U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40-957 PDF 2008

H.R. 3223, KEEP OUR WATERFRONTS 

WORKING ACT OF 2007; H.R. 5451, 

COASTAL ZONE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008; H.R. 5452, 

COASTAL STATE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROMOTION ACT OF 2008; 

AND H.R. 5453, COASTAL STATE 

CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ACT 

OF 2008. 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE 

AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, February 28, 2008 

Serial No. 110-61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, February 28, 2008 ..................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .......................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, ...................................................................................................... 6 

PPrepared statement of ............................................................................ 7 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Allen, Hon. Thomas H., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maine ......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Bailey, Robert, State of Oregon’s Representative to the Coastal States 

Organization, and Manager, Oregon Department of Land Conservation 

& Development .............................................................................................. 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Connors, Jim, Senior Planner, Maine State Planning Office, Maine 

Working Waterfront Coalition ..................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 56 

Dunnigan, John H., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Prepared statement of .......................................................... 13 

Elefant, Carolyn, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel, Ocean Renewable 

Energy Coalition ........................................................................................... 60 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61 

Kennedy, David, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Oral statement of ............................................. 11 

Kooser, Jaime C., Ph.D., President, National Estuarine Research 

Reserves Association ..................................................................................... 24 

Lujan, Evangeline, Director, Guam Coastal Management Program 

Administrator, All-Island Group .................................................................. 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Stokes, Robert, Chairman of the Board, Restore America’s Estuaries ........ 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Additional materials supplied: 

Blum, Frank, Executive Director, South Carolina Seafood Alliance, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 69 

Cowperthwaite, Hugh, Fisheries Project Director, Coastal Enterprises 

Inc., Letter submitted for the record ........................................................... 70 

De Luca, Michael P., on behalf of the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve Association, Statement submitted for the record ......................... 71 

Hale, Lynne, on behalf of The Nature Conservancy, Statement submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 80 

Lydecker, Ryck, Assistant Vice President for Government Affairs, Boat 

Owners Association of The United States ................................................... 5 

Lyons, Hon. Burley L., Mayor, Town of Edisto Beach, South Carolina, 

Letter to Congressman James E. Clyburn submitted for the record ........ 84 

Stedman, Bruce J., Executive Director, Marine Fish Conservation 

Network, Letter submitted for the record ................................................... 86 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3223, KEEP 

OUR WATERFRONTS WORKING ACT OF 2007; 

H.R. 5451, COASTAL ZONE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008; H.R. 5452, COASTAL 

STATE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROMOTION 

ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 5453, COASTAL 

STATE CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ACT 

OF 2008. 

Thursday, February 28, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Capps, Gilchrest, and 

Wittman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and 

Oceans will now come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on four 

bills that amend or reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management 

Act—H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007; 

H.R. 5451, the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008; 

H.R. 5452, the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 

2008; and H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning 

Act of 2008. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the 

Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements. And if 

any other members have statements, I invite you to submit them 

for the record. 

The Subcommittee meets this morning to hear testimony regarding legislation to reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone Management Act. This hearing represents the Subcommittee’s first step 

under my leadership toward reauthorizing this important marine 

conservation law, which was first enacted in Congress in 1972. 

2 

Some people may question why, at this relatively late date in the 

Congressional calendar, that this Subcommittee has decided to 

take up reauthorization of the CZMA. Well, my answer is simple. 

Pick up the newspaper. Only last week the press reported the future withdrawal of coastal property insurance in Florida, because 

the risk exposure to tropical storms has grown far too expensive. 

Also an article in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times reported that 

coastal homes in Louisiana and Mississippi may need to be rebuilt 

20 feet off the ground to meet new FEMA flood insurance standards. 

In addition, the United Nations this week reported that climate 

change, along with over-fishing and increased pollution, are crippling our coastal regions; and that sea level rise threatens the 

shores, and even the existence of some islands in the Pacific Ocean. 

Clearly from these accounts, it is no waste of time for this committee to take up the CZMA. If anything, considering the fact that 

the Congress last reauthorized the Act in 1996, we have been neglectful in our oversight to determine if the Act remains relevant 

to the coastal challenges that we face today. 

In that respect I commend my colleagues, Congresswoman Lois 

Capps of California, Congressman Tom Allen of Maine, for introducing their bills, H.R. 5452, H.R. 5453, and H.R. 3223, respectively, that would address coastal climate change adaptations, encourage sensible development of renewable ocean energy, and preserve working waterfronts and water-dependent commercial uses. 

I must say, however, that I am disappointed with the testimony 

provided by the Administration. It is one thing to be critical of legislation. It is another thing altogether to be critical of legislation 

without offering any new constructive ideas. 

But I am forever an optimist. Time does remain for this Administration to redeem itself. And to that end, I hope that we are able 

to work collaboratively, along with the Subcommittee’s Ranking 

Member, my good friend, Congressman Henry Brown of South 

Carolina, and other members of this Subcommittee to see what we 

might accomplish when we work together to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Brown, the Ranking Republican Member of this committee, for any statement that he may 

have. 

Mr. Brown. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bordallo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this morning to hear 

testimony regarding legislation to reauthorize or amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This hearing represents the Subcommittee’s first step under my 

leadership toward reauthorizing this important marine conservation law, which was 

first enacted by Congress in 1972. 

Some people may question why, at this relatively late date in the congressional 

calendar, this subcommittee has decided to take up reauthorization of the CZMA. 

My answer is simple: pick up the newspaper. 

Only last week the press reported the future withdrawal of coastal property insurance in Florida because the risk exposure to tropical storms has grown too expensive. Also, an article in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times reported that coastal homes 

in Louisiana and Mississippi may need to be rebuilt 20-feet off the ground to meet 

new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance standards. 

3 

In addition, the United Nations (UN) this week reported that climate change, 

along with overfishing and increased pollution, are crippling our coastal regions, and 

that sea level rise threatens the shores and even the existence of some islands in 

the Pacific Ocean. 

Clearly, from these accounts it is no waste of time for this committee to take up 

the CZMA. If anything, considering the fact that the Congress last reauthorized the 

Act in 1996, we have been neglectful in our oversight to determine if the Act remains relevant to the coastal challenges we face today. 

In that respect, I commend my colleagues, Congresswoman Lois Capps of California and Congressman Tom Allen of Maine, for introducing their bills, H.R. 5452, 

H.R. 5453 and H.R. 3223, respectively, that would address coastal climate change 

adaptation, encourage sensible development of renewable ocean energy, and preserve working waterfronts and water-dependent commercial uses. 

I must say, however, that I am disappointed with the testimony provided by the 

Administration. It is one thing to be critical of legislation; it is another thing altogether, to be critical of legislation without offering any new constructive ideas. But 

I am forever an optimist. Time does remain for this Administration to redeem itself. 

To that end, I hope that we are able to work collaboratively along with the subcommittee’s Ranking Member, my good friend, Congressman Henry Brown of South 

Carolina, and the other members of this Subcommittee to see what we might accomplish—when we work together—to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Today we will 

hear testimony on four bills. And of the four bills before us today, 

I suspect I like your bill the best of the four. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act has not been reauthorized 

since the 105th Congress. Part of the reason for this is that Members have tried to attach controversial amendments or controversial new programs to the Act. 

I am pleased that you have not done so with your bill. And while 

I may have concerns on the authorization level, I applaud you for 

introducing this legislation as a clean reauthorization. I urge you 

to move the bill as is, and resist the temptation to add new programs to this Act. 

Madame Chairwoman, two of these bills, H.R. 5442 and 

H.R. 5453, look very familiar. Both of these bills, although in 

slightly different forms, were included in H.R. 2337, the Energy 

Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007. I had problems with 

those provisions then, and I continue to have problems with these 

bills. 

Madame Chairwoman, while I agree with the general theme of 

keeping our working waterfront bill, I am concerned that this Federal legislation might be viewed as interfering and meddling with 

local zoning decisions. 

There is no question that those participating in water-related activities in the coastal zone needs access, and that as coastal property values rise, the cost of creating or maintaining this access becomes more difficult. We should certainly provide Federal assistance to local and state authorities for making these important decisions. However, I don’t think we want the heavy hand of the Federal government to be seen as making these decisions for the local 

and state authorities. 

I represent a significant portion of coastal South Carolina, and 

I think we have been able to balance the users’ needs along the 

4 

coast. We have a vibrant port in Charleston. We have incredible opportunities for recreation and commercial fishermen. We have 

beaches with public access. We have marinas for sailors and boaters, and we have homes with beautiful coastal views. 

Certainly Federal money for helping decision-makers would be 

welcome, but substituting the judgment of these decision-makers 

with Federal mandates or requirements is not the answer. 

I look forward to working with the proponents of this legislature 

to make sure that we are offering a carrot without any strings attached. 

Again, I look forward to hearing today’s testimony on all four of 

the bills. I look forward to working with the Chairwoman on making these bills better, if the Subcommittee decides to move them 

forward. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican 

Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, today, we will hear testimony on four bills: 

H.R. 3223 (the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007), H.R. 5451 (the Coastal 

Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008), H.R. 5452 (the Coastal State Renewable Energy 

Promotion Act of 2008), and H.R. 5453 (the Coastal State Climate Change Planning 

Act of 2008). I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses on all four 

of these bills. 

Madam Chairwoman, of the four bills before us today, I suspect I like your bill 

the best of the four. The Coastal Zone Management Act has not been reauthorized 

since the 105th Congress. Part of the reason for this is that Members have tried 

to attach controversial amendments or controversial new programs to the Act. I am 

pleased that you have not done so with your bill and while I may have concerns 

about the authorization levels, I applaud you for introducing this legislation as a 

clean reauthorization. I urge you to move the bill as is and resist the temptation 

to add new programs to this Act. 

Madam Chairwoman, two of these bills, H.R. 5442 and H.R. 5453 look very familiar. Both of these bills, although in slightly different forms, were included in 

H.R. 2337, the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007. I had problems 

with those provisions then and I continue to have concerns with these bills. 

Madam Chairwoman, while I agree with the general theme of the Keep Our 

Working Waterfronts bill, I am concerned that this Federal legislation might be 

viewed as interfering or meddling with local zoning decisions. 

There is no question that those participating in water-related activities in the 

coastal zone need access and that as coastal property value rise, the cost of creating 

or maintaining this access becomes more difficult. We should certainly provide Federal assistance to local and state authorities for making these important decisions; 

however, I don’t think we want the heavy hand of the Federal government to be 

seen as making these decisions for the local and state authorities. 

I represent a significant portion of coastal South Carolina and I think we have 

been able to balance the users’ needs along the coast. We have a vibrant port in 

Charleston, we have incredible opportunities for recreational and commercial fishermen, we have beaches with public access, we have marinas for sailors and boaters, 

and we have homes with beautiful coastal views. Certainly Federal money for helping decision makers would be welcome, but substituting the judgment of these decision makers with Federal mandates or requirements is not the answer. 

I look forward to working with the proponents of this legislation to make sure 

that we are offering a carrot without any strings attached. 

Again, I look forward to hearing today’s testimony on all four of the bills and look 

forward to working with the Chairwoman on making these bills better if the Subcommittee decides to move them forward. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, for his 

opening statements. 

5 

And now I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a 

statement in support of H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts 

Working Act, submitted on behalf of the Boat Owners Association 

of the United States. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The letter submitted for the record by the Boat Owners 

Association of The United States follows:] 


40957.004.eps
6 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would like to recognize a member of our Subcommittee who has just arrived, Congresswoman Lois Capps, the 

State of California. 

STATEMENT OF LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I am happy to submit a statement, which I do have prepared for the record. And I 

just want to thank you for holding this very important hearing. 

[The statement submitted for the record by Mrs. Capps follows:] 


40957.005.eps
7 

Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California 

Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo. 

Coastal issues have been in the spotlight over the last several years as the nation 

has paid increased attention to our oceans and marine resources: 

• We’ve had two national commissions make recommendations for transforming 

the way we manage, study, and protect our coastal areas. 

• And just yesterday—the Joint Ocean Commission released its annual report 

card on the nation’s progress toward implementing these recommendations. 

• More than half of all Americans live along our coasts, which require a better 

understanding of how people and our oceans interact. 

• And the impacts of global warming, coastal development and pollution, and 

energy project siting require new approaches to ocean and coastal governance. 

But in light of these challenges, Congress last reauthorized the Coastal Zone Management Act—the law that governs important aspects of our coastal resources—in 

1999, and the current authorization expired almost four years ago. 

I’m glad the subcommittee has turned its attention to this successful Act and decided to advance these important bills which contribute strongly to it. 

First, I want to offer my support for the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act. 

The CZMA is a model for state and federal partnerships. 

It gives coastal states the necessary resources to balance the protection of its 

needs with development, recreation, environmental preservation, fishing and other 

uses of the coastal zone. 

As the committee works to develop a reauthorization measure, I want to express 

my hope that it retain states’ rights through federal consistency, and continue our 

strong commitment to the protection, enjoyment and responsible management of our 

coast. 

Another bill under consideration today, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act, 

has been advanced due to the hard work of our colleague Tom Allen. 

Working waterfronts are areas that provide coastal access to support commercial 

and recreational fishing and a host of other water-dependent coastal businesses. 

These areas are the cultural and economic heart of coastal communities, like 

Morro Bay in my district. 

Unfortunately, the loss of working waterfront is resulting in additional pressure 

on their fragile economies and coastal access. 

This legislation seeks to remedy that problem by helping coastal states plan for 

the future of these communities by investing in the preservation and expansion of 

working waterfront. 

Finally, I’d like to mention two bills I have introduced that would establish new 

grant programs under the CZMA. 

The purpose of the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act is to encourage coastal states to classify offshore areas for appropriate renewable energy, like 

wave and wind projects. 

This type of advanced planning will expedite state consistency certifications for 

future projects and eliminate conflicts between state and federal governments. 

Similarly, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act recognizes the lead role 

of the States in coastal planning. 

It would provide them with incentives to prevent, plan, and prepare for the impacts of global warming, such as sea level rise, increased erosion, and habitat 

changes. 

In my view, the CZMA is one of the best federal statutes that can foster adaptation to global warming at the state and local levels. 

Collectively, these bills take significant steps toward restoring sound stewardship 

to the management of our coastal areas. 

And importantly they are consistent with the recommendations from the recently 

completed NOAA-CSO ‘‘visioning’’ process on the future of the CZMA. 

In closing, Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for holding this hearing on an 

issue that is so very important to us all. 

I look forward to working with you, coastal states and other stakeholders to reauthorize the CZMA and advance these bills to strengthen the Act before the 110th 

Congress adjourns. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentlelady from California. Thank 

you again, Mr. Brown, our Ranking Member, for his opening stateVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8 

ments. And I would now like to recognize our first witness, a colleague from the State of Maine, the Hon. Congressman Tom Allen. 

Thank you for being here this morning, Congressman. And you 

may begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS H. ALLEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking 

Member Brown. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 

today on my bill, H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working 

Act. 

In Maine we have 5300 miles of coastline, but only 20 miles remain as working waterfronts. Those 20 miles of working waterfronts provide more than $750 million in state revenue each year, 

and support 35,000 jobs. More than half of those 20 miles, however, 

are privately held properties, where access is restricted, and the 

permission of the owner is required for use. 

Critical rights of waterfront access are often steeped in tradition, 

and not written in the law. These privately held access points are 

extremely vulnerable to sale for non-working waterfront-related 

uses, and this trend really threatens both our economy in Maine 

and in other states, and a coastal way of life. 

The situation is very similar around the country’s 88,000 miles 

of coastline, from Alaska down to California, and from Texas 

around to Maine. Fish houses are being replaced by waterfront condominiums, and public wharfs are being replaced by private docks. 

Development pressures and rising property values are profoundly 

changing the nature of our coasts and shorelines. Working waterfronts provide water access to support both commercial and recreational fishing, and a host of other support industries, such as 

ice, bait, and processing. And certainly in the State of Maine, those 

shoreside industries are very much threatened by residential development that eats up our working waterfront. 

Since colonial times, the fishing industry has been the cultural 

heart of many coastal communities in Maine. But in Maine, as in 

most coastal states, fish stocks and the fisheries that depend on 

them do fluctuate over time. 

For example, right now groundfish is really, the groundfishing 

industry is really in significant trouble, but our lobster fishery is 

healthy. So when an industry, the fishing industry struggles, the 

shoreside infrastructure does, as well. 

This is not just the commercial fishermen’s issue. Lack of waterfront access affects swimmers, casual boaters, beachgoers and 

weekend anglers. One hundred and 22 million people go to the 

beach every year, 95 million take to the water in some kind of boat, 

and 80 million go fishing. All of these users are competing for a 

small and diminishing resource. 

Around the country states are realizing the need to protect these 

valuable assets. Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, to name a few, have commissioned reports and inventories 

of working waterfronts left in their states. These reports have 

found a decrease in working waterfronts, and states are developing 

approaches to prevent future loss. 

9 

The issue is really poised for national legislation to assist states 

and give them much-needed resources to help them out. The Keep 

Our Waterfronts Working Act would provide assistance and resources to the coastal states. The objective of this legislation is to 

preserve access to coastal waters for commercial fishing operations 

and other water-dependent coastal-related businesses. 

Congressman Brown, we hope this is not the heavy hand of the 

Federal government; this is a partnership, it is designed to be a 

partnership, and here is how it would work. 

The Act would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

to establish a competitive matching grant program administered 

through the Department of Commerce. Coastal states would apply 

for matching grants to purchase title or development rights to 

working waterfront, which is defined as land that provides access 

to coastal waters for water-dependent commercial activities. 

To become eligible for the grant program, a coastal state would 

have to develop a comprehensive working waterfront plan. States 

with an approved plan would become eligible to apply for working 

waterfront matching grants under an expedited funding process. 

And projects funded by the grant program would be required to 

provide for expansion or improvement of public access to coastal 

waters at or in the vicinity of the working waterfront, except for 

those industrial working waterfront access points, such as commercial fishing piers, where the coastal state determines that public 

access would be a safety hazard. 

The bill also provides for technical assistance to states for the development and revision of comprehensive working waterfront plans. 

