reserves (NERR). This is the same level for construction included in
the President's FY 2000 budget request. Thus, the Administration
supports the same funding levels for the NERR System that are included
in H.R. 1110.
Question 5.B. Please explain what projects the Administration would
fund with an additional $5 million?
Answer. As discussed ahove in question 5.A., there is not currently
an ``additional $5 million'' over the Administration proposal included
in H.R. 1110. If an additional $5 million were available for section
315 program activities, $3 million of the $5 million would be used to
bring the 27 sites anticipated to be in the System in FY 2000 up to
fully operational levels. The additional funds would help cover the
costs of: (1) adequate staff and operations at 27 sites, (2) two
Graduate Research Fellows at each site (fellows are at 23 sites
currently), (3) implementation of the biological and land use
components of the System-wide Monitoring Program (only water quality
measurements are made currently), (4) ecological profiles for each
state, and (5) technical training for coastal decision-makers at all
sites. An operational level of $10 million is consistent with the
recommendations of a 1993 Review Panel on the NERR System in its report
entitled, The National Estuarine Research Reserve System: Building a
Valuable National Asset.
The remaining $2 million would allow two new initiatives to be
implemented. First, technical training through the NERR System would be
expanded to reach coastal decision-makers regionally or state-wide
rather than just locally. The training would build on coastal decision-
maker workshops that have been conducted at Reserves over the last few
years. The range of topics also would be increased through these ``NERR
System Coastal Institutes,'' bringing solid scientific information
about estuaries to people who make decisions about coastal resources on
a daily basis. Second, habitat restoration projects in Reserves would
be undertaken. Careful research and monitoring would be associated with
all restoration projects. The techniques developed and lessons learned
would be shared broadly with resource managers.
Question 6.A. In each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, what
amount of base Section 306 program funding was withheld from the state
programs by NOAA to pay for NOAA's administrative costs?
Answer. No funds were withheld in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 from
the base CZMA section 306 grant program. However, in fiscal year 1999,
NOAA's corporate costs such as security, rent, grants administration,
financial management systems, etc., increased by $12 million. NOAA's
National Ocean Service (NOS) share of this increase is approximately $2
million. All other NOS programs already contribute the corporate cost,
prior to the increase, and therefore NOS could no longer afford to
exempt the section 306 grant program from those shared costs without
serious impacts on other programs. In fiscal year 1999, $1.3 million
will be contributed by the section 306 program, representing only a 2%
assessment versus 7-20% assessments on other NOS programs.
Question 6.B. Please explain in detail NOAA's plan for handling
this funding shortfall when evaluating the effectiveness of state
programs during their Section 312 review of performance.
Answer. NOAA does not anticipate any significant adverse impact on
the states program performance in FY 1999 due to the small size (2%) of
the assessment. In FY 1999, state section 306/309 grant awards will
range from approximately $650 thousand to over $2.6 million (with
carryover). The $1.3 million contribution translates to approximately
$15 thousand to $65 thousand less per state, dependent upon the size of
the grant award. However, there will be no adverse impacts on states in
FY 1999 resulting from this decrease. This modest reduction is more
than offset by the overall appropriation for all sections of funding
for state Coastal Management Programs, which increased by $7.0 million.
All 33 participating states and territories will receive an increase in
funding over FY 1998 levels. While NOAA does not believe the effect of
the contribution will be measurable in a state's performance, should a
state demonstrate that the contribution has somehow degraded their
performance, NOAA will take that into account.
Question 6.C. Does the Administration's proposed $5.5 million
authorization for NOAA's CZM program cover all of NOAA's CZM related
expenses or does NOAA continue to view withdrawing specifically
appropriated base program funds from the states as an acceptable
alternative for fiscal shortfalls of the agency? Please explain in
detail.
Answer. The $5.5 million authorization covers all direct personnel
and associated operational costs such as travel, supplies, equipment,
etc., directly related to administration of the state coastal
management program as well as the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System. It does not cover the other shared NOAA corporate costs, such
as grants administration, legal counsel, security, etc., that are just
as necessary to support an effective program, but are more efficiently
provided through a centralized source. When these corporate costs rise
faster than can be supported through NOAA's administrative line item,
they must be paid for somehow, and the most equitable way is by the
programs that they support.