We are at a critical point here. We have to preserve our working 

waterfronts to protect the economic and cultural value they bring 

to our communities, and pass this heritage on to future generations. We have to ensure that our coasts retain the special quality 

that has characterized the life along our shores. 

And I hope, as the Subcommittee works on reauthorizing the 

CZMA, that it will consider the need for working waterfront legislation. 

I look forward to working with the Subcommittee, and I thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Tom Allen, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Maine 

Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on my legislation H.R. 3223 the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act. 

There are 5,300 miles of coast line in Maine yet only 20 miles remain as working 

waterfronts. These 20 miles of working waterfront provide more than $750 million 

in state revenue each year and support 35,000 jobs. 

More than half of these 20 miles are privately held properties where access is restricted and owner permission is required for use. Critical rights of waterfront access are often steeped in tradition, not written into law. These privately held access 

points are extremely vulnerable to sale for non-working waterfront related uses 

which threatening both the economy and a way of life. 

This situation is echoed around the country’s 88,000 miles of coast line from Alaska down to California and Texas around to Maine. Fish houses are being replaced 

by waterfront condominiums, and public wharfs are being replaced by private docks. 

Development pressures and rising property values are profoundly changing the 

nature of our coasts and shorelines. 

10 

Working waterfronts provide water access to support both commercial and recreational fishing and a host of other support industries such as ice, bait, and processing. 

More and more coastal land is being developed for private residential use, increasing pressure on industrial, recreational, and public access infrastructure. Without 

dock space the whole marine industry collapses, including support businesses like 

diesel mechanics, welders, shipbuilding and seafood processing. 

Since colonial times, the fishing industry has been the cultural heart of many 

coastal communities in Maine. But in Maine, as in most coastal states, fish stocks 

and the fisheries that depend on them tend to fluctuate. 

For example, our lobster fishery at the moment is healthy but our groundfish industry is struggling. When the industry struggles, so does the shore side infrastructure. With good management practices, we can reasonably hope that the fish stocks 

will rebound. 

However, the loss of working waterfront will likely be permanent. 

This is not just a commercial fishermen’s issue; lack of waterfront access impacts 

swimmers, casual boaters, beachgoers, and weekend anglers. 122 million people go 

to the beach every year, 95 million take to the water in some kind of boat, and 80 

million go fishing. All these users are competing for a small, diminishing resource. 

Around the country, states are realizing the need to protect these valuable assets. 

Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, to name a few, have commissioned reports and inventories of working waterfronts left in their states. These reports have found a decrease in working waterfronts, and states are developing approaches to prevent future loss. 

The issue is poised for national legislation to assist states and give them much 

needed assistance and resources. 

The Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act would provide assistance and resources 

to Coastal States. The objective of this legislation is to preserve access to coastal 

waters for commercial fishing operations and other water-dependent coastal-related 

businesses. 

The act would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to establish a 

competitive matching grant program administered through the Department of Commerce. Coastal states would apply for matching grants to purchase title or development 

rights to Working Waterfront, defined as land that provides access to coastal waters 

for water-dependent commercial activities. 

To become eligible for the grant program, a coastal state would develop a comprehensive Working Waterfront Plan. 

States with an approved plan would become eligible to apply for Working Waterfront matching grants under an expedited funding process. 

Projects funded by the Grant Program would be required to provide for expansion 

or improvement of public access to coastal waters at or in the vicinity of the Working Waterfront, except for industrial working waterfront access points such as commercial fishing piers where the coastal state determines that public access would 

be a safety hazard. 

The bill also provides for technical assistance to States for the development and 

revision of comprehensive Working Waterfront Plans. 

We must preserve access to our working waterfronts, protect the economic and 

cultural value they bring our communities and pass this heritage to future generations. We must make sure that our coasts will always retain the special quality of 

life that our working waterfronts help to create. 

I hope that as the subcommittee works on reauthorizing the CZMA, that it will 

consider the need for working waterfront legislation. I look forward to working with 

the subcommittee, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank you, Congressman Allen, for your statement. And it clearly spells out the necessity in improving, protecting, and expanding commercial coastal access, at a time when 

access is threatened from private residential development and 

other activities. 

I want to thank you very much for appearing before the Subcommittee. I know you have a busy schedule, but you are welcome 

to join us on the dais if you do have the time. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, as you said, Madame Chair, I do have a very 

busy schedule. And I will leave it to you to work through this. 

11 

But I want to help in any way I can, and my staff is available, 

as well. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I understand. I understand. Thank you for your 

statement. 

And the Chair would now like to recognize the Hon. Wayne 

Gilchrest from the State of Maryland, the former Chairman of this 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans. 

Mr. Gilchrest, would you like to make some statements? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, Tom Allen has a good piece of legislation, 

so we will see what we can do for the rest of this session to work 

on it, make it a reliable source of access to coastal areas by local 

people needing that reliable access. 

And the Coastal Zone Management Act is up for, I guess, reauthorization. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is correct. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We didn’t do it the last couple of years. But I 

would like to work with you, Madame Chairman, and the other 

members of the committee, to see that this bill gets not only reauthorized, but reenergized, to help protect America’s coastal areas. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I thank my colleague, Mr. Wayne 

Gilchrest, who certainly we will welcome your input. You have the 

experience on this committee. 

I now recognize the second panel of witnesses. Would they please 

step forward and take their seats? 

Our witnesses on this panel include Mr. David Kennedy, Director 

of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Robert Bailey, 

Chairman of the Reauthorization Committee at the Coastal States 

Organization; Dr. Jaime Kooser, President of the National Estuarine Research Reserves Association; and my friend from Guam, Ms. 

Evangeline Lujan, the Guam Coastal Management Program Administrator, and Director of the All-Island Group. 

I would like to welcome Mr. Kennedy and thank him for appearing before the Subcommittee on short notice. Unfortunately, 

NOAA’s initial witness, Mr. Jack Dunnigan, suffered the loss of his 

father and has, of course, gone back to California to be with his 

family. And I know everyone on the Committee joins me in extending our deepest sympathies to Mr. Dunnigan. Our thoughts are 

with him during this difficult and sad time. 

Mr. Kennedy, thank you again for being here. And you may now 

begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and members of 

the committee. As you have mentioned, I am David Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Management within NOAA. 

And our thoughts are all with Jack, and it is certainly not a problem at all for me to step in. And hopefully I can represent him appropriately here. 

12 

So thank you for the opportunity to testify on the future of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act and the bills before the committee 

today. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act has served as a cornerstone 

for national coastal policy for more than 30 years. When enacted 

in 1972, it was the first attempt to balance multiple national interests along the coast. 

The CZMA recognizes and attempts to balance national objectives for development and conservation of coastal and ocean areas 

with the interests of the state, in governing near-shore activities 

and land use. 

While the CZMA has served as a cornerstone for national coastal 

policy, it has become apparent that the evolving challenges we face 

in coastal management will require changes in our approach. We 

need to anticipate the problems the Nation will face in the next 30 

years, and promote changes in management approaches. 

These approaches should incorporate principles of ecosystem and 

adaptive management, and focus on effective implementation at 

the local level, where most of the decisions that cumulatively affect 

coastal resources occur. 

In addition, we need to create new mechanisms to include the 

public and private sectors to help address the challenges we face 

today. 

So in July of 2006, NOAA and the Coastal States Organization 

embarked on a partnership effort to envision the future of coastal 

and ocean management. The process sought input from a variety 

of stakeholders. Following this process, NOAA and CSO developed 

a set of four cornerstones to consider when drafting legislative proposals for the CZMA. 

Using these cornerstones as a foundation, NOAA has begun an 

internal dialogue regarding what concepts to include in a CZMA reauthorization proposal. While our internal discussions are still in 

the early stages, I would like to share with you four main concepts 

that we are considering. 

First, clear and focused goals. A reauthorized CZMA should continue to address a comprehensive set of issues, and could additionally focus on two distinct priorities. Priorities that we have in 

mind, at least at the moment, is sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems, one of the major issues that we heard in all of our discussions around the country, and increasing coastal community resiliency. 

Two, periodic coastal assessments. CZMA requires each participating state to develop a program with adequate policies to manage 

coastal resources, but does not require periodic assessments of 

coastal conditions, or updating of state programs. 

Periodic assessments of the conditions of natural, social, cultural, 

historical, and economic resources could help direct planning and 

resource management activities at the state, regional, and national 

level. 

Three, outcome-based planning and measurable objectives. Today 

the CZMA requires participating states to have programs, but not 

action-oriented plans and measurable objectives. Strategic and targeted plans could be prepared by each state, and approved by 

NOAA, as a requirement for funding. Plans would include measurVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

able objectives to help monitor state progress in achieving the goals 

of CZMA. National objectives would be established as a foundation 

for state programs and plans. 

And then finally, coordinated and strategic Federal agency involvement. We think this is extremely critical. Currently under 

CZMA, NOAA and other Federal agencies have a limited role in 

coastal management, with no responsibility for substantive outcomes. Research and technical assistance at the Federal level are 

not specifically tied to implementation of CZMA. 

In order to supplement the existing Federal role, a national-level 

integrated coastal and ocean management program should be created under the Secretary of Commerce. The primary objective of 

the national program would be to serve as the coordinator of the 

delivery of the Federal government’s diverse expertise, and serve as 

a conduit for moving research to operations through the development of targeted products, services, and related technical assistance. 

The Subcommittee has also requested the Administration views 

on three bills, each of which would make separate amendments to 

the CZMA. Comments on each provision are provided in our written statement. 

But in general, the Administration does not support an ad hoc 

approach to amending the CZMA, because it contradicts the underlying premises of both ocean commissions and the U.S. Ocean Plan 

to pursue an integrated and coordinated approach to coastal and 

ocean management. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. NOAA 

looks forward to working with you on reauthorizing this important 

Act, and we will be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:] 

Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce 

INTRODUCTION 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Committee. I am John 

H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on the future of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act and H.R. 5451, as well as H.R. 3223, H.R. 5452 and H.R. 5453. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) has served as a cornerstone for national coastal policy for more than 30 years. When enacted in 1972, it was the first 

attempt to balance multiple national interests along the coast. The CZMA created 

an innovative intergovernmental partnership that has been of great benefit to the 

nation, the states, and the public. The CZMA recognizes and balances national objectives for development and conservation of coastal and ocean areas with the historical interests and role of the states in governing near shore development and land 

use. Under the CZMA, federally-approved state coastal management programs are 

provided assistance to coordinate their environmental resource management programs, and to promote sustainable coastal development and long-term conservation 

objectives. The CZMA also authorized the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 

State Coastal Management Programs 

Thirty-four of the 35 eligible coastal states, commonwealths, and territories are 

implementing federally-approved coastal management programs. NOAA is working 

with the final eligible coastal state, Illinois, to approve its coastal management proVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

gram. Through the CZMA, NOAA provides funding for developing and implementing 

these programs, and provides technical assistance on best practices for addressing 

important coastal management issues. Funding for the coastal zone management 

program is allocated to eligible coastal states based on shoreline mileage and coastal 

population. This funding is required to be matched on a dollar for dollar basis, yet 

many states far exceed this match requirement and are able to leverage additional 

state resources using CZMA dollars. For example, the Maine Coastal Program has 

been successful in matching state dollars to federal dollars at a ratio of more than 

5:1. In past years this ratio has been as high as 11:1. 

State programs address a wide range of national objectives, including: 

• Maintaining and restoring the natural beach and dune systems for protection 

from erosion and storms, 

• Ensuring appropriate coastal development, 

• Protecting and restoring ecologically important coastal habitats, 

• Controlling nonpoint source pollution, 

• Improving public access and recreational opportunities in coastal areas, 

• Enhancing public awareness through education and outreach, and 

• Revitalizing local waterfronts. 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

Under the CZMA’s estuarine research reserve program, the states—often in partnership with academia and federal agencies—implement research and education 

programs to better understand complex coastal processes and share this information 

with coastal decision makers at the federal, state, and local levels. Critical, longterm research takes place at the 27 federally designated National Estuarine Research Reserves (Reserves) in 22 coastal states and commonwealths. Connecticut 

and Wisconsin are currently working to develop new Reserves. The Reserves play 

an important role in meeting the U.S. Ocean Action Plan’s goal to ‘‘expand our scientific knowledge of oceans, coasts and Great Lakes.’’ 

Reserves currently protect over one million acres of estuarine lands and waters, 

and Reserve programs conduct important research, monitoring, education, and stewardship activities within coastal watersheds. The Reserves have developed systemwide efforts and standards to ensure data compatibility and consistent methodologies are used at all sites. The Reserve’s System-Wide Monitoring Program includes 

108 water-quality monitoring stations and 27 weather stations. The system provides 

important environmental data in support of the Integrated Ocean Observing System 

identified in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. The Reserve system also supports a fellowship program, training up to 54 graduate students each year in estuarine science. 

This fellowship program not only facilitates important research, but also encourages 

the development of the next generation of scientists to sustain the workforce necessary to meet the nation’s future coastal research and management needs. 

Factors Impacting the Future of Coastal Management 

While the CZMA has served as a cornerstone for national coastal policy for more 

than 30 years, it has become apparent that the evolving nature of the challenges 

we face in coastal management will require changes in our approach. As federal 

partners with the states, we need to position ourselves to take greater leadership 

on coastal issues by anticipating the problems the nation will face in the next thirty 

years and by identifying and promoting needed changes in management approaches. 

Coastal management issues in the next 30 years are likely to be different, or in 

a very different context, from the last 30 years due to: 

• Unanticipated effects and dynamics resulting from climate change, 

• Globalization, which will result in changes to the nation’s energy, transportation, communications and manufacturing infrastructure, 

• New technologies, and 

• The changing demographics of coastal communities (greater in number and density, older, more ethnically diverse, and wealthier with a greater economic disparity between those who live on the coast and those who do not). 

With greater competition for coastal resources, coastal decision-making, resource 

allocations, and risk acceptability will become even more complex. To address these 

complexities, new management approaches are needed to incorporate principles of 

ecosystem and adaptive management. 

Achieving management objectives requires more effective implementation at the 

local level, where most of the decisions that cumulatively affect coastal resources 

occur. These objectives can be reached by: 

• Building and enhancing local planning capacity for growth management, 

• Incorporating natural resource planning and protection tools into local planning 

processes, and 

15 

• Making data and information more accessible and usable for local decision-makers. 

Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management 

In July 2006, NOAA and the Coastal States Organization (CSO) embarked on an 

effort to envision the future of coastal and ocean management. The process sought 

input from stakeholders, coastal management professionals, experts from multiple 

disciplines, NOAA, and other federal agencies. The response and engagement from 

across the country was encouraging as hundreds of people shared ideas about how 

we as a nation can become better stewards of our coasts. Participants exhibited 

much enthusiasm about new and innovative ways to protect and manage our coastal 

and ocean resources. They also were clear that a major effort is warranted to meet 

these challenges. 

What We Heard 

• Managing growth and development in coastal areas was the most frequently 

identified challenge; water quality ranked second. 

• Local governments were identified as primary partners for addressing growth 

pressures. 

• Climate change was the top emerging issue. 

• Federal interagency coordination was stated to be ineffective, as states often 

have to meet different requirements from different agencies for similar programs such as water quality monitoring. The state resource managers also stated that access to assistance is inefficient and confusing. 

What We Concluded 

Following the stakeholder process, NOAA and CSO developed a set of four cornerstones and 13 principles that we agreed to consider in drafting our respective legislative proposals for reauthorizing the CZMA. They are intended to reflect both what 

we heard as well as important concepts that both organizations agreed should be 

the basis for a new integrated coastal and ocean statute. 

The cornerstones identified through the visioning process are: 

• The CZMA should ensure the long term sustainability of coastal resources and 

communities. 

• The CZMA should be goal driven and results oriented. 

• The CZMA should coordinate and align federal, state, and local governments to 

address issues of national importance. 

• The National Coastal Management Program should remain a voluntary partnership between the federal government and the states, in which each bears responsibilities for achieving program goals. 

These cornerstones provide a foundation for the development of more detailed proposals for a reauthorized CZMA. Following the visioning process, NOAA has begun 

an internal dialogue regarding what concepts to include in a CZMA reauthorization 

proposal. While our internal discussions are still in the early stages, I would like 

to share with you some of the concepts we are considering. 

TAKING COASTAL AND OCEAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO THE 

NEXT LEVEL: GOALS, ASSESSMENTS, PLANS, AND MEASURABLE 

OBJECTIVES 

Clear, Focused Goals 

The CZMA currently has a very broad scope, calling for the development of programs to ‘‘preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the 

resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.’’ A reauthorized CZMA should continue to address a comprehensive set of issues, and could 

additionally focus on two distinct national priorities: sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems and increasing coastal community resilience. 

Understanding Coastal Conditions: Periodic Coastal Assessments 

The CZMA requires each participating state to develop a program with adequate 

policies to manage coastal resources, but does not require periodic assessments of 

coastal conditions or updating of state programs. Periodic assessments of coastal 

trends and conditions of natural, social, cultural, historical, and economic resources 

could help to better direct planning and resource management activities at the 

state, regional, and national levels. NOAA would work with the states and other 

agencies to compile and prepare these coordinated assessments. 

To understand the true national status of our coastal and ocean resources, we 

must also have a uniform understanding of what defines the coastal area. Currently, each state coastal management program develops its own boundaries based 

on the needs of the state’s enforceable policies. These range from the entire state 

16 

or territory (Delaware, Florida, Guam, and Rhode Island), to local units of government (Maine, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin), to certain physical features or a set distance from the shoreline (California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Alabama). This has made it difficult to develop a consistent set of indicators of the 

coastal condition that can give a regional or national picture. It also has caused confusion among federal agencies and the regulated community in implementing the 

federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. In an effort to resolve these issues, each 

state’s coastal planning area would be based on uniform national criteria, and coastal watersheds and the territorial sea would be included in state assessments and 

plans. 