Question 7. The Administration proposes formally incorporating the
provisions of Section 6217 into the CZMA. What authorities does this
afford the CZM program that do not presently exist under the current
statute?
Answer. The Administration's CZMA proposal does not ``formally
incorporate'' the provisions of section 6217 into the CZMA and does not
``afford the CZM program'' new authorities that do not presently exist
under the current statute. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) remains as a stand-alone
statute and would not be changed by the Administration's CZMA proposal.
The existing CZMA and CZARA requirements require that coastal states
incorporate into their Coastal Management Programs the enforceable
policies and mechanisms to implement their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Programs See CZMA Sec. 306(d)(16)(16 U.S.C. Sec. 1455(d)(16));
16 U.S.C. Sec. 1455b(c)(2)(B). As such, CZARA focuses primarily on the
development of state Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs in
accordance with certain requirements. The Administration's CZMA
proposal is focused on implementation of state Coastal Nonpoint
Programs, clarifying the role of the state Coastal Management Program
aoency and providing funding to support that role. It should be noted
that such a role is a limited one since state Coastal Nonpoint Programs
represent a comprehensive approach to controlling polluted runoff that
impacts coastal waters and habitat and include the programs and
activities of multiple state agencies.
Thus, the Administration's CZMA proposal provides changes to: (1)
section 306(a) to clarify that section 306 funds may be used to help
develop and implement state Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
activities; (2) section 306(c) to ensure that funds are available to
implement state polluted runoff control efforts; (3) section 306(d)(16)
to clarify the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
responsibilities for state Coastal Management Program agencies; and (4)
section 312(a) to clarify the evaluation of the implementation of state
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.I63
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to Tim Eichenberg
Question 1. CMC testified that new projects or grant programs
supported through appropriations must ``be environmentally protective,
maintaining the natural biological, chemical and physical integrity of
coastal ecosystems,'' and avoid controversial coastal programs such as
``beach nourishment, dredging or shoreline stabilization.'' However,
the objectives of the current statue allows states to develop
comprehensive programs to balance the competing uses of coastal
resources and meet the needs for the future growth of coastal
communities, including investments in urban waterfronts and other
industries dependent on a waterfront location as well as the protection
from loss of life and property.
A. Is it CMC's position such projects should not be funded under
the CZMA? Please explain in detail.
Answer. We testified that only environmentally protective projects
should be funded through the new grant program proposed in section 306A
of the Saxton Bill in the House (HR 1110) and in section 310 of the
draft Administration bill. The new grant program in both bills seeks to
protect coastal habitats, and address the adverse impacts on coastal
uses and resources from growth and sprawl. Therefore it is entirely
appropriate that projects carried out under this new program be
environmentally protective.
We support language in the Administration's draft bill that
authorizes the Secretary to make grants for ``environmentally
protective local, community based initiatives'' in section 310(a), and
the provision in section 310(b)(3) which states that ``eligible
activities shall be environmentally protective initiatives that will
revitalize previously developed areas, discourage development in
undeveloped and environmentally sensitive areas, emphasize water
dependent uses, and protect coastal waters and habitats. The phrase
`environmentally protective' means that activities funded under this
section shall maintain or improve the chemical, physical or biological
integrity of coastal resources, waters and habitats.''
This language is similar to section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act,
compliance with which is required of any project conducted under the
CZMA. The language is also consistent with the purposes of section 303
of the CZMA to protect the natural resources of the coastal zone such
as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries and beaches, and improve the
quality of coastal waters. 16 USC 1452 (1), (2)(A) and (2)(B).
Requiring projects funded under the new grant program in the CZMA to be
environmentally protective is not inconsistent with balancing competing
uses, meeting the needs of future growth, and accommodating investment
in urban waterfronts, boatyards, and water dependent uses. Such
programs can also be funded under other grant programs in the CZMA.