Outcome-Based Planning and Measurable Objectives 

Today, the CZMA requires participating states to have ‘‘programs,’’ but not actionoriented plans and measurable objectives. State programs must identify enforceable 

policies that address general areas articulated in national guidance, but they are 

not required to set and meet benchmarks or measurable objectives. This has hampered efforts to demonstrate and articulate the success of state programs. 

Strategic and targeted plans—developed at relevant scales and designed to meet 

national objectives—would be prepared by each state and approved by NOAA as a 

requirement for funding. Plans would include measurable objectives to help monitor 

state progress in achieving the goals of the CZMA. National objectives, such as protecting habitat and making communities more resilient to coastal hazards and climate change, would be established as a foundation for state programs. Each state 

would then prepare a management plan that would include strategies and measurable objectives to address the national priorities. 

Today, funding for coastal management is allocated according to a formula that 

is driven by state coastal population and shoreline mileage. While these variables 

are useful for calculating continued support for operation of basic state programs, 

as coastal management programs move forward the majority of funding would be 

awarded competitively on the basis of achievement of national objectives. Program 

performance measures, based on indicators developed through state assessments, 

would also be used to guide funding. 

Federal Agency Involvement 

Currently under the CZMA, NOAA and other federal agencies have a limited role 

in coastal management with no responsibility for substantive outcomes. Research 

and technical assistance at the federal level are not specifically tied to implementation of the CZMA. In order to supplement the existing federal role, a national level 

integrated, coastal and ocean management program would be created under the Secretary of Commerce to provide additional leadership for our state and local resource 

management partners and federal colleagues. 

The primary objective of the national program would be to serve as a coordinator 

for the delivery of the federal government’s diverse expertise to complement the expertise and knowledge available at the state and local level. The program would coordinate and build upon existing efforts, such as the National Sea Grant College 

Program, Coastal Services Center and others while not preempting any existing authorities of other agencies. It would integrate federal research and technical capabilities, and serve as the conduit for moving research to operations through the development of targeted products, services and related technical assistance. 

Program Coordination 

Developing national goals and the more detailed objectives and outcomes articulated in state plans would allow other NOAA programs and centers to more effectively coordinate, align and contribute to these efforts. The result could be a more 

integrated effort across NOAA to help support the national and state goals for management of the nation’s valuable coastal resources. In addition, the National Marine 

Protected Area System and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program 

could be incorporated into the CZMA, and it could be required that the plans for 

these programs be developed collaboratively with the state coastal management 

plans. 

Reserves offer a wealth of scientific expertise and conduct extensive outreach at 

the State and local level. Consequently, States would benefit from coordinating with 

Reserves on their state resource assessments and plans. The Reserves are currently 

authorized in a separate section of the CZMA, and in some states Reserves are not 

integrated with the State’s coastal programs. 

Implementation of the state coastal nonpoint programs developed under Section 

6217 should be refocused on achievable objectives. States should be given more ability to focus on activities that the coastal programs do well, such as influencing land 

and water use decisions and working with landowners for cooperative conservation. 

17 

Improved coordination could include working with programs in the Department of 

Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to target specific nonpoint 

pollution-related challenges. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission both 

called for the development of better regional governance structures. The CZMA 

should more clearly encourage and support regional coastal and ocean partnerships, 

both for federal agencies and among the states. State-coordinated, regional efforts 

should be eligible for competitive federal funding under CZMA. In addition to providing a forum for planning and resource management across jurisdictional boundaries, these partnerships could help leverage resources to address regional research 

needs and improve distribution of applied science to managers. 

OTHER PENDING LEGISLATION 

The Subcommittee has requested the Administration’s views on three bills, each 

of which would make separate amendments to the CZMA. Comments on each provision are provided below. In general, the Administration does not support this ad hoc 

approach to amending the CZMA because it contradicts the underlying premises of 

both ocean commissions and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan to pursue an integrated 

and coordinated approach to coastal and ocean management. 

H.R. 5452: Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008 

H.R. 5452 would amend the State Grant Program under the CZMA. As amended, 

the program would support voluntary state efforts to initiate and complete outer 

continental shelf surveys adjacent to a state’s coastal zone and coastal waters. These 

surveys would identify potential areas that are suitable for the exploration, development, and production of alternative energy in a manner consistent with the enforceable provisions of Coastal Zone Management plans (approved pursuant to section 

306A of the CZMA). 

We are concerned that this program may result in considerable duplication of effort. NOAA and other federal agencies already have extensive expertise and existing 

hydrographic, oceanographic and geographic data for many of these areas. Section 

388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) in the Department of the Interior with the authority to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf for the siting of alternative 

ocean energy activities. Thus, any new surveying or observations should be done in 

a partnership with MMS, NOAA, any other relevant agencies, and the states, including on a regional basis where appropriate. Any such effort should be consistent 

with the standards and objectives of pending legislation (H.R. 2342) to authorize 

the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). They should also be consistent with 

ongoing efforts to promote integrated ocean and coastal mapping, including the 

basic principal to ‘‘map once, use many times.’’ The emphasis should be on using 

existing data and not on funding new surveying activities unless clearly warranted. 

H.R. 5453: Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008 

H.R. 5453 would amend the CZMA to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a coastal climate change resiliency planning and response program. This 

program would provide assistance to coastal states to voluntarily develop coastal climate change resiliency plans (as amendments to CZMA management plans), and 

provide financial and technical assistance to enable coastal states to implement 

these plans through their enforceable policies. 

NOAA supports the development and implementation of plans by states and territories for addressing the effects of climate change. With respect to requiring longterm monitoring, NOAA has concerns over the cost to states and Reserves and how 

the monitoring would be integrated with the IOOS and other ongoing monitoring 

efforts. While developing plan content, coastal management programs should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies and other state or regional entities to ensure 

that they are taking advantage of existing resources. Specifically, we encourage 

states with a Reserve to incorporate the contributions of the Reserves’ monitoring 

efforts into the Climate Change Resiliency Plans. 

H.R. 3223: Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 

H.R. 3223 would amend the CZMA to establish a new grant program to preserve 

and expand access to ‘‘water-dependent commercial activities including commercial 

fishing, recreational fishing, aquaculture, boat-building, or other water-dependent 

coastal-related businesses.’’ The Federal grants created by the bill could cover up 

to three quarters of the cost of supporting these activities in competing against 

other uses for waterfronts, such as residential development. 

The national policy set by the CZMA currently addresses working waterfronts by 

directing state coastal management programs to give priority consideration to coastVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

al-dependent uses when siting major facilities, including fisheries development, or 

new commercial and industrial development in areas where such development already exists (CZMA § 303(2)(D); 16 U.S.C. § 1452(2)(D)). The CZMA provides, as a 

national policy, that state programs should assist in the redevelopment of deteriorating waterfronts and ports, as well as sensitive preservation and restoration of 

historic, cultural, and esthetic coastal resources (CZMA § 303(2)(F); 16 U.S.C. 1452 

(2)(F)). 

The Administration supports efforts to preserve working waterfronts. However, 

the Administration does not believe the grant program established by H.R. 3223 is 

the right tool to address this agreed upon goal. The program, which would have an 

authorization level of $50 million in 2009, is inconsistent with the President’s Budget. Moreover, the Administration believes that Federal funds should be used for 

public benefit, and is concerned that H.R. 3223 appears to promote one type of commercial activity over others. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with you on reauthorizing this important program. 

I will be glad to answer any questions. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy. And thank 

you for staying within the five-minute allotment. I failed to mention it, but I will mention it to all the future witnesses, that we 

do have a five-minute rule. But your full, complete statement will 

be entered into the formal record. 

Mr. Bailey, it is a pleasure to welcome you before the Subcommittee, and you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, REAUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION 

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Chairwoman 

Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee, thanks for holding this hearing and the opportunity to appear before you today. 

My name is Robert Bailey, and I manage the Oregon Coastal 

Management Program. I am here today on behalf of the Coastal 

States Organization, the CSO, which represents Governors of 35 

coastal states, Great Lakes states, islands, and territories. 

I note that you, Madame Chairwoman, and many Subcommittee 

members represent these same states and islands. 

In summary, CSO strongly urges you and the Congress to begin 

work to enact new legislation to redefine coastal management in 

this country. CSO has developed some elements and ideas for such 

a bill that we respectfully offer for your consideration, and we have 

done so in our written testimony. We also enthusiastically support 

the three related bills before you today. 

Now, from the vantage point of 36 years, many would say that 

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 has been successful. 

Thirty-five islands, coastal and Great Lakes states and territories 

have accomplished a lot of good things through their Federally approved programs. 

But the world has changed, and is about to change even more. 

The coasts are being hit with a triple whammy. The first is an 

enormous reservoir of retiring baby boomers that is starting to 

scour the real estate ads in coastal communities. As a result, our 

coasts will be under even more pressure for development. 

Second, climate change is beginning to affect our coastal communities and coastlines in profound ways. Chairwoman Bordallo, I am 

19 

sure that as a delegate of an island territory ringed by the coasts 

and ocean, you join me in understanding just how fragile our coasts 

are, and appreciating what is at stake for our nation, our coastal 

areas, and our people. 

Third, energy scarcity is driving proposals for renewable energy 

to wind, waves, and tidal power. We must take care to carefully fit 

these new uses with our traditional uses. 

Meanwhile, governmental budgets at all levels are and will be 

stretched thin, so our efforts must be efficient, effective, and accountable. 

Three years ago a budget review by the Office of Management 

and Budget triggered what became a terrific partnership between 

the CSO and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to thoroughly assess and revision coastal management in the 

U.S. Together, CSO and NOAA embarked on outreach that engaged hundreds of stakeholders and citizens from around the country to assess needs for coastal management over the next 35 or 

more years. And what they told us forms the basis of our recommendations to you. 

People told us that they care deeply about the coast. They want 

to take their kids to see tidepools, to wade in the surf, to walk the 

solitude of the beach. But they told us that they need help in protecting these treasures. 

And they also told us that coastal management efforts need to 

be better if we are to succeed. They told us that our state and Federal coastal programs must be prioritized and strategic. They have 

told us that our efforts must be coordinated across all levels of government, because people don’t make a distinction between local, 

state, and Federal governments. They want it just to work better. 

They also want our government programs to be accountable, and 

to demonstrate results. And they told us that our programs need 

significantly increased financial support to make our work successful in protecting the nation’s coastal communities. 

These principles guide our framework for revisioning coastal 

management in the United States, and we think of this as a new 

coastal constitution. We in CSO are willing to work hard to ramp 

up our efforts, and we believe that the continuing central role of 

state programs is crucial. 

We urge that state and island programs already approved remain so, and that the requirement for Federal agency actions be 

consistent with approved state programs likewise be retained. 

We see the National Estuarine Research Reserve System as a 

key partner in carrying out this enterprise. 

I want to turn quickly to the other three bills. CSO strongly supports H.R. 5453, and commends Congresswoman Capps for introducing this. This will significantly help coastal communities address the enormous challenges of climate change. 

CSO also supports H.R. 5452 to make sure that the green power 

we all want from wind, wave, and tidal energy sources will work 

for fishermen, coastal communities, and marine wildlife. 

Finally, CSO supports H.R. 3223 to protect working waterfronts. 

Representative Allen’s bill gets it right: The heart of coastal communities will be gone if working waterfronts are eliminated. These 

assets must be preserved. 

20 

Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, we in CSO look 

forward to working with you and the Members of the House and 

Senate to move these bills forward. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share our views, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:] 

Statement of Robert Bailey, State of Oregon’s Representative, Coastal 

States Organization, and Manager, Coastal Services Division, Oregon 

Department of Land Conservation & Development 

Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss a new vision for coastal management in the United States, reauthorization of 

the Coastal Zone Management Act, and three related issues: planning for climate 

change on our coasts, planning for alternative energy development, and protecting 

working waterfronts. 

My name is Robert Bailey. I am the Manager of the Oregon Coastal and Ocean 

Management Program in the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 

I am here today representing the Coastal States Organization (CSO), an organization that represents the interests of the Governors of thirty-five coastal states and 

territories. I note that many of the members of this Subcommittee are from coastal, 

islands, or Great Lake states and territories, all of which are members of the CSO. 

My testimony today will provide comments on behalf of CSO as well as my own perspectives gained from more than 30 years of working in coastal and ocean management for the State of Oregon. 

First, however, I want to commend you and the Subcommittee for holding this 

hearing. This conversation about a new approach to coastal management is a long 

time coming. We all know that it is easy for the coasts to get lost in the press of 

world issues and assume they will always be there. But, Chairwoman Bordallo, I 

am sure that, as a Representative of an island territory ringed by a coast and ocean, 

you and the other Subcommittee members join me in understanding how fragile our 

coasts are and appreciating what is at stake for our people and our nation. 

What’s Happened Since 1972: An Experiment That Succeeded 

It is fair to say that the Congressional authors of the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act had no idea of how successful their efforts would be when seen from this 

35-year vantage point. Of 36 coastal and Great Lake states and territories, 35 have 

federally approved coastal management programs that account for the unique needs 

and setting of each state or territory. These CZM programs have provided public 

access to coastal waters and made sure that those waters were clean, kept shoreline 

development safe from coastal hazards, protected and restored estuarine and wetland habitats, protected dunes, barrier islands and other unique coastal features, 

helped citizens to be better stewards of the coast, and, importantly, worked hard 

to coordinate state and federal efforts to conserve the Nation’s coastal resources. 

The unique federal-state partnership of the Coastal Zone Management Program 

has enabled states to ensure that federal agency actions affecting coastal resources 

are consistent with approved state programs, which often include local regulations. 

This arrangement has been good for coastal communities, coastal states, and the 

Nation. It is a stellar example of innovative public policy that has worked quietly 

and well, notwithstanding the occasional headline or controversy. In this democracy 

of ours, where each state is a laboratory, the 1972 CZMA experiment has been a 

success. 

I also think it is fair to say that these same authors could not have envisioned 

the demands that are increasingly bearing on our coasts. In 1980, 120 million people 

lived in coastal counties. Today, 40 million more people have crowded near our nation’s coastlines, an increase of 30 %. Nearly 60% of the U.S. population now lives 

in coastal counties, which make up only 17% of the nation’s area. There is clearly 

something special in our coasts and oceans. I remind my friends in Oregon that you 

can drive for six straight days across this country and never see a tidepool, an estuary, or waves crashing on an ocean beach. What we live with every day on the coast 

of Oregon and other coastal states and islands are truly national treasures. 

Unfortunately, our coasts are about to get hit with a triple whammy. The first 

is the enormous reservoir of retiring Baby Boomers with the means and desire to 

seek coastal living or recreation. Second is climate change, which will place a premium on the naturally air-conditioned coasts even as coastal communities are 

21 

stressed from rising sea-level, increasing storm intensity, and higher temperatures. 

Third is an energy scarcity that will impact economies and development patterns 

of coastal communities and spawn demand for renewable coastal energy resources 

of wind, waves, and tides. All the while, the public will demand that all levels of 

government work more efficiently to protect coastal and ocean resources and be accountable for results. 

So, the conditions for our experiment in coastal management are changing drastically. We in the Coastal States Organization believe it is time to meet these challenges with equally dramatic changes in our national and state coastal management 

efforts. 

H.R. 5451: Toward a Vision for the CZMA 

Over the past three years a remarkable confluence of circumstances has resulted 

in a broad consensus among many coastal constituents about how this nation needs 

to re-tool coastal management for the next 35 years or more. The first was the nearly tandem reports of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy that zeroed in on the Coastal Management Program as critical to addressing many issues confronting our coasts and oceans. 

The second was an assessment of the strengths and weakness of the National 

CZM program by the Office of Management and Budget that shook the ground 

under both NOAA and CSO. While the report found positive effects from state and 

federal actions to carry out the 1972 program, it also found serious issues about performance, accountability, and the level of effort necessary to truly address oncoming 

needs on the Nation’s coasts. 

The third happenstance was leadership within both the Coastal States Organization and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who read the OMB 

assessment and recognized that in ‘‘crisis’’ is both ‘‘danger’’ and ‘‘opportunity.’’ With 

so much at stake, CSO and NOAA took the path of opportunity and agreed to vigorously engage stakeholders in creating a vision for an improved Coastal Zone Management Act and to identify methods for improving program implementation at the 

state and national levels. 

The fourth circumstance was—and is—a climate of intense interest and willingness to think boldly among the public, coastal managers, local governments, coastal 

industries, federal agencies, non-profit foundations, state officials, and even Congressional members. These stakeholders have been nearly unanimous in believing 

that it is high time to think boldly about the future of coastal management in this 

country. 

The CSO and NOAA reached out to stakeholders around the country. Five national workshops were held, which spawned additional state-level conversations. In 

all, about 600 participants from across the spectrum of stakeholders participated, 

including municipalities, maritime industry, environmental organizations, and the 

public. NOAA met with many federal agencies with coastal programs and began internal discussions to better align NOAA resources. CSO and NOAA both met with 

a variety of organizations representing a wide range of coastal stakeholders. Discussions were frank and creative. 

What we all heard loud and clear was that coastal management needs big improvements. And in so doing coastal management must be 1). prioritized and strategic; 2.) accountable; 3.) coordinated, and 4.) supported by significant financial investments. Together, the CSO and NOAA worked out a set of Cornerstones and 

Core Principles for coastal management in the United States that has guided us as 

we have come to agreement within CSO on National Priorities and a framework for 

achieving them. 

We call our framework the Coastal and Ocean Legacy Act of 2008. We think of 

this as a new ‘‘Coastal Constitution.’’ 

PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR CZMA 

The Coastal States Organization urges a new national commitment to coastal 

management that includes the following elements: 

Reaffirm a national commitment to keystone principles of coastal management 

Keystone principles include maintaining state-enacted programs and authorities 

that meet national policies, balancing conservation and development, protecting 

coastal natural resources, and federal consistency with state programs. These core 

elements have been the cornerstone of implementing the 1972 Act. 

Address National Priorities to meet the needs of the Nation’s coasts 

The CSO agrees that coastal management must go beyond core programs and be 

focused on achieving National Priorities that broadly reflect the concerns of stakeVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22 

holders from around the country. CSO urges that local, state, and federal programs 

be organized to meet these four priorities: 

• Support healthy coastal communities and economies: By this we mean 

assisting coastal communities to plan for and manage urban growth, revitalize 

waterfronts, and reduce impacts on coastal resources while building for sustainable economic development and improving the quality of life. 

• Protect and restore coastal natural resources: Coastal, estuarine, and marine ecosystems, habitats and unique resources are under pressure and will require significant focused effort to protect and, where possible, restore. 

• Prepare for climate change on the nation’s coasts: The Nation’s coasts are 

on the front lines for impacts from climate change. Coastal communities and 

states must have the capacity and resources to plan and prepare for these impacts. 

• Ensure coordination and integration of coastal and ocean programs: 

While seemingly implicit, this should be an explicit National Priority to ensure 

that local, state, and programs work together to make effective use of scarce 

public resources in pursuit of coastal management objectives. 

Act strategically 

States recognize that meeting these National Priorities will require strategic investments and programs. So states will prepare multi-year strategic plans to address these priorities. These strategies will be based on comprehensive assessments 

of resources, conditions, needs, and opportunities, will describe outcomes and identify performance measurements, and will be the basis of annual implementation 

plans and funding. 

Monitor effectiveness through performance measures and periodic evaluation 

States understand that performance measurements will be needed to demonstrate 

progress in meeting national priorities. To ensure that appropriate, useful measures 

are used, the states propose that the National Academy of Sciences or the National 

Academy of Public Administration convene a panel of experts to develop performance criteria and metrics for the national priorities. 

Engage and encourage local communities in the coastal stewardship enterprise 

Local communities are vital partners in the nation’s effort to steward coastal resources. Local governments are on the front lines as on-the-ground decision-makers 

whose land use regulations and infrastructure investments are pivotal in determining the scope and kind of coastal development. But communities need financial 

and technical assistance to be effective partners in meeting the national objectives. 

Strengthen coordination and integration of management programs for the nation’s 

coasts 

The programs of many federal agencies that affect the nation’s coastal zone must 

be aligned and integrated with each other and with coastal state programs. Part of 

the challenge of coastal management is to integrate non-NOAA agencies such as the 

EPA, USFWS, USGS, MMS, the USACOE, and the departments of Agriculture and 

Transportation. Such integration will not be easy, but it is absolutely necessary. 

Increase investments in coastal stewardship to meet national priorities 

States understand that this new approach to addressing the nation’s coastal 

issues will require significant investments in funding and technical support for both 

states and federal agencies. Investments must be commensurate with the dimensions of the task or our coastal communities will suffer. At present, federal coastal 

management funding equates to 46 cents per person per year living on the coast. 

We believe that our coasts are worth far, far more than that. 

Coastal states are ready to tackle these coastal challenges. We must. But we cannot do it alone. We believe that the framework we have developed with our partners 

will enable all of us to succeed in this most important endeavor. 

H.R. 5453 COASTAL STATES CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ACT 

I want to turn now to H.R. 5453 and what is probably the biggest single reason 

for thinking differently about how we plan for, manage, and protect our coasts. Climate change. 

Climate change is more than just another issue for the coasts of our states and 

islands. It is a planetary issue with particularly unique effects and challenge for our 

nation’s coasts and coastal communities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC), socioeconomic and environmental impacts of climate 

change are projected to be most significant in coastal areas. As a representative 

from one of our vulnerable Pacific islands, I suspect that you understand clearly 

23 

how critical it is to address the effects of climate change on our nation’s coasts— 

right now. 

The CSO commends Representative Capps for introducing H.R. 5453 to amend 

the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to authorize assistance to coastal states 

in developing coastal climate change adaptation plans. With this legislation, Representative Capps has recognized that states have developed skills and authorities 

to deal with many aspects of adaptation through work on coastal hazards and coastal development. I would note that CSO recently completed a white paper summarizing the work already underway by coastal states to address climate change and 

to identify needed actions. In my own program, we have begun a somewhat 

bootstrapped effort to address adaptation and have already recognized that the scale 

of effort outstrips our available or foreseeable resources. 

The CSO applauds the provisions of H.R. 5453 that would enable state coastal 

management programs to tailor current responsibilities and begin adaptation planning under the CZMA, and significantly, provide grant assistance to implement 

these plans and additional projects to address climate-related stress factors. CSO 

understands that if we are going to face the challenges of climate change on our 

coasts, funding, as well as planning, will be essential. So, no pun intended, 

H.R. 5453 is right on the money. 

H.R. 5452 the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008. 

The CSO also commends Representative Capps for introducing H.R. 5452. This, 

too, is a very timely and helpful bill. For example, my state, Oregon, is on the front 

lines of efforts to develop ocean wave energy conversion facilities. As much as we 

all want clean, renewable energy, I know first hand that the rush to develop wind, 

wave and tidal energy is placing unprecedented pressures on coastal states to plan 

for these new uses and to balance them with existing economic and environmental 

uses and values. 

Coastal fishermen and local communities are keenly interested in how new energy 

development will affect them. H.R. 5452 would provide critical financial assistance 

to state coastal management programs to do the planning and assessment work necessary to develop credible public processes, acquire needed data, prepare assessments, and identify areas where energy development is appropriate and where it is 

not. In Oregon, fishermen and community leaders are demanding this kind of assessment and planning. And because energy industries are in a mini-Gold Rush in 

response to global energy and greenhouse gas issues, the need is urgent. 

I would note that even while this planning is taking place the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission is receiving private sector applications that could result in 

50-year licenses for energy facilities located in state waters. The subcommittee 

might consider addressing this issue. States are concerned that without such planning, it is premature to commit ocean areas to long-term licenses. If it would be useful to the Subcommittee, I would be pleased to provide more information about the 

kinds of issues that we are addressing as we work with industry, FERC, other agencies, and ocean users in a kind of pioneering endeavor to site wave energy development facilities in the ocean on the Oregon coast. 

H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank Representative Allen and Representative Capps for introducing H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working 

Act of 2007. The Findings in that Bill get it right: working waterfronts are under 

enormous pressure from the twin forces of continuing demand for development and 

changing economies on our coasts. Those who build and live on the coasts know that 

waterfronts have tremendous financial value, which is why traditional uses of working waterfronts are so vulnerable to elimination. But as the Bill notes, if working 

waterfronts are eliminated, the economy, culture, and the heart of coastal communities will be fundamentally altered. 

In Oregon we regard working waterfronts as scarce and valuable public resources, 

the same way we regard unique coastal habitats, and we protect them from being 

lost to inappropriate development. So I am particularly pleased to tell you that CSO 

strongly supports the Working Waterfront Grant Program that H.R. 3233 would 

create to help all coastal states address this need. We believe that working waterfronts are national assets and that it is essential to preserve them in order to protect the economic and cultural value they provide to our local coastal communities 

and to the nation. 

CONCLUSION 

Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and subcommittee members, 

what I like about all these bills is that while they address governmental programs 

they are really about the real world of our coastal communities, our shores, and our 

24 

oceans, and the kind of coastal world we will pass to my grandchildren and yours. 

These bills make me optimistic because they offer important tools for our coasts and 

coastal management in the U.S. CSO looks forward to working with all of you and 

the members of the House and Senate to advance them. Thank you for this opportunity to share our views. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey. And again, 

thank you for staying within the time limits. 

Mr. BAILEY. You are welcome. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And thank you for your very helpful comments. 

Dr. Kooser is here to testify on behalf of the National Estuarine 

Research Reserves Association. And her colleague, Dr. Michael De 

Luca, was unfortunately unable to be here today due to illnesses 

in his family. But I would like to thank Dr. Kooser for coming, and 

invite her to testify at this point. 

STATEMENT OF JAIME C. KOOSER, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. KOOSER. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and members of 

the committee. 

Again, my name is Jaime Kooser, and I serve as the President 

of the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association. And I also 

manage the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 

I am presenting testimony that was prepared by Mr. Mike De 

Luca, the Legislative Director of NERRA. And I want to say we 

support all of the bills that are being discussed in this session. 

Our comments emphasize the importance of regional approaches 

to coastal management, the importance of building capacity in the 

coastal community, and engaging the public in coastal stewardship. 

I also want to say that we echo many of the themes that have 

already been discussed by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bailey. And 

NERRA has collaborated with NOAA and the Coastal States Organization in the coastal visioning process that Mr. Bailey described. 

And we look forward to working together to integrate all of the 

ideas that we have for improving coastal management. 

NERRA is dedicated to science-based management of our nation’s 

estuaries and coasts, and it serves as the primary advocate for the 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which is a network 

of 27 protected areas throughout the states and territories. 

Through our state-Federal partnership with NOAA, the reserves 

play a critical role in national efforts to sustain healthy estuaries 

and coastal communities. NERRA strongly supports amendments 

to the CZMA that enable coastal communities to protect coastal resources in the face of rapidly shifting environmental changes. 

As the Chairwoman has already described, much has changed 

since the CZMA was last authorized, in 1996. Devastating storms 

and natural disasters, intensifying population growth along the 

coast, and climate change are altering both the pace and the scope 

of environmental concerns. 

Because environmental issues such as fisheries management and 

habitat loss transcend watersheds and state boundaries, a regional 

approach to problem solving is necessary. We are already moving 

in that direction with collaborative efforts, like the Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance and the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean 

25 

Health. And likewise, we can align technical capacity with regional 

needs, as we do with the regional associations that help us implement integrated ocean observing systems. We want to foster similar approaches in other coastal regions. 

Second, we recognize the need to base our coastal decisions on 

the best available science. And we often hear that phrase, that we 

want our decisions based on the best available science; but the 

question remains, how do you allow that information to be available to decision makers so that it can actually happen. 

And the National Estuarine Research Reserve System has developed a coastal training program to meet this need of linking 

science to management. We give elected officials, land-use planners, regulatory personnel, coastal managers, and members of the 

public relevant, science-based information. We offer these programs 

in partnership with national and local organizations and other 

NOAA programs, and we want to expand our capacity to do CTP 

regionally so that we can better address the regional environmental concerns that we have described. 

Third, I wanted to say that I recognize the critical role of engaging all members of our community in protecting our resources. 

Generally people will do the right thing, if they know how. Because, as previous witnesses have stated, people really do care 

about the coasts, and they do want to know what they can do to 

help. 

And so there are many excellent formal and informal programs 

that exist at state and local levels, but we need more resources in 

order to be able to scale up to do the kind of regional-based approach that we think will help us do more effective problem solving. 

In summary, NERRA offers a number of recommendations in 

support of CZMA reauthorization, which are more fully described, 

of course, in our written testimony. But I did want to note that we 

want to make the NERRS a leader in leveraging the capabilities 

of protected-area networks, to engage the public in stewardship of 

our coasts, and to recognize the special role that estuarine research 

reserves can play as sentinel sites for adaptive management strategies for climate change, which is certainly an issue that is going 

to be increasingly upon us. 

In closing, reauthorization of the CZMA provides an opportunity 

to build on our past successes, so as to strengthen our ability to 

care for our coasts and estuaries. 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is passionate 

about our coasts and estuaries, and the people who depend on 

them. So we thank you for the opportunity to share that with you 

this morning, and look forward to working with you and all of the 

members of the committee in order to move us forward. 

Thank you so much. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Dr. Kooser. 

And finally, I would like to welcome Ms. Evangeline Lujan, all 

the way from the district that I represent, Guam. And I will say 

that this is the second time that she has testified before this Subcommittee, and she didn’t come out here just for this. We make the 

most of these 19-hour flights to the nation’s capital. She was here 

for the U.S. Coral Task Force meetings. 

26 

And so, Ms. Lujan, I am very pleased that you took the time out 

to appear before us again. And it is a pleasure to have you. You 

may begin. 

STATEMENT OF EVANGELINE LUJAN, DIRECTOR, GUAM 

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, ALLISLAND GROUP 

Ms. LUJAN. Thank you so much. 

[Witness spoke a greeting in her native language.] 

Ms. LUJAN. Hello, Chairman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss island coastal 

management and reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. 

My name is Evangeline Lujan. I am the Administrator for the 

Guam Coastal Management Program in the Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans. I am here today representing the All-Islands 

Committee on Coastal Zone Management, which is comprised of 

representatives from Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

In my testimony today, I will provide comments on behalf of the 

All-Islands Committee, as well as from my own perspectives gained 

from more than 14 years of working in coastal and ocean management for Guam. 

To islanders, the ocean is our heritage and our future. Our island’s coastal zones provide economic and environmental services 

to millions of people. These valuable areas are sources of natural 

beauty, food, jobs, revenue, recreation and tourism, cultural activities, and shoreline protection. 

The inability of coastal management to address environmental 

issues on an ecosystem-based approach affects islands in a unique 

way. 

For example, no point on Guam is more than a few miles from 

the shoreline. The entire island is considered a coastal zone. The 

coastline is affected by activities that occur inland, as is true for 

all island jurisdictions. Thus, land-use planning, resource exploitation, water quality, and coastal management are all inter-connected. 

I would like to provide you with a few outlined items that are 

important for the island jurisdictions, as we perceive through the 

reauthorization of CZMA. It is important to recognize that the reauthorization of the All-Islands CZMA program provides a special 

perspective for the following reasons. 

Our islands, coasts, and oceans extend from the top of the mountain to the sea. We are both indigenous and immigrant populations. 

We recognize the importance of culture and tradition in management practices. Many of our jurisdictions include non-contiguous 

land masses with unique characteristics, limited natural resources, 

and a finite land base surrounded by ocean waters. And we are 

more directly affected by sea-level rise and climate change needing 

effective and immediate action to ensure the survival of ecosystems 

and cultures. 

27 

With these distinctive characteristics in mind in reauthorizing 

the Coastal Zone Management Act, I urge Congress to strengthen 

the Coastal Zone Management Act to maintain a balance between 

coastal conservation and economic development, provide adequate 

funding for states and territorial coastal programs, so that levels 

of investments are aligned with economic contributions. Islands are 

especially susceptible to economic pressures to develop in inappropriate areas to economic pressure—I am sorry—and coastal management is considerably under-funded given these economic impacts to coastal areas. 

Increased funding for emerging issues, such as sea-level rise and 

climate change, such issues are not presently factored into the 

original CZMA. Provide funding for the non-point source program 

for islands especially, this problem is critical and has direct impact 

on our valuable coral reef ecosystems. 

Craft national priorities to support healthy coastal communities 

and economies, protect and restore coastal natural resources, enable states and territories to adapt climate change, and ensure integration of coastal and ocean programs. 

And I have a list, but in my written testimony, so I would like 

to just add this one also. Strengthen Federal consistency to apply 

to the entire island, including the ecosystem, including Federal 

lands. This will ensure that natural resources are managed 

through an ecosystem approach. For Guam, strengthening of Federal consistency may be critical in this time of military buildup. 

In reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act, and in considering the role of the bill in coastal management, I urge you and 

the members of your committee to be mindful of the unique perspective and needs of island states and territories, recognizing that 

coastal jurisdictions are distinctive, and have very different values 

and needs. 

The CZMA ensures that national interests are expressed and carried out through local initiatives. The Guam Coastal Management 

Program and other island jurisdictions comprising of the All-Islands Committee look forward to working with you and members 

of the House Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans to advance these bills. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. And I will be 

pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lujan follows:] 

Statement of Evangeline Lujan, Guam’s Representative, Coastal States 

Organization and Administrator, Guam Coastal Management Program, 

Guam Bureau of Statistics and Planning 

Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss island coastal management and reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

My name is Evangeline Lujan. I am the Administrator of the Guam Coastal Management Program in the Guam Bureau of Statistics and Planning. 

I am here today representing the All Islands Committee on Coastal Zone Management representing Hawai‘i, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

My testimony today will provide comments on behalf of the All Islands Committee 

as well as my own perspectives gained from more than 14 years of working in coastal and ocean management for Guam. 

28 

The island’s coastal zone provide economic and environmental services to millions 

of people as valuable areas of natural beauty, sources of food, jobs and revenues, 

recreation and tourism, cultural activities and shoreline protection. The inability of 

coastal management to address environmental issues on an ecosystem-wide basis affects islands in a unique way: for example, no point in Guam is more than 11 miles 

from the shore. The entire island is considered a coastal zone. As is true for all 

other island jurisdictions, the coastline is affected by activities that occur inland. 

Thus, land management decisions, resource exploitation, water quality and coastal 

management are interconnected. Management of impacts to habitat is critical to the 

protection of natural resources. To islanders, the ocean is our heritage and our future. 

Firstly, I would like to provide a few outlined items that are important to the island jurisdictions as you proceed with support of the reauthorization of the CZMA. 

OUTLINE OF TOPICS: 

It is important to recognize in the Reauthorization that the All Islands CZM programs provide a unique perspective because Island coasts and oceans extend from 

the top of the mountain to the sea (three miles seaward) which should address; 

• Indigenous and immigrant populations; 

• Cultural & Traditional importance in management practices; 

• Island environments of non-contiguous land masses with unique characteristics, 

limited natural resources (terrestrial and marine), a finite land base, surrounded by ocean waters; and, 

• Uniquely affected by sea level rise and climate change, needing effective and 

immediate action to ensure the survival of ecosystems and cultures. 

With these distinctive characteristics in mind, in reauthorizing the Coastal Zone 

Management Act, I urge Congress to: 

• Strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Act to maintain a balance between 

coastal conservation and economic development. 

• Provide adequate funding for states’ and territories’ coastal programs so that 

they receive the investment aligned with their economic contribution. Islands 

are especially susceptible to economic pressure to develop in inappropriate 

areas. As an island jurisdiction, coastal management is considerably underfunded given the economic impact of coastal areas. This is true not only for 

Guam but to all our island CZM programs. 

• Provide for adequate base funding for the core programs, on a non-competitive 

basis. Competitive funding available for additional programs. 

• Increase funding for emerging issues such as climate change. Such issues are 

not presently factored into original CZMA. 

• Provide funding for the non-point source program. For islands especially, this 

problem is critical and has direct impact to their valuable coral reef ecosystems. 

• Craft National Priorities to support healthy coastal communities and economies, 

protect and restore coastal natural resources, enable states to adapt to climate 

change and, ensure integration of coastal and ocean programs. Recognizing that 

‘‘One size fits all’’ policies are not appropriate for different physical settings, 

most especially for islands. 

• Monitor effectiveness of coastal programs through measures and evaluation. 

• Engage and encourage local communities and indigenous people in coastal stewardship. Noting that there is a mix of diverse cultures and traditional practices. 

Finding ways to incorporate both scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge in resource management is important. 

• Strengthen coordination and integration of management programs for the nation’s coasts taking the unique needs of territories and islands into account. Islands, as well as other coastal communities, struggle with competing Interests 

(multiple users, achieving balance, and setting priorities). There is also a need 

for coordination among federal agencies and among levels of government. 

• Strengthen federal consistency to apply to the entire island. This will ensure 

that natural resources are managed through an ecosystem approach. For Guam, 

strengthening of federal consistency will be critical during the military build up. 

• Strengthen NOAA’s ability to coordinate and collaborate with federal agencies 

in support of local jurisdiction’s coastal policies. 

Secondly, I would like to provide a few outlined points that are important to island jurisdictions to authorize CZMA with emphasis on coastal climate change; 

Islands Are Uniquely Affected by Climate Change. 

Islands have an urgent need for adequate coastal planning for sea level rise and 

other expected impacts from climate change. I commend Representative Capps for 

introducing H.R. 5453, a bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

29 

(CZMA) to authorize assistance to coastal states and territories to develop coastal 

climate change adaptation plans. The future of Guam’s as well as other island jurisdictions’ economic stability are reliant upon protection and management of coastal 

resources and adaptation to climate change and rising sea level. This legislation provides a mechanism for coastal management to address one of our most pressing 

coastal issues. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report confirmed what 

managers of island coastal programs know: small islands have characteristics that 

make them especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea-level rise, and 

extreme storm events. Characteristics such as limited size and proneness to natural 

hazards increase the vulnerability of islands to climate change. In most cases they 

have low adaptive capacity, and adaptation costs are high relative to gross domestic 

product. 

With ‘‘very high confidence,’’ the IPCC found that especially for islands, sea-level 

rise is expected to exacerbate inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal 

hazards, threatening vital infrastructure, settlements and facilities that support the 

livelihood of island communities. Specifically, sea-level rise could lead to a reduction 

in island size, particularly in the Pacific. Island infrastructure is predominately located on the coast and in the Caribbean and Pacific islands, more than 50% of the 

populations live within 1.5 km of the shore. Almost without exception, international 

airports, roads and capital cities in the small islands of the Indian and Pacific 

Oceans and the Caribbean are sited along the coast, or on tiny coral islands. 

Climate change will also compromise water resources, heavily impacting coral 

reefs, fisheries and other marine-based resources (high confidence), and adversely 

affecting human health, subsistence and commercial agriculture, tourism, on small 

islands. 

H.R. 5354 would provide essential funding and management capacity to island 

coastal programs to address these front-line needs. These specifically are encouraged 

for the following priorities: 

• Need of data/information for effective adaptation to Climate Change: 

Æ Higher resolution topography useful for land use permits; 

Æ Current, seasonal, coast-wide imagery to assess shoreline change and rates 

of change over time; and, 

Æ Images for inland areas in order to connect land uses with shoreline change, 

needed at a resolution of land use parcel or better. 

• Need for training, outreach and education: 

Æ Software and training for spatial analysis using GIS; 

Æ Island-specific funding for experts to evaluate a problem and provide expert 

advice/recommendations on how to solve it; 

Æ A Toolkit of Best Management Practices for land use tailored for the islands, 

include links to available resources; and, 

Æ Develop local strategies on coastal management issues, adapt the tools to the 

island, county, and local management level. 

• Support the need for island-specific information and research 

Æ Translate federal smart growth programs and tools to be applicable in the 

islands. 

Æ Studies on the water carrying capacity of islands, including in-water use impacts. 

Æ Methods to document real-life land use instead of general policies and information, needed to capture the impact of variances issued by local zoning. 

Æ Recommendations for innovative, protection alternatives for shoreline change 

caused by sea walls on Guam. 

Æ Information on the social science impacts (cultural, economic) of resource degradation. 

Æ Island-specific case studies and examples for improving the governance structure for addressing land use and land use designations (zoning). 

Conclusion 

In reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act and considering the role of 

this bill in coastal management, I urge you to be mindful of the unique perspectives 

and needs of island states and territories. Recognizing that coastal jurisdictions are 

unique and have different values and needs, the CZMA ensures that National interest are expressed and carried out through local initiatives. The Guam Coastal Management Program and island jurisdictions looks forward to working with the House 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Oceans and Wildlife to advance 

these bill. 

30 

Ms. BORDALLO. You all get an A-plus for staying within the time 

limit. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. It is very unusual, you know. We always have to 

tap this gavel several times. 

I want to thank Ms. Lujan for her statement, and all the rest of 

you. And I do have some questions that I would like to begin with. 

Mr. Kennedy, I want to thank you for your statement. Considering that the Administration does not support any of these bills, 

I am left to conclude that the Administration has developed its own 

thoughtful proposal to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management 

Act in an appropriate manner. 

So, number one, can you please tell me when the Administration 

will be forwarding this proposal to Congress? And second, for the 

record, can you tell the committee how many legislative proposals 

the present Administration has transmitted to prior Congresses 

that would reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act? 

Mr. KENNEDY. What a way to get started. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. We certainly have, as you can tell from the testimony, done a lot of discussing about what a new Coastal Zone 

Management Act would look like. And we currently are drafting 

such a document, and it is going to be vetted internally. And we 

anticipate that some time in late spring, early summer, this would 

be vetted within NOAA. 

But I cannot tell you, and I do not believe that we have a schedule that would then prepare me to be able to say exactly when we 

would submit this to Congress. 

So right now the schedule is let us make sure that the ideas that 

we have, that we have gotten collectively from all of our visioning 

and with our partners, get put into a bill that we have some agreement with NOAA with. And then we would take the next step of 

attempting to determine how we will submit it forward. 

So I apologize, but I cannot give you a specific date when it 

would come to Congress. But we are working diligently to develop 

something internally that at some point would be prepared to come 

up. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Kennedy, on the first question I asked you, 

you said that, you gave an affirmative answer. But in checking 

with the committee here, since this Administration has taken over, 

we haven’t received any proposals. So I just want that on the 

record. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, ma’am. No, you have not. And I hope I made 

that clear. We are discussing where to go internally, but there has 

been no proposal. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And on the second part of the question, you don’t 

have a definite date as to when this proposal will be concluded. Do 

you think it will be within the year? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think we will have clearance through NOAA 

within the year. Again, I am not prepared to say when we would 

have it available. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Should Congress then move ahead with whatever 

we have on hand? Would this be your suggestion? 

31 

Mr. KENNEDY. We would like to work with you. We would like 

to discuss what you have already submitted, but we do not have 

an alternative that we are ready to submit to you. That is true. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

I do have a question for Ms. Lujan. I want to thank you for your 

testimony this morning, and I appreciate your being here to give 

us an island perspective on some of the issues that are before the 

committee. 

Could you be more specific on how to strengthen the Coastal 

Zone Management Act to maintain the balance between coastal 

conservation and economic development? 

And the second part of the question is, how might greater consideration of cultural traditions be factored into this Act? 

Ms. LUJAN. Thank you for the question. I think on Guam, especially within our programs on the islands, economic development 

and the balance with the environment is very critical. In all our decisions, we have to take huge consideration as to maintaining that 

balance. 

Island economies are very small. They depend a lot on the Federal government, and they depend a lot on tourism. And especially 

right now, we are in a very important phase of our history on 

Guam, where the military is going to be coming in. And there is 

a lot of pressure on our natural resources. 

But as we have proceeded through the last 20 years of the CZMA 

and the implementation within islands, we have developed strong 

partnership with all the other Federal agencies and local agencies 

in ensuring that decisions are made to take into consideration the 

most valuable asset of our economy. And fortunately, we see it 

often, because it is in tourism. 

And in tourism we are able to see that people come to our islands 

for sand and surf, clean water, clean air. And so in implementing 

it on Guam, you really have to take into consideration what it 

means when you put up a development, how much resources will 

be lost or gained by any kind of development. And it is very critical. It is a very delicate balance. It is also very political at times. 

And so sometimes we have to really do a good assessment about 

how that will work, and how it will infringe on very fragile island 

environments and ecosystems. 

The cultural aspect is so critical. As you see, there is a wide variety of culture and heritage, and identities and different types of 

people that we have to ensure get represented in the way of life 

that we want to have. 

I think the most important thing for islanders is having a good 

quality of life. We come to the mainland, and we see a variety of 

cultures and lifestyles. And I think when we go home, we appreciate the slower pace type of lifestyle; the ability to get engaged 

with the different types of communities, and also have the very 

wide variety of cultures that exist harmoniously within our islands. 

And in order for you to ensure that that is maintained, that 

needs to be incorporated in all your decisions, and in the way that 

we develop our island and the way that we determine what our 

economy is going to be. There are times I think that decisions are 

made where you, you may not assume the entire full benefit of an 

economy. Because knowing that you have to protect the indigenous 

32 

people that live there, because their language and their culture are 

the reasons that we exist together in a community, and we have 

to protect them. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Ms. Lujan. That was very 

well put. And she brought out the fact that because of our distance 

from the mainland United States and our culture, I think whenever we legislate here in the U.S. Congress, we should take into effect the territories, and how they will react to the laws that we are 

putting into place. 

I would like to invite everyone standing back there—I never like 

to see people standing for a long period of time—you can take the 

chairs up around the table here. Please come forward. Yes, you 

could be Members of Congress for a few hours. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. I am sorry, I should have mentioned this earlier. 

The committee reminded me, and I forgot. Good, because it may be 

a long morning. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, for 

any questions he may have. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Before I start the 

questions, I guess I would like to introduce our newest Member: 

Rob Wittman from the historic First Congressional District of Virginia. And welcome to the Subcommittee, and to the committee. I 

understand you have a fisheries background, and we look forward 

to your expertise. 

Thank you all very much. That was interesting dialogue. And 

like the Chairlady said, we are grateful that you all kept the train 

on time. 

And before I start my question, I certainly would like to welcome 

Ms. Lujan myself. We really appreciate the Chairlady. And she has 

been certainly encouraging me to come out to Guam, and one day 

I might. And I think in about two or three weeks, she is going to 

come to Myrtle Beach, which is my Congressional District. I represent the coast of South Carolina, and so, you know, we are certainly interested in coastal issues. 

I guess South Carolina has about a 200-mile coastline, and we 

are grateful in South Carolina that we have been able to partner 

with the state and the Federal and local efforts to preserve at least 

a third of that coastline. So we are grateful for that opportunity. 

And Mr. Bailey, I would like to get some input from you about 

how you address in your coastline there in Oregon. I know that we 

partner with the local people, particularly in the Ace Basin, which 

is about 135,000 acres, that we are encouraging them to—in fact, 

we have given them some incentives, financial incentives and tax 

incentives—to place their property into this, this bank, so to speak. 

And what we are doing, we are actually buying their development rights. So that we will know that those pieces of property will 

be preserved forever. And we have had Mr. Yawkey, you know, to 

preserve I guess about 10,000 acres up to Georgetown. And so we 

are blessed in our part of South Carolina. 

We recognize that my Congressional District is like the 21st-largest in the Nation now. And of course, everybody, you know, in Oregon and other places too, everybody is wanting to move to the 

coast. And so it is absolutely important that we develop some procVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

ess to, you know, be sure that we leave our next generation with 

some of those good qualities of life that we enjoy. 

But tell me how you address an issue. 

Mr. BAILEY. Representative Brown, I appreciate the question. 

The coasts of the U.S.—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Excuse me. Could I ask all the witnesses to come 

closer to their mics? Some are working, and some are not working 

so well. Thank you. 

Mr. BAILEY. Are we on? All right. Is it rolling? 

In Oregon we embed our coastal management program really 

within a statewide system of land-use planning, where all cities 

and counties adopt local land-use plans. And those land-use plans 

are based on a set of state-wide standards to provide for adequate 

housing, you know, economic growth, transportation, protecting agricultural lands, and so on. 

But on the coast, then, we are, about 35 years ago some of the 

principles were developed into law that really require us to set 

back from the ocean shore, that dynamic dune line, the beach erosion. Sands shift and blow over time. So we really rely on local governments to make those land-use decisions. We try to provide them 

as much information as we can. As Dr. Kooser said, the best available science on dune dynamics, how the beaches are moving, what 

we think are the erosion rates, and try to provide them with the 

best technical information on setting back from the bluffs, and so 

on. But the local governments, the cities and counties make that 

land-use decision. 

Now, is that going to be enough for sea-level rise and climate 

change? We are not sure it is. And this is really resetting the clock 

for all of us. 

So one of the things we are very interested in, and one of the 

reasons we are interested in Rep. Capps’ bill, is we are really looking to ramp up our efforts on understanding this very dynamic 

ocean shore. And do we need different tools along that back there, 

or can we simply continue to rely on our current planning and zoning? Are we going to need to buy properties and help homeowners 

and property owners relocate? We are not sure of that yet. But we 

do need to continue to work with that local-level government. 

Mr. BROWN. Are you all engaged in beach renourishment? 

Mr. BAILEY. No, we don’t. We have enough sand moving around 

right now, that so far we are not doing beach renourishment. 

Mr. BROWN. So you are satisfying the ocean rise and the erosion 

by a setback, further setback line? 

Mr. BAILEY. That is correct. That is our strategy for now, and I 

think that is probably the strategy we will pursue. We have been 

talking with a number of local governments, and they are already 

beginning to look at erosion rates along their ocean shore. We just 

had worked with a small city last week that adopted a much tougher ocean erosion safety line along their beachfront, and they did 

that themselves. They went beyond our recommendation, because 

they think it is important. 

Mr. BROWN. So you don’t make any effort to protect the big 

hotels and other properties along the seacoast? 

Mr. BAILEY. The way our program works, Rep. Brown, is that 

when our coastal management program was passed in 1977, and 

34 

enacted into law, the assumption was a property that was developed prior to that date, they are eligible for protection. Riff-raff, 

shorefront seawalls, whatever it takes. We call them tacos, the soft 

taco approach, where you have big fabric structures to protect. 

But after 1977, the assumption was that local governments and 

property owners were on notice that if they built in this environment, they needed to be built back far enough to take into account 

erosion rates, and sort of sand over topping, and—that has been, 

by and large, successful. We have gotten, there is a couple places 

on the coast where it is dramatically different. Pre-1977, those people are ringed with riff-raff. After 1977, they are well back of that 

line, and it has not been a problem. 

But again, as I say, sea level rise is going to recalibrate all of 

our assumptions, I think. 

Mr. BROWN. Madame Chairman, I know my time is gone. I just 

would just leave with one further question. 

Other than dollars, do you think the Federal government should 

have any further reinforcement, I mean enforcement responsibilities? 

Mr. BAILEY. Enforcement? At the current time, the Federal government, at least as far as beachfront protection, they are not involved. It is strictly a state and local decision. And no, I don’t think 

anybody is ready for additional, or for new Federal intervention in 

that process. And I am not sure they want it, either. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member of the committee, 

Mr. Brown. 

And now the Chair recognizes Congresswoman Lois Capps of 

California. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Madame Chair. Before I begin, could I 

inquire that you have such an excellent panel of witnesses, will you 

be having a second round? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. Then I can go as long as I want. I have several 

questions for two witnesses. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. CAPPS. I won’t go as long as I want in this round. I will note 

that I have another chance at it. 

I will start, then, with Mr. Kennedy. I am going to get specifically to an issue in southern California today. 

Earlier this month the California Coastal Commission objected to 

a plan to build a toll road through San Onofre State Beach in San 

Diego County, because it was inconsistent with our state’s coastal 

program. That project sponsor, the Transportation Corridor Agency, has appealed the decision to the Secretary. 

This is the first appeal to the Secretary under the regulations 

adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So my questions are asking you to explain the timeframes on this appeals process, and how 

the Secretary will develop the record to make a decision in this 

particular appeal of the case. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, indeed, this is the first appeal. And basically 

what has happened is there is a limited timeframe now associated 

with this appeal process. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, that is what I want to inquire, the specifics of 

that timeframe. 

35 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. And so that timeframe initially is 250 days. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And we are already, the clock is already on? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the clock is just starting now, yes. Just at 

the receipt of the actual appeal, then the clock starts, and we have 

250 days. 

There is the potential for extensions that would run that out as 

far as 325 days, but that is it. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And that is the absolute maximum? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is the maximum. By then we have to 

have a decision. 

So what happens is, once the appeal is received, we—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Has the appeal been received? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, there has, one has just been received. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, that is what I—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don’t know the exact date, but this month. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Then, basically, a schedule is set to start the process. And the process includes receiving input from all affected parties. They basically have the right to submit testimony, if you will, 

for each of their particular positions. And then, within that timeframe that I just mentioned—and there is a schedule that is all set 

on how this works, works as in getting the materials in and then 

processing and developing the whole event—the Secretary makes a 

final ruling within that timeframe. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And all the parties do understand this, as of right 

now. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe they do, yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. I just have to say that I hope, if you can pass 

the word along, that the Secretary won’t override this objection. Because it goes to the heart of what the CZMA is all about. 

This project, which has been proposed, is inconsistent with the 

objectives and purposes of our CZMA. And one of the core principles, and I am quoting now, of the word ‘‘visioning,’’ of the 

visioning process, was retaining the state’s rights through Federal 

consistency. And this is, as I said, the hallmark of the CZMA. 

Now I will turn to another topic with you, please. A regional governance received an A-minus, and that was actually the highest 

grade, from the Joint Ocean Commission yesterday. And that is 

good. And I want to ask you, how can the next CZMA reauthorization legislation support this kind of partnership, which has been 

complimented, if I may interpret that, to address regional issues? 