However, we do not support funding projects like beach nourishment,
dredging and shoreline stabilization under these provisions. Many of
these projects cause serious harm to wildlife, coastal resources, and
public access contrary to the purposes of the CZMA. Funding under the
CZMA has historically not been sufficient to adequately fund such
projects, any one of which could wipe out entire grant programs under
306, 306A, 309 or 310. Finally, we believe that these kinds of projects
are beyond the scope of the CZMA. There are more appropriate funding
mechanisms available, such as WRDA, for these costly projects if they
are necessary to protect life and property.
B. Does CMC propose changing the purpose of the CZMA by eliminating
wording that relates to the promotion of economic development and
safeguard of loss of life and property in the coastal zone? Please
explain in detail.
Answer. No. We support the purposes of the CZMA and believe that
promoting economic development, and safeguarding loss of life and
property, can be done in an environmentally protective way as proposed
in section 310 of the Administration's draft bill (cited above). These
goals are not mutually exclusive.
Question 2. CMC and the other environmental organizations which you
represented propose formally incorporating the provisions of Section
6217 into the CZMA.
A. What authorities does this afford the CZM program that do not
presently exist under current law?
We are not proposing any substantive changes to the CZMA or the
6217 program. However, we believe that any reauthorization of the CZMA
would not be successful unless it also addressed the nation's number
one water pollution problem by also reauthorizing the Coastal Nonpoint
Program. Although the 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment
incorporated the program into the CZMA through section 306(d)(16), we
believe that formally incorporating targeted references to the program
in to the CZMA would have substantial benefits and would give it a
secure and stable home for the future. For example, references to the
program under section 306, 306A and 309 will give state coastal
managers the authorization they need to request funding for their state
runoff control plans. It is unclear under the existing law whether
funds are authorized for this purpose under sections 306A and 309. We
also believe that the CZMA's 312 evaluation process provides one good
mechanism for ensuring that state nonpoint programs are implemented
effectively on a long-term basis as integral parts of state CZM
programs.
As part of the CZMA, funds for implementing the 6217 program should
be set aside to ensure that once state coastal nonpoint programs are
approved, a minimum amount of funds are made available for
implementation. States should be free to spend as much as they want on
the Program. However, Congress should ensure that minimum funding
levels are made available for implementation. This in no way unduly
restricts state discretion on how they manage their programs, but does
encourage states to spend a minimum amount of their federal grants to
implement state runoff control plans.
The issue of setting aside funds for coastal nonpoint programs in
the CZMA was raised at the hearing. A set aside is consistent with the
CZMA. In fact, the idea for the set aside was taken from Section 309(f)
of the CZMA which sets aside 10-20% of the funds for State Coastal
Management Programs under Section 306 and 306A for grants to enhance
coastal objectives such as public access, marine debris, special area
management plans, ocean planning, aquaculture, and others. Setting
aside funds for nonpoint pollution is at least as important as these
issues, and should boost state coastal management program funding, not
deprive funding for other projects. For this reason we support
increasing core program funding to accommodate the set aside for the
Coastal Nonpoint Program. The Saxton CZMA bill (I-IR 1110) contains a
set aside for the program that would boost funding for Maine and
Massachusetts core CZM program by 42-55%. So states should benefit from
this approach.
Some coastal managers fear that a set aside in 306 will cut into
their core budget. Funding for the Coastal Nonpoint Program could be
secured without raising unnecessary fears by shifting the set aside
language to section 306A which could provide: ``the Secretary shall
allocate at least \1/3\ of the amounts appropriated for each year
beginning after fiscal year 1999 to carry out this section to coastal
states for implementing approved coastal nonpoint pollution control
program components.''
B. What recommendations can CMC make which would promote the
necessary type of industry cooperation needed to reduce polluted
runoff.