How can it compliment, for example, what is happening with the 

West Coast Governors’ Ocean Plans? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I was at the roll-out of the report card, and I 

think the Federal governance got a D. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, that is why I am highlighting the positive. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So I think we would be foolish if we haven’t, and 

we have, looked at some of these regional endeavors. And so I 

would say that we have looked closely. NOAA has been involved in 

many of those regional efforts. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That is right. Can they, is it too much to hope that 

they would be included in the reauthorization, or re-strengthening 

of that? 

36 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think specifically naming them might be too 

much to hope. But certainly as we have thought about reauthorization, a regional component to support what is already out there— 

not to replace, but to support—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right, right. 

Mr. KENNEDY.—and to somehow be able to have built in the idea 

that either direct or funding support be made available to continue 

to sustain and develop those very successful programs, is something we do endorse. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That is good to hear. Thank you very much. And I 

am counting on that second round, Madame Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You will get the second round. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wittman from Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Mr. Bailey, I just wanted to ask you a question to get your perspective on things. In Virginia the CZMA program has been a very 

useful program through the years; it has helped us to protect wetlands. It has funded some of our non-point source protection programs. It has helped us with oyster reefs, and it has helped us in 

a mapping system there. So we see a number of utilities with it. 

We also see some continuing challenges in our coastal areas. Just 

in the Virginia area, we have had a 60 percent population increase 

in our coastal areas, which creates a number of significant challenges. 

And I wanted to get your perspective on how you see this increasing population in our coastal zone affecting natural resources. 

And then, since its last reauthorization, I want to know if you 

believe the CZMA has been able to keep up with these trends, to 

make sure that we are able to offset the impacts of these population increases in our coastal zones. 

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you for the questions, Congressman. To go to 

the second part of your question first, in general, the framework of 

the Coastal Management Act, as we play it out in Oregon, I think 

gives us at least the adequate sort of legal tools and planning processes, and all that stuff, from the ground level up to the state level, 

to do the job. 

What we lack in the middle are the resources to really identify 

the key resources that are at risk. We have communities, as you 

are suggesting, that are building out like crazy. Although, interestingly enough, what we are finding on the Oregon coast is that in 

many communities, the majority of those are second homes and vacation homes. So we are using up a big footprint of ground, and impacting resources, for second homes and retirement, or just simply 

investment. And we are not getting the kind of livable communities 

that we need. 

So when real people, as it were, are looking to develop communities, to live there, to work there, then we are impinging on some 

of the wetlands and the forested areas. 

What we do in Oregon is we require—well, first of all, it is a little bit of an anomaly probably nationally. We have urban growth 

boundaries around even the smallest of the coastal communities. 

And those are projected based on their 20-year assumption about 

population. 

37 

Well, along comes this demand for, really, second-home housing 

that fills up those urban growth boundaries. So when the City of 

Yachats or the City of Newport was doing a population estimate, 

suddenly they are having to expand that urban growth boundary. 

So we have been providing them funding, although not nearly 

enough, to do the inventories of what we call buildable lands. 

Where are the buildable lands? We want to stay out of the wetlands, we want to stay away from steep slopes. We want to be providing efficient sewer and water services, so that we are not leapfrogging out and then relying on septic tanks. 

So the whole buildable lands inventory thing, we need help on 

that. We have the process in place, but we don’t quite have the 

tools to do it. 

So that is really how it works. We are relying on good information, a good process, and then making, at the city council level, that 

tough decision about what is going to get developed, and then what 

is not. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Second question. 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. 

Mr. WITTMAN. You talked a little bit earlier about local land-use 

planning and the link with CZMA activities. Do you believe that 

there is, that there is an effective mechanism within the current 

CZMA to give the tools to localities to make land-use decisions in 

a way that will allow them to consider the impacts of this development in a meaningful sort of way? 

Mr. BAILEY. Again, Congressman, I think it is a question of the 

structure is there. I feel pretty good about that. And I have been 

a local elected official myself, making these decisions. And what 

you need is the information, the ability to really back up the decision you are going to make, because the public is going to demand 

it. At least in Oregon, they don’t tolerate a sloppy decision on land 

use. You have the neighbors coming in, you have interest groups 

coming in. 

So it is really a question of better information, doing a better job 

of identifying the key resources and impacts, and then educating 

and informing the local decision-makers as to the consequences of 

their decision, and the balance they have to make. I think the 

structure is there. We need a reenergized and more, really, resources, as they say, in the system to make it work. 

People want to do the right thing. But as my colleague here said, 

they need better information to do the job. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Wittman. I have a 

couple of questions, and then we will go through a second round. 

So get ready with your questions. 

Mr. Bailey, I want to thank you for your statement. And I would 

like to ask you about the coastal states, and I want to add, and territories, organization. And NOAA’s national stakeholders workshop. 

What was the tenor of these meetings? Were people demanding 

action? 

Mr. BAILEY. Madame Chairwoman, I think it is safe to say that 

in some respects, they were. I mean, nobody had picket signs saying we demand action. But they were enthused, they were conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
38 

cerned. They were happy for, and really thrilled with, the opportunity to weigh in on such an important issue. 

And I think what we heard was, they weren’t there just to take 

up space. They were there because they want action. And I think 

your characterization of it as demand I think is correct. 

In fact, we were amazed that even in what I would consider large 

urban areas, where people sometimes can get disconnected from 

the real world around them, people were there, and passionate. 

So I think your characterization of demand is probably accurate. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good. In the Coastal States Organization’s proposed framework for coastal zone management, you describe the 

need for states to prepare multi-year—states and territories—to 

prepare multi-year strategic plans to address priorities, such as 

protecting and restoring coastal natural resources. 

Have all of the states and territories signed on to this idea? And 

would it be mandatory or voluntary to prepare these multi-year 

strategic plans? 

Mr. BAILEY. I think it is safe to say that all the states and territories agree with the idea that strategic plans are a good idea, and 

that we ought to be doing them. 

Now, the level of mandated outcomes from those is, I think, still 

open to debate. But I don’t think anybody disagrees with the idea 

that we need to know where we are going in five to six years. It 

is often, sometimes we talk about 10 years, but who knows. 

At least in the five- to six-year arc, I think it is safe to say that 

there was no disagreement around the table that strategic planning can help us all be better and more effective in what we do. 

Now, what is within those plans and the degree to which states 

have flexibility to identify their own strategies to meet these objectives, I think that is the key. And that is what we are talking 

about, is that yes, Oregon’s strategic plan will look different from 

California’s, will look different from Guam’s, will look different 

from Maine’s. But we are going to make those strategic plans, we 

are going to make them fit our needs, based on these national priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Mr. BAILEY. You are welcome. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Dr. Kooser, I want to thank you for your statement, especially your insights into the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 

My question to you is, in terms of building capacity among coastal decision makers, can you explain how the reserve’s coastal training program interacts with this, if at all, with NOAA’s Coastal 

Services Center? 

Ms. KOOSER. Yes. I am glad you asked the question, thank you. 

In my longer testimony I, in fact, named a number of our partners, because we not only partner with NOAA’s Coastal Services 

Center, but also with Sea Grant and the coastal programs within 

NOAA, as well as other sections of NOAA that have programs that 

relate to the work that we do. 

And those partnerships are very vital for us, because one question that I am often asked is, why are there different parts of 

NOAA that are doing what may seem to be similar activities, in 

the sense of well, gee, are we really coordinated with each other. 

39 

And I want to emphasize that the amount of work that we need 

to do in order to accomplish that kind of coastal training program 

is so large, we need to engage all of those different parts of NOAA, 

because all of us are contributing a different element of the overall 

program that we need to be able to make happen. 

In other words, there is so much work to be done, we are all 

doing different parts of it. And because we are collaborating in 

partnership with each other, we are actually achieving that synergy that you want to have in effectively using resources, as we 

work on programs together. 

The Coastal Training Program has been one of our biggest success stories, and I feel like the demand for our training programs 

is just growing. And as we continue to deal with the kinds of issues 

that Mr. Bailey and others have described, I think that we are 

going to have even more people wanting to have a workshop that 

helps them figure out oh, what do I need to do about this aspect 

of sea-level rise. 

And so with that, I will ask if I have, if you have any further 

question. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Doctor. All right. We are 

having votes in about five minutes. However, as a Territory Representative, I do not vote on the main legislation; I vote on amendments only. 

But our Ranking Member will have to leave, and he does have 

a couple of questions here. So Mr. Brown, please go forward. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madame Chair. I was interested in, I 

guess, Ms. Kooser, on your assumption about the rise in the ocean. 

And do you have a feel of how fast it is rising, and whether there 

is any deterrent to that acceleration? Or, how do you sense it? Are 

you all tracking over there in San Francisco the rise, and exactly 

how much is rising a year? 

Ms. Kooser. Thank you for your question. And I wanted to say 

that my colleague is here from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and I want to acknowledge the work that they 

have done in San Francisco Bay. Because they have actually developed maps that show anticipated sea-level rise, so that you can 

look at a before, during, and after, so to speak. 

The first picture is how the San Francisco Bay looked in the 

1850s, and then, with development and landfill, how the shape of 

the bay changed as it was filled in. But now that sea level is rising, 

it is not surprising that the waters are anticipated to flow back into 

the areas where they had once been. And so the after picture looks 

surprisingly similar to the original picture. 

And to answer your question about the rate of change, there are 

many different kinds of models that are out there with information 

regarding the factors that would affect sea-level rise. And that is 

a little bit harder to predict, but we have a couple of different variations on that, what that map would look like year by year, based 

on the different models that are in use. 

One thing I want to also add is that there is work now on a Bay 

Area Climate Change Action Plan. And I think that that is one of 

the ways in which we are addressing the anticipated sea-level rise. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is collaborating with 

the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program and the Coastal 

40 

Program, and also the Local Association of Bay Area Governments 

and other agencies like the Air Resources Board, so that we can 

have a program for addressing climate change in the Bay that addresses each of those separate elements. 

And I think that that is very important, because there are many 

different ways in which each person, each locality might be thinking oh, my gosh, what are doing about sea-level rise? But then the 

question becomes, how do we integrate that at a regional level, so 

that we can be more effective in the use of the resources, the financial resources and the people resources that we have to actually address that problem. 

Mr. BROWN. So you feel like that this is a cyclic movement of the 

oceans. I know in South Carolina, for instance, I guess probably 

about at least 80 miles inland one time used to be under the sea. 

I mean, we got evidence of, you know, fossils and marine life, and 

this sort of thing. And so we are not sure exactly whether this cyclical movement will cause it to be impacted that much, and I 

guess that could happen over thousands and millions of years really, rather than just, just a short period of time. 

So I am looking at the pictures now, of your assumption that 

something is going to happen within 100 years, do you think? 

Ms. KOOSER. Yes. That is my, that is my—— 

Mr. BROWN. And so you all are planning now, you are going to 

put seawalls up, or are you just going to let the water come in normal? 

Ms. KOOSER. You have asked a great question, because obviously 

one way of adapting to the sea-level rise is to build seawalls. And 

if you have the maps in front of you, you will notice that the San 

Francisco International Airport and the Oakland International Airport are two obviously important infrastructures that we see anticipate being underwater, because of their location in the Bay. 

Mr. BROWN. Sure, right. 

Ms. KOOSER. And so those are, given the importance of that to 

our economy, it is not surprising that we would be thinking about 

how best to protect those kinds of infrastructure investments, so 

that we can maintain our economy. 

And so I, in my own mind it is like a patchwork. As you move 

around the Bay, you are thinking well, this is where we can build 

seawalls to protect this, and then maybe we will have setbacks 

here. Or maybe this is where development rights will be bought up. 

For example, in the Delta, that is a question right now, because 

there is a lot of pressure for development within the Delta of the 

San Francisco Estuary. And people are anticipating that that is an 

area where there will be a lot of subsidence. And so as the land 

is already subsiding, there are already levee systems developed in 

the Delta, and those are going to be under increased pressure with 

sea-level rise. 

And so that is going to call for a different approach to addressing 

both the need for development and the environmental resource protection. Again drawing on my comments from my colleague here 

from Guam about the balance between the two. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. Well, thank you very much for that insight. 

41 

And Madame, if I could just ask Mr. Kennedy one question. I 

didn’t have a chance to do that yet today. Thank you for being 

here. 

But H.R. 5452 appears to change the existing role of the states 

and the Federal government in the Coastal Management Act as it 

relates to planning for alternative energy activity. 

Under the bill it appears that if states can survey in Federal waters and make the determination about what areas of Federal waters would be off limits to alternative energy facilities, does the Administration support such a role reversal? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think on the surface, to your statement the answer is probably, is no. We don’t support that. 

However, in the discussions that we are having, we believe that 

in thinking through where we are going to go with the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, that there has to be more of a partnership 

in that interface; that we have to make sure that both parties are 

communicating and discussing those types of issues on a much 

more regular basis, with better information shared between them. 

So from that perspective, we certainly support there has to be 

more of a dialogue, and states have to be at the table as we discuss 

what is going to happen off-shore, because of the impact. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. Well, let me tell you, thanks to the panel. 

This has been a great dialogue. And Madame Chair, I appreciate 

you putting it together. And I have to apologize for leaving. I will 

leave Mrs. Capps here. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member. He has to go and 

vote, and he has another appointment. But I will give Mrs. Capps 

the opportunity. She has to also vote, but the committee will continue. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Bailey, you discussed, as you discussed, there is strong momentum to bring new 

off-shore energy sources on line. I want to support that, as you 

know, too. 

But I also want to support development that occurs in a timely 

manner, in the right locations, and fully protects the public’s interests. 

You are the expert, because you are a coastal manager. And I 

want you to tell us now why a bill, the bill I have introduced, 

H.R. 5452, could lead, and hopefully will lead, to responsible offshore renewable energy development. 

I have three other questions, so a brief answer would be great. 

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much. Yes, we are facing this headon in Oregon. We have seven applications in the works right now 

for off-shore wave energy development. 

As you can imagine, these are through the FERC process, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process, where the applicant basically doesn’t have to talk to anybody. They can file an application, and the next day the crabbers, crab fishermen, local communities are saying, holy cow, that is right in the middle of my, 

our valuable crab grounds. 

So actually, we have gotten the attention of the industry, I must 

say. But what we need now is to back up and do some comprehensive planning; to take a look at the current uses, the resources of 

these areas. The sweet spot for wave energy development in OrVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

egon happens to straddle the 50-meter isobath, which in some 

places is half in state waters and half in Federal waters. And on 

either side of those two, it is a different regulatory regime. 

So we have to do some good planning to account for commercial 

fisheries, to protect those; to locate energy development; and to protect the marine wildlife habitats, as well. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Let me ask you an even more specific question. 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Off-Shore Renewable Energy Coalition suggests that 

we encourage states to dedicate specific personnel to off-shore renewables as a way maybe to get, and put that in the legislation. 

Many programs are operating with little funding, and it is happening now. 

What do you think of this? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. CAPPS. Took care of that one. Let me turn to another, the 

other bill that I have introduced, the Climate Bill, which will help 

states develop adaptation plans, which will include several factors. 

Some states have expressed interest in perhaps going further 

than adaptation planning, and wanting to develop themselves reduction or mitigation strategies. Do you think we should allow 

more flexibility in the bill to help accomplish this kind of goal? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Oh, I think we can use all the tools we can get. And 

if a state would like to use some funding to build capacity to do 

that kind of mitigation and reduction strategies, they certainly 

ought to be able to do it. 

Our big—in the Coastal Management Program in Oregon, we are 

going to be working on adaptation. We are not going to be working 

on—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. You are going to. 

Mr. BAILEY.—mitigation and reduction. Except to say that 

throughout the statewide land use program, trying to link land use 

policy to transportation and other ways of reducing the impacts of 

automobiles, for instance, is a way of reduction. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Exactly. 

Mr. BAILEY. But primarily we are interested in adaptation right 

now. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. A final thought that I would like your comment 

on. 

This is what you are talking about, and what I hope we can get 

to, is really preparing for advanced planning. Or it is really kind 

of like pre-disaster mitigation, isn’t it? It is cheaper to do, and I 

think about how you set out so smartly in Oregon to protect your 

coastline right from the beginning. 

This is what we need to do now as we think about renewable energy. It is cheaper to do the planning and prevention, right, than 

to try to fix it after somebody makes an unwise decision. 

Just one final word about, how could the Federal government 

give the right kind of assistance in this area? To the regions, to the 

states. 

Mr. BAILEY. To the states. Two things. One is, obviously some 

additional financial tools and financial resources that we can use 

43 

at the local level to do that kind of assessment. And as you say, 

if a city or a county is going to be building for instance, and there 

is a number of them facing this, new water treatment facilities or 

sewage treatment plants, they are down in that zone of vulnerability. And if they are going to be using Federal money to help leverage their investment, we don’t want them putting it in the 

wrong place. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. You want to make the decisions, but you need 

some assistance to help make the right decision. 

Mr. BAILEY. We do. And we likewise need, then, the ability to 

rope in a number of the other Federal agency programs, not just 

NOAA. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. BAILEY. But the Corps of Engineers, Transportation and others—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. BAILEY.—to help us in these decision making so we are not 

working at cross purposes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That goes right back to my question to the Representative on the road proposed to go through—everybody has to 

be at the table. 

Thank you so much, all of you, for being here today. 

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, and I know she has to run off to vote. But we 

are going to keep this Subcommittee meeting ongoing. I am a Territorial Representative, and we only vote on amendments on the 

Floor. 

All right. I have, my first question here is for Ms. Lujan. 

Ms. Lujan, I agree that monitoring effectiveness of coastal programs through measures and evaluation is important. Do you think 

that the island jurisdiction should be treated differently with regards to performance criteria? 

Ms. LUJAN. I think that it is important that all of us meet national standards, and that we all—in many other programs, performance measures are incorporated. 

Our agency deals with different sections or different varieties of 

Federal programs. And a lot of them are social programs and educational programs. And some of those things are very easy to count. 

The performance measures for them are how many students receive this, or they take a test. It is easy to evaluate that. 

I think on the Guam and other islands, and especially the way 

that our coastal programs are treated, it is very difficult for us to 

obtain some types of performance measures that are, they don’t 

necessarily apply to islands. 

One of them happens to be, for example, on Guam public access 

to beaches. On Guam, in 1971 I think Paul Bordallo and Carlos 

Titan introduced the Seashore Reserve, which set aside 10 meters 

from the mean high-water mark as public property. 

And so we don’t necessarily have access issues. And I think that 

this is the same in many other islands, as well. And some of that, 

in American Samoa for example, the beaches and the coastal, and 

the direct, the waters belong to the communities. 

44 

Some of these things that are very different from other states 

and territories—I mean, other states—they don’t necessarily apply 

to Guam. And so I think there needs to be in place in the performance measures flexibility, and be more adaptive to these island situations. Because if we are going to count how many public access, 

it is all accessible to the public. It is only on Federal properties. 

And I mean, it is very difficult to try to get public access on Federal properties. We don’t have enough funds to have as many lawyers as the Federal government does to have that. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LUJAN. And so I don’t know. If the CZMA program is prepared to give us the funding to do such a thing, I think then we 

should be able to do that. 

But our island won’t grow. I know in Hawaii, their island pretty 

much grows because of the volcano. But it won’t, we cannot see any 

kind of measurement. We already are at the 100 percent of all our 

properties. And so that particular component of the performance 

measure may not apply to Guam, or may not be standardized the 

way that you would do it. 

It would be nice if it is as easy as counting, but it is not. In many 

instances it is not. Certain types of legislation that states have, 

that they are able to enforce, are not necessarily. 

And I think that one of the things that is so critical that we can’t 

measure are the value of the public, and how much that they have 

embraced some of the policies or some of the concepts of allowing 

certain types of development to happen, or certain types of practices to occur that is not necessarily measurable. The aesthetic 

value, the cultural value of a resource. You can’t necessarily pinpoint that in an Excel spreadsheet. 

And so I think not just for territories, I think certain types of 

consideration should be given for jurisdiction in general. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Ms. Lujan, for those very excellent 

comments. 

Mr. Kennedy, I have a few questions before we release the second panel and go into the third panel. 

You recommended in your statement that each coastal state and 

territory’s planning area should be expanded based upon uniform 

national criteria that would include coastal watersheds and the territorial sea. Can you further elaborate, or describe the factors or 

the elements that would make up these national criteria? 

Mr. KENNEDY. As I mentioned, we still are discussing this, and 

there is no finalized plan. But conceptually, we talked a little while 

ago about regional, and how we have seen tremendous success in 

regions getting together to address their common problems. 

And that is somewhat what we are talking about here, in that 

we think that a number of the issues, certainly as we have talked 

to folks in our business around the country, many of the issues 

really transcend a state boundary or an identified state coastal 

zone. They are a watershed issue. And that watershed in many 

cases is bounded by two or three states. 

And so what we are looking at is an attempt to try and embrace 

the issue as it relates to the whole watershed, and not just stop the 

debate and/or the coordination at an individual state boundary. 

45 

And so conceptually, what we are looking to do is try and encourage that broader look at some of the issues. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I have another question. If I understand the Administration’s position, NOAA would 

maintain some level of base funding for coastal state management 

programs; but over time, a larger percentage of funding would be 

awarded competitively. 

Exactly what percent of funding does the Administration intend 

to aware competitively? Do the coastal states support this transition to a competitive process? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We don’t have an exact percent, but again I can 

talk to you a little bit about the concept. 

And that is that we basically have three tiers of funding. And 

one would be kind of a base or maintenance fund, which, quite 

frankly, as we have developed this whole idea, we have said from 

the beginning that the funding that we currently have is not adequate to address the kind of problems that we are asking the 

states, and the states are telling us that they have to address. 

So as I talk about this issue, I must tell you that we would, were 

projecting that the existing funds could not make this whole process work the way that we are describing it. So you would have base 

funds that are roughly maybe what the states currently get to 

maintain their infrastructure. 

Then there is a second tier, which is to help assist in this planning concept that we are talking about. We don’t expect that to be 

done with no new money; there has to be some money to actually 

develop these plans, do the assessments, and get that right. 

And then the third tier is competitive funding. And that, then, 

would be that tier—and again, no percentages—where we are looking at trying to encourage some of these regional discussions, and 

helping with maybe supporting funding more specific proposals to 

look at our priority areas. And that could be done, again, across 

states or by individual states. Put that more on a competitive basis, 

to try and focus some of those issues. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Bailey, what is your perspective on this? 

Mr. BAILEY. Excuse me. I think it is safe to say that CSO definitely supports this approach. We want to maintain core program 

functions. That is going to take some serious money that is not sort 

of open to competition. 

The states’ programs are embedded in law. We have local governments working on this. We need to maintain the core capacity. 

David is right that the next level of strategic planning is going 

to take significant resources, especially the first time out. And we 

want to be able to do that, and have the best possible plan. 

The third level, the competitive funding, I prefer to use a different term than competitive, which often implies winners and losers. I like to think of it, and I think most of the states are thinking 

of this more as proposal-driven funding. What do we intend to do, 

and what are the outcomes to meet these various objectives that 

we have identified in our strategic plan? And those are going to 

take significant more dollars to accomplish if we are going to get 

the job done. 

But in general, we are on the same page as NOAA in terms of 

thinking about the three levels of funding that it is going to take. 

46 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. You know, competitive is 

what drives people, you know. And also, the same competitive 

model, would that be applied to grants awarded to the National Estuarine Research Reserves? Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Bailey? Yes, Dr. 

Kooser. 

Ms. KOOSER. Thank you. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a part of the CZMA, as are the coastal programs. 

And so generally, our funding has had the same types of, the way 

it has been given to us has been similar over time. 

In other words, we have a core amount of money that goes to 

fund our programs. Although I will say that at the present moment, the core amount of funding is not really adequate to address 

all of the needs that the 27 Estuarine Research Reserves presently 

have at the moment, and there are anticipated that we will have 

more reserves coming on line. So I will say that as far as looking 

at the core funding part of it, we would welcome an additional 

amount of resources to just do what we are doing now. 

And then, in keeping with what Mr. Bailey has said, I would say 

that we recognize that to do the kinds of needs assessments that 

you would want to have to compliment what is going on in the 

states, that the reserve program would be able to really be wellpositioned to absolutely support the coastal programs in doing that. 

Because when they are talking about having baseline assessments, 

it is the Estuarine Research Reserves that have been the heart of 

doing research that is going to inform the types of data needs that 

would be part and parcel of those kinds of strategic plans. 

And so I see us as a key partner in actually helping the coastal 

states to do those kinds of strategic assessments. And so we, too, 

would be thinking about participating in that second tier. 

And I agree with, again with Mr. Bailey, about proposal-driven, 

in the sense of if there is more funding available, there are some 

states that have—for example, in California we have three National Estuarine Research Reserves, and we really collaborate very 

well together. And it is quite possible that we would be able as a 

group, for example, to say you know, there is this really excellent 

project that we can take on. And if we had more resources available, we could do that. 

Whereas another state might feel like well, in this particular 

planning year, we are not necessarily able to do that. And so having that kind of flexibility and being able to apply for that kind of 

additional funding would be a welcome resource. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Doctor, if you could give me just a quick answer 

to this. When will the new reserves be designated? 

Ms. KOOSER. The new reserves that I have been referring to is 

Wisconsin, and they are in the designation process now. And I do 

not know the exact anticipated date of their designation. 

The other state is Connecticut, and they are still in the planning 

process. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Doctor. And I would like 

to remind the witnesses that whenever we refer to the states, we 

must add the territories. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. It is very important. And you know, you can get 

into a lot of trouble with legislation here in Congress. If it is not 

47 

specifically stated that the territories are included, then I have to 

do my extra work. 

Ms. KOOSER. Thank you for the reminder. Because in fact, there 

is a National Estuarine Research Reserve in Puerto Rico. So thank 

you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. Mr. Kennedy, I will just wind up this 

panel with a question for you, and I would just like to have a 

straight yes or a no on these questions. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, boy. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Just a yes or a no. Regarding H.R. 5452, for the 

record, the surveys that states and territories would develop for renewable energy would be entirely voluntary. Is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don’t know the answer to that, I am sorry to tell 

you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is all right, you just don’t know. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Really I don’t think I should answer that, because 

I don’t know the answer. 

But I will tell you what. I know this much. For the record, we 

will be happy to get back to you with the answer. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Also, these surveys would only indicate areas for 

renewable energy that would be consistent with a state and territory coastal program. Is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Again, I think I need to get back to you, for the 

record. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. The third one. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, boy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Finally, nothing in H.R. 5452 changes existing 

Federal or state or territory permitting or licensing authorities. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is correct. But again, for the record, 

I want to make sure and confirm that, and get back to you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. OK. Should we give him a report card grade? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bailey, Dr. 

Kooser, and of course Ms. Lujan, for your testimony. You had very, 

very excellent testimonies today. 

Ms. LUJAN. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I would like to call on the last panel, 

the third panel. Who is the third panel? Thank you. 

The third panel includes Dr. Robert Stokes, the Chairman of the 

Board, Restore America’s Estuaries; Mr. Jim Connors, Senior Planner at Maine State Planning Office, Maine Working Waterfront Coalition; and third, Ms. Carolyn Elefant, General Counsel for the 

Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition. 

We will begin, and I hope you are as good as the last panel. Five 

minutes. We do include your full formal statement for the record. 

I recognize Mr. Stokes to testify. And there is a timing light in 

front of you, so if you would be aware of that. And you can begin. 

48 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STOKES, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, 

RESTORE AMERICA’S ESTUARIES 

Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. My name is Robert Stokes, and I am Chairman of the Board of Restore America’s 

Estuaries. I am also the President of the Galveston Bay Foundation, located in Webster, Texas. We are a non-profit bay conservation organization. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss Restore America’s Estuaries comments regarding legislation you are considering to amend 

the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

Restore America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of 11 community-based organizations that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. We join with government agencies, corporations, civic 

organizations, scientists, and local volunteers to conduct restoration projects with real impacts. 

Since its creation, Restore America’s Estuaries and its 11 member organizations have invested more than $28.5 million in local 

restoration projects, restored more than 56,000 acres of estuarine 

habitat, and mobilized more than 250,000 volunteers across the 

country in coastal restoration and education activities. 

Estuaries and other coastal ecosystems are critically important 

across the country, both ecologically and economically. Estuaries 

provide essential habitat for over 75 percent of the nation’s commercial fish catch. They help stabilize shorelines and provide flood 

control, and they provide numerous recreational opportunities. 

While incredibly valuable, estuaries are in a perilous state due 

to an increasing level of stress. Some of the causes of the decline 

in the health and productivity of these systems include wetland 

loss, shoreline armoring, sea-level rise, pollution, invasive species, 

and over-harvesting of resources. 

A growing threat to our nation’s estuaries is climate change. Climate change threats to estuaries include changes in rainfall, temperature, sea level, soil conditions, and especially sea-level rise. 

Restore America’s Estuaries strongly supports reauthorization of 

the Coastal Zone Management Act. We need to modernize and 

bring change to the CZMA by providing new tools to match today’s 

critical needs. We believe these tools can be far more action-oriented, and involve a broader array of non-governmental partnerships than currently exists. 

Restore America’s Estuaries respectfully requests that you consider the following key recommendations. 

To begin with, we have seven key recommendations regarding 

H.R. 5451. The first is straightforward and fundamental. We need 

to provide adequate funding to implement the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

I heard Mr. Bailey earlier refer to the triple whammy faced by 

coastal states as we move forward. We need appropriate funding to 

address this triple whammy. 

Second, we must conduct comprehensive ecological and socioeconomic assessments of our nation’s coastal lands and waters. 

Coastal management decision making needs to be based on the 

best information available. These assessments should be ecosystem-based, comprehensive, and include both ecological and socioeconomic parameters. 

49 

Third, we should establish coastal habitat restoration as a specific national priority. Habitat restoration is a proven and viable 

tool for improving the health of our nation’s estuaries. The inclusion of coastal habitat restoration as a national priority in the 

Coastal Zone Management Act will help provide a link between 

aligning national and state-level restoration planning. 

Coastal habitat restoration should be included as a new Congressional finding and statement of policy. 

Fourth, we need to develop state habitat restoration strategies. 

Having long-term habitat restoration strategies with specific goals 

and objectives is crucial for proper planning and prioritizing. 

Fifth, we must make additional efforts to preserve critical coastal 

lands and waters. The Coastal Zone Management Act should authorize the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, 

known as CELCP, to secure the long-term protection of lands that 

have significant conservation, recreation, historic, economic, and 

aesthetic values. 

But we also recommend that as lands are given priority 

rankings, those that can be restored to effectively enhance ecological function should be given priority. 

Sixth, we should give non-governmental organizations a meaningful role in planning and implementing restoration strategies. 

Non-governmental organizations have proven to be essential as 

convening bodies that can reach out and bridge government, private sector, and scientific community interests to collaboratively 

develop and implement habitat restoration strategies. 

Our seventh suggestion would be to strengthen the Federal role 

in coastal management. The CZMA establishes and promotes a 

NOAA-state partnership. We need improvements at the Federal 

level to coordinate and collaborate between Federal agencies involved in coastal management, and between Federal, state, and 

local entities. This includes clarifying roles of the different Federal 

agencies working on coastal issues. We strongly encourage you to 

empower NOAA to lead these efforts. 

We have three, excuse me, quick comments on H.R. 5453. First, 

habitat restoration should be an integral part in our efforts to combat climate change. Healthy estuaries help counter climate change 

by capturing carbon from the atmosphere. Scientists have found 

that tidal salt marshes are particularly effective in helping to 

counter climate change. We recommend tidal salt marsh restoration as an important strategy to capture and hold carbon from the 

air. 

Second, a new CZMA must address climate change by providing 

assistance to coastal states to develop plans and implement 

projects to adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

And then third, we should explicitly include coastal habitat restoration as an eligible activity for coastal adaptation project grants. 

Madame Chairwoman, I have additional comments in my written 

testimony, and I will leave it at that. And I will be glad to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stokes follows:] 

50 

Statement of Robert Stokes, Chairman of the Board, 

Restore America’s Estuaries, and President, Galveston Bay Foundation 

Good morning Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am 

Robert Stokes, Chairman of Restore America’s Estuaries Board of Directors. I am 

also the President of the Galveston Bay Foundation, which is located in Galveston 

Bay, Texas. The mission of the Galveston Bay Foundation is to preserve, protect, 

and enhance the natural resources of the Galveston Bay estuarine system and its 

tributaries. I am pleased to be here today to discuss Restore America’s Estuaries’ 

comments regarding the legislation you are considering to amend the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA). 

Before I present our recommendations, I would like to provide you with a little 

background about Restore America’s Estuaries and discuss several issues of interest 

to our organization. 

Restore America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of 11 community-based organizations that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our mission is to preserve the nation’s network of estuaries by protecting and restoring the lands and 

waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. Restore America’s Estuaries has been working since 1995 to restore our nation’s greatest estuaries and 

bring them back to life. We join with government agencies, corporations, civic organizations, scientists and local volunteers to conduct restoration projects with real 

impacts. We seek to achieve a return of abundant fisheries, strong local economies, 

and shorelines that are resilient to storms and flooding. 

Restore America’s Estuaries is results-oriented. Since its creation, Restore America’s Estuaries and its 11 member organizations have: 

• INVESTED more than $28.5 million in local restoration projects; 

• BUILT more than 300 oyster reefs and planted over 2.6 million oysters; 

• RESTORED more than 56,000 acres of estuarine habitat; 

• MOBILIZED more than 250,000 volunteers, including more than 80,000 young 

people in coastal restoration and education activities each year; and 

• CONVENED the largest biennial national gathering for the coastal restoration 

community. Our next National Restoration Conference will be in Providence, 

Rhode Island, October 11-15 of this year. We expect over 1,200 restoration professionals from across the country to participate. 

All this is done through partnerships and community involvement. My own organization, the Galveston Bay Foundation, typically hosts as many as 25-30 habitat 

restoration events each year, some with as few as a handful of Boy Scouts, or as 

many as 300 citizens and local business employees. Our annual signature restoration event is called Marsh Mania, a nationally recognized, community-based wetlands restoration and education event of the Galveston Bay area. The goal of Marsh 

Mania is to involve local citizens in hands-on wetlands restoration activities while 

increasing their awareness and appreciation of wetland habitats and functions. The 

first Marsh Mania was held in 1999, that year known as ‘‘Marsh Bash.’’ This oneday event set a national record when 1,500 volunteers planted nearly 70,000 stems 

of smooth cordgrass to create 14.5 acres of new habitat at eight sites around the 

bay. In the nine years since it began, Marsh Mania has involved more than 4,700 

community volunteers in the restoration of 107 acres of vital wetlands at 41 coastal 

sites around Galveston Bay. 

At the national level, Restore America’s Estuaries has been a leader in bringing 

all sectors of the restoration community together to advance the knowledge, science, 

policies, and best practices in coastal and estuarine habitat restoration. Restore 

America’s Estuaries engaged in a 2-year initiative to create a multi-sector consensus 

document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat, which 

outlines the objectives and methods for reaching the goal of restoring one million 

acres of our nation’s coastal and estuarine habitats. In a previous effort, we worked 

closely with the Estuarine Research Federation to build a consensus framework for 

habitat restoration through a collaborative process between scientists and field practitioners to define scientifically sound and technically feasible principles of estuarine 

habitat restoration. These principles are delineated in the publication, Principles of 

Estuarine Habitat Restoration. 

Importance of Estuaries 

Estuaries are where fresh water rivers meet the salty sea in shallow protected 

bays. Native American Indians called these beautiful places ‘‘Between-Land’’, not 

quite land and not quite water. Estuaries and other coastal ecosystems are critically 

important to keeping the U.S. competitive, through their roles as centers of population growth, commerce, military activity, recreation, and ecosystem services (e.g., 

providing natural resources and shoreline protection). Many of the estuarine reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
51 

sources such as salt marshes, flats, and beaches are also important because they 

help stabilize shorelines and provide flood control. 

In my home state of Texas, the coastal wetlands of our estuaries serve as nursery 

grounds for over 95 percent of the recreational and commercial fish species found 

in the Gulf of Mexico, and provide breeding, nesting, and feeding grounds for more 

than a third of all threatened and endangered animal species as well as supporting 

many endangered plant species, and provide permanent and seasonal habitat for a 

great variety of wildlife, including 75 percent of North America’s bird species. Coastal wetlands also serve important functions ranging from reducing waterborne pollutants to providing natural buffers against flooding and erosion. Texas coastal wetlands are also extremely important economically. In Galveston Bay alone, the recreational and commercial fishing industries combined are valued at over $3 billion 

annually, and support over 40,000 jobs in the area. 

Threats to Estuaries 

Estuaries and their associated natural resources and important ecosystem services are in a perilous state due to an increasing level of stress. In addition to physical impacts (e.g., wetland loss, shoreline armoring, and sea-level rise) to these ecosystems, nutrient and other chemical pollution (e.g., pharmaceuticals and personal 

care products), invasive species, and over-harvesting of resources are major causes 

of declines in the productivity and health of these systems. 

Along the Gulf coast habitat is still being lost, and in the estuary I know best, 

Galveston Bay, we’ve experience a significant loss of wetlands over the last 50 

years. Between the 1950s and the 1990s, the Galveston Bay system experienced a 

net loss of nearly 35,000 acres of its wetlands, due to a variety of human and natural causes. Recent research indicates that wetland loss is continuing at rapid rates. 

Because of this loss, habitat degradation has been identified as the most critical of 

all the problems currently facing Galveston Bay. Although we have had many successes, the losses are great and they continue. These losses have dire consequences 

for our environment, our economy, our way of life, and our health. 

Estuaries around the country have also lost varying degrees of habitat and biological function. For example, 70 percent of the eel grass beds and 50 percent of the 

salt marshes around Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island have been lost due to 

human activity, and the Raritan Bay area in lower New York Harbor has lost over 

80 percent of its original wetlands. In New Jersey, only a mere 2 percent of the historic native oyster populations have survived after suffering from disease, over-harvesting, and habitat destruction. In the Chesapeake Bay over 16 million bushels of 

oysters were harvested in the early 1900’s, but the harvest has collapsed to only 

45,000 bushels in 2006. In Long Island Sound more than 40 percent of the original 

wetlands are gone. The story continues on the west coast as well. San Francisco Bay 

has lost 95 percent of its original marshland. 

A growing threat to our nation’s estuaries is climate change. 

Climate change—caused by human greenhouse gas emissions—threatens the 

health of our nation’s estuaries, the fish, and wildlife, as well as the surrounding 

communities. The impacts of climate change will exacerbate the already increasing 

stresses on our sensitive coastal resources. Estuary wildlife and the habitat they depend on are threatened by changes in rainfall, temperature, sea level, soil conditions 

and air pollution. For example, altered rain and snowfall patterns throughout the 

U.S. will affect the volume and timing of fresh water flowing into our estuaries, consequently changing salinity and sediment conditions, which will impact sensitive 

habitats and species. While no one knows how precipitation patterns might be altered, changing fresh water flows would affect the distribution and abundance of 

some shellfish such oysters, as well as rare species, that depend on high salinity 

salt marsh habitats. 

Sea level rise is of particular concern. As sea level rises, the frequency and duration of coastal flooding and inundation will increase, severely impacting sensitive 

coastal resources and adjacent properties. For example, in San Francisco Bay, sea 

level rose about seven inches over the last century at the Golden Gate, and the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2006 California Climate Action Team project it could rise another two to three feet by 2100, which could cause 

coastal flooding of Bay wetlands and shoreline cities. 

Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

Support for the management and stewardship of our keystone coastal ecosystems 

that bridge land and sea has never been more important due to the accelerating 

pace of environmental change now occurring. While environmental degradation of 

the coastal area has continued in recent years, the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) has been a valuable tool to policy makers and environmental managers in 

52 

balancing human activities with environmental health to help reduce the rate of 

degradation. Establishment of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

through the CZMA has been particularly successful in setting aside valuable estuarine areas for long-term protection and supporting science-based coastal management through long-term research, monitoring, education, and stewardship. 

But having said that, it has been almost forty years since the CZMA was first 

passed, and we desperately need to modernize and bring change to the CZMA by 

providing new tools to match today’s critical needs. We also believe these tools can 

be far more action-oriented and involve a broader array of nongovernmental partnerships. I encourage you and the Members of this Subcommittee to think broadly, 

and boldly, as you consider reauthorization of the CZMA. 

Our recommendation on the proposed legislation to amend the CZMA fall into 

three broad areas: 1) reauthorization of the CZMA is essential; 2) coastal habitat 

restoration is a viable tool to restore the health of estuaries and should be recognized as a national priority; and 3) nongovernmental organizations have the capacity to leverage state and Federal programs. Restore America’s Estuaries respectfully 

request that you consider the following key recommendations. 

H.R. 5451—Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008 

Provide adequate funding to implement the CZMA. 

As population and development pressure along the nation’s coasts continues to 

rise, increased funding will be required to fully address the complex problems facing 

the coastal zone. It is crucial that Congress provide stable and adequate funding to 

implement the programs authorized under the CZMA to better address growing 

challenges to our nation’s estuaries and coasts. 

Conduct comprehensive ecological and socioeconomic assessments of our nation’s 

coastal lands and waters. 

Coastal management decision making needs to be based on the best information 

available. Hundreds of decisions are made every day throughout our nation’s coastal 

zone that affects the health and sustainability of estuaries. Yet, in most cases, little 

is known about the estuarine resources involved, how they might be impacted, or 

how they are changing over time. Restore America’s Estuaries believes it is absolutely critical that a comprehensive baseline condition of our nation’s estuaries be 

established as soon as possible. These assessments should be ecosystem based, comprehensive, and include both ecological and socioeconomic parameters. Ecological 

parameters should include: habitat types and extent, condition of those habitats, 

causes and rates of habitat decline, services being provided by the habitat, and opportunities for habitat restoration within the ecosystem. Socioeconomic parameters 

should include human use indicators (i.e., fishing licenses, boat launchings, beach 

use, etc.), land uses, population migration rates, etc. It is also essential that these 

comprehensive assessments build on existing data and information. Much research 

and data collection has been done to determine the state of our coasts, and this information should be fully utilized in developing comprehensive assessments in order 

to achieve fast progress toward accomplishing the goals set forth by a new CZMA. 

Establish coastal habitat restoration as a specific national priority. 

Habitat restoration is a proven and viable tool for improving the health of our nation’s estuaries. It is time for coastal management to recognize and embrace this 

tool on equal footing as our efforts to preserve and protect critical habitats. Habitat 

restoration was set forth as a national priority through the Estuary Restoration Act. 

We believe that the inclusion of coastal habitat restoration as a national priority 

in the CZMA will help provide a link between aligning national- and state-level restoration planning. Coastal habitat restoration should be included as a new Congressional Finding and Statement of Policy that highlights the need for adaptation to 

sea level rise and the important role of habitat restoration to reduce global warming 

from greenhouse gases. 

Develop state habitat restoration strategies. 

Having long-term habitat restoration strategies with specific goals and objectives 

is crucial for proper planning and prioritizing. In 2002, Restore America’s Estuaries 

released a multi-sector consensus document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal 

and Estuarine Habitat, which outlines the objectives and methods for developing 

comprehensive restoration plans. A copy of that document has been provided to you. 

Developing state restoration strategies that can be incorporated into broader comprehensive coastal management strategic plans provides planners and practitioners 

with a framework for comprehensive and inclusive planning to identify restoration 

needs and opportunities down to the estuary level. The development of these strateVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
53 

gies should take into account other water resource requirements such as the Clean 

Water Act, Total Maximum Daily Loads analysis to help establish restoration needs 

and priorities. Currently, through the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 

Program, states develop plans to address their priorities for land acquisition, and 

a similar focus on restoration planning should be undertaken by states. Sound 

science must be an essential component of the planning process and implementation 

of the strategies. 

Preserve critical coastal lands and waters now and into the future. 

The CZMA should authorize the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP), within NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 

to secure the long-term protection of lands that have significant conservation, recreation, historic, economic, and aesthetic values to the residents of coastal communities. Protection of critical coastal and estuarine areas provides numerous public 

benefits by improving water quality, increasing access to shoreline areas, conserving 

wildlife habitat, and sustaining recreational and commercial fisheries. 

We recommend that as lands are given priority rankings, those that can be restored to effectively enhance ecological function be given priority. While land conservation and protection is absolutely critical to maintain water quality and ecosystem functions, restoring a property will improve water quality and ecosystem 

functions. Many nongovernmental organizations have played an active role in this 

program and are poised to continue to provide support for land conservation. As 

Congress considers authorization of CELCP, we recommend that you allow land 

owned by nongovernmental organizations to be used as non-federal match. We also 

support having costs associated with habitat restoration of a property be eligible to 

be used as non-federal match. 

Give nongovernmental organizations a meaningful role in planning and implementing restoration strategies. 

Nongovernmental organizations have proven to be essential as convening bodies 

that can reach out and bridge government, private sector, and scientific community 

interests to collaboratively develop and implement habitat restoration strategies. 

Restore America’s Estuaries has demonstrated the ability to facilitate action. Mobilizing this power across our country’s coastal areas in a concerted way would provide additional support to Federal and state agencies in their efforts to restore the 

health of our estuaries. One way to recognize and strengthen the nongovernmental 

role in coastal habitat restoration is to provide the explicit authority to establish cooperative agreements between NOAA and nongovernmental organizations to carry 

out the purposes of the CZMA. 

Strengthen the Federal role in coastal management. 

The CZMA establishes and promotes a NOAA/state partnership. To date this partnership has worked with the states assuming, and appropriately so, most of the responsibility for the planning and implementation of their coastal plans. But this 

partnership equation is no longer sufficient to make progress against many stressors 

affecting the coastal zone. We need improvements in coordination and collaboration 

between Federal agencies involved in coastal management and between Federal, 

state, and local entities. This includes clarifying roles of the different Federal agencies working on coastal issues. Essentially, we need an effective network of communication that operates vertically and horizontally and provides for efficient information exchange that gives state and local entities the tools and information necessary 

to address local challenges. It is time for NOAA to step up and lead efforts to provide integrated and coordinated support to the states for research, monitoring, 

science translation, education, training, capacity building for local officials, and technology. We strongly encourage you empower NOAA to lead these efforts. 

H.R. 5453—Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008 

Habitat restoration creates healthy estuaries to combat climate change. 

Healthy estuaries help counter climate change by capturing carbon from of the 

atmosphere and providing natural flood protection. Scientists have found that tidal 

salt marshes are particularly effective in helping to counter climate change, and recommend tidal salt marsh restoration as an important strategy to capture and hold 

carbon from the air. According to scientists, every acre of restored, healthy salt 

marsh captures and converts at least 870 kilograms of carbon dioxide into plant material annually—equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions from driving 2,280 

miles. Restored tidal salt marshes also provide natural flood control and may reduce 

the need to build seawalls to protect developed shoreline areas against sea level 

rise. 

54 

Address climate change through adaptation planning. 

A new CZMA must address climate change by providing assistance to coastal 

states to develop plans and implement projects to adapt to the impacts of climate 

change. H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act provides a good 

start to developing an adaptation planning framework. We suggest that coastal 

state adaptation plans take into account disaster response and recovery programs 

to make sure that rebuilding is done in a way that reflects our need to adapt to 

climate change. Plans should consider relocation of infrastructure and people out of 

hazardous areas as a recovery response, and use these relocation strategies to facilitate habitat restoration since many of these locations were originally wetlands and 

vegetated buffers that provided for healthy environmental quality. Recognizing the 

key role that healthy estuarine habitat plays in combating climate change through 

carbon sequestration, we encourage Congress to specifically include development of 

strategies for habitat restoration to mitigate climate change as part of the adaptation plans. 

Explicitly include coastal habitat restoration as an eligible activity for Coastal 

Adaptation Project Grants 

Habitat restoration needs to be part of the solution to combating climate change. 

We strongly support the inclusion of habitat restoration as an eligible activity for 

the coastal adaptation project grants. H.R. 5453 does include several restoration-related activities that are eligible for the adaptation project grants, such as activities 

to address the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat; however, we 

recommend the explicit inclusion of habitat restoration as an eligible activity. With 

the strong track record and accomplishments of nongovernmental organizations in 

implementing habitat restoration projects, we recommend that these organizations 

also be eligible for funding in addition to state agencies. 

H.R. 3223—Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 

Restore America’s Estuaries recognizes the need to ensure coastal access and 

water-dependent coastal-related business. We particularly endorse the ability of 

nonprofit organizations to qualify to receive working waterfront grants to assist 

state or local governments and/or hold title to or interest in property. This clearly 

recognizes the new and demonstrated role that nonprofit organizations can play to 

help local coastal communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Your entire statement will be entered into the 

record. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. 

Mr. STOKES. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And now, as Chair, I recognize Mr. Connors. You 

may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JIM CONNORS, SENIOR PLANNER, MAINE 

STATE PLANNING OFFICE, MAINE WORKING WATERFRONT 

COALITION 

Mr. CONNORS. Thank you very much, Chairman Bordallo. I welcome the opportunity to come to Washington to get out of my house 

doorway, which has two feet of snow at the moment sitting there. 

So this is a welcome relief, actually. It might feel cold to you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. A better solution would be go to Guam. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNORS. I would love to do that. I usually go to South 

Carolina, but your co-chair is not here to appreciate that. 

I am here this morning representing the Maine Working Waterfront Coalition. This is a broad-based coalition of fishing industry 

associations, non-profit organizations, state agencies, and individuals dedicated to supporting and enhancing Maine’s working waterfronts through policy, planning, investment, and education. 

55 

We are here to testify on H.R. 3223, which we strongly support. 

We feel that this bill, and we compliment Rep. Allen and Capps for 

entering this bill, would have three significant impacts in the discussion about CZMA. 

First, it would recognize the importance of the issues related to 

the loss and decline of working access to the coastal areas, and 

bring attention to the problem in a formal program element. 

Second, the bill would establish working access as a priority to 

CZMA, in addition to existing ports and harvest programs and public access programs. 

And third, the bill creates, would create a program with funding 

and access to NOAA programs and tools that can augment and 

support state-level efforts to preserve working waterfronts. 

And mostly what I hope I can accomplish here today is to portray 

the experience we are having in Maine with an active working waterfront protection program. 

The committee asked, my testimony includes some additional research-based information, where we have surveyed local communities about access needs and losses. And that is reported in the 

testimony, so I won’t recite that here. 

I did want to emphasize that, as Rep. Allen indicated and the bill 

indicates, the genesis of the problem is the shift of population to 

the coastal zone, competing demands for a limited resource, economic pressures on traditional water-access-oriented businesses, 

particularly commercial fishing, but also other waterfront enterprises, such as mariners, boat yards, and other businesses that 

have to be on the water to conduct their enterprise. And that the 

focus of the Maine’s work so far has really been at the issue of commercial access to the coast. 

So you asked, the committee asked, in the invitation letter, for 

us to comment on three or four elements of the bill. One was on 

the scope of the bill. And the point I wanted to make here is that 

it is important, I think, for the committee and Congress to keep in 

mind that we are talking about commercial working access when 

we are talking about working waterfronts. And when time allows, 

we would like to be able to explain a little more clearly what we 

mean, what public access really means in that particular kind of 

setting. 

Second, the committee asked for comments on the state plan requirements, and the coalition does support a planning function. But 

I think it would like to see a planning function that models or supports the program being implemented at the state level. The coalition did have some reservations about the comprehensiveness of 

the planning requirement that is in the bill at the moment. That 

does seem like a lot of work, and it could actually be an impediment to getting a program up and running. So I think some refinement on what the planning requirements might be would be useful. 

Third, in the arena of comments on the application process on 

H.R. 3223, we just reinforced the interest in it being a responsive 

bill. Rep. Allen mentioned the fact that the bill needed to be able 

to turn around fairly quickly to help provide support in a complimentary way to existing state programs. We think that is very 

important. And we hope that the program could be responsive in 

that instance. Which might be difficult for aa government competiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
56 

tive grants-type program, but we do want to just sensitize the committee’s awareness of that particular issue. 

And then finally, on CZMA, as I have already alluded to, we feel 

that this program is really lacking in the current pantheon of 

NOAA programs, and this really needs to be added into that array 

of opportunities. It would be a very valuable addition to CZMA programs. 

So I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connors follows:] 

Statement of Jim Connors, representing the 

Maine Working Waterfront Coalition 

Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the House Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. My name is Jim Connors. I am representing the 

Maine Working Waterfront Coalition today to provide testimony on H.R. 3223, Keep 

Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007. 

The Working Waterfront Coalition (WWC) is a coast-wide group of fishing industry associations, nonprofit organizations, state agencies, and individuals dedicated 

to supporting and enhancing Maine’s working waterfronts through policy, planning, 

investment, and education. 

Over the past few years the Coalition has worked closely with political leadership 

in the Legislature and the Governor’s Office, as well as the fishing industry to create new tools and programs aimed at protecting and securing working access to the 

tidal waters. The Coalition has been successful in helping to envision and create an 

active working waterfront protection program, using public bond funds approved by 

the voters of Maine. 

Section 320, (a) Findings and Purpose: 

The Problems confronting working waterfronts is well summarized in the Findings and Purpose section of the bill. To support these findings we offer the following 

research based information. 

In 2001, The Maine State Planning Office engaged the services of Coastal Enterprises Inc. to conduct a survey of 25 coastal fishing communities that are representative of the array of commercial fishing centers found along the coast from Kittery 

to Eastport. The purposes of this study were to (1) document the status of working 

waterfronts and the present and future threats of change or loss, (2) to identify municipal responses and technical needs for dealing with problems, and (3) to make 

recommendations regarding the best ways of monitoring changes and trends in the 

future. The study was conducted by interviewing knowledgeable people in each selected community in order to better understand the status of their working waterfronts, and how the towns are handling changes confronting their commercial fisheries. 

A summary of major findings follows: 

The loss of commercial fishing access takes many forms, which adds to the complexity of tracking change and formulating effective