I believe that industry cooperation would be more forthcoming if
the Coastal Nonpoint Program was funded adequately. Industry strongly
supports the Clean Water Act state revolving loan fund funded at about
$1-2 billion annually for sewer infrastructure and point source
pollution projects. Now that nonpoint source pollution accounts for
more than 60% of water quality impairment in the U.S., a similar
financial commitment is called for. Nonpoint pollution funding under
the CWA has been less than 3% of the SRF, and funding for the Coastal
Nonpoint Program under the CZMA has been much less. Between 1995 and
1998 only $1 million was appropriated for the program. Until
substantially more funding is provided for addressing nonpoint source
pollution it will be difficult to garner widespread industry support
under either the CWA or CZMA. However, it should be also noted that the
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies has written letters to your
committee strongly supporting reauthorization of the CZMA and the 6217
program. So there is some recognition from municipalities that the
program is an important tool in addressing our nation's water quality
problems. We believe that industry could exhibit similar support if
given the proper incentives. We would be glad to meet with industry
representatives to discuss the Coastal Nonpoint Program and try to
generate more support for the program.
Thank you again for your thoughtful questions and the kind
invitation to testify before your Subcommittee. Please do not hesitate
to contact me if you have further questions, and I look forward to
working with you further on this extremely important legislation.
______
Comments of NERRA's Reauthorization of the Act
The following points are NERRA's key issues for Reauthorization of
the Act. We would appreciate the inclusion of these comments in your
testimony on Thursday. Thanks for your assistance.
1. Authorization Levels. The Administration's bill requests $7
million in Section 315 operations for the NERRS, and $12 million in
NERRS construction and acquisition for FY 2000. While NERRA supports
increases in NERRS funding as outlined in the Land Legacy Initiative,
the Association believes that $12 million for operations is needed in
FY 2000, with increases of $2 million in following years, to help the
System meet the increasing demands of coastal communities. Why?
The NERRS is adding three additional sites, and seeks to continue
important national initiatives such as: conducting regional technical
training on non-point source pollution, restoration, and other locally
relevant issues; and completing the System-Wide Monitoring Program.
Graduate Fellowship Research projects address region priorities,
contributing to improved coastal decisions at the local level. Funds
are needed to develop Coastal Institutes in partnership with State
Coastal Programs, to address the increasing technical training needs of
coastal managers, planners, regulatory personnel, agriculture and
fisheries interests. Reserves are well positioned to advance
Restoration Science efforts through on-site long-term monitoring of
wetlands and watershed restoration projects.
NERRA strongly supports the addition of NERRS construction funds to
the Section 313 line item, with an authorization level, as requested by
the Administration, of $12 million for FY 2000 to enable completion of
on-site education, training, and research facilities that service local
and regional coastal communities.
2. Research. NERRA advocates strengthening the research capacity of
the NERRS through enabling research outside of Reserve boundaries, to
improve understanding of linkages between estuaries and watersheds. The
Secretary should also have the ability to provide 100% awards for
research benefitting the National System, and addressing issues of
national significance.
3. Stewardship and Education. NERRA supports language in the
Administration's bill that recognizes the increasingly important roles
of resource stewardship, education, and training within the NERRS. The
mission of improving local coastal decisions is greatly enhanced
through the NERRS ability to: provide for active site resource
management and restoration that serve as local and regional
demonstration projects; and provide community-based education and
training designed to promote informed coastal decisions.
4. Measurable Objectives. NERRA supports the concept of providing
for measurable indicators of the success of the CZMA. We look forward
to the opportunity to work with our partners in State Coastal Programs,
and with NOAA personnel, to develop reasonable measures that reflect
the mission and goals of the Act.
5. NERRS Linkage to Local Coastal Communities. NERRA strongly
supports the CZMA partnership that provides for a federal, state, and
local role in managing the nation's diverse coast. The role of the
NERRS is an essential part of the partnership. Each Reserve is managed
by a coastal state, and represents a larger biogeographic region that
shares similar geophysical and ecological characteristics. Reserves
operate within coastal communities, and have developed highly effective
partnerships that link CZMA key partners to local decision makers.
NERRA supports strengthening partnership linkages between NERRS, State
Coastal Programs, and NOAA that will enhance our collective ability to
deliver relevant science-based information to local communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our comments and
recommendations on the CZMA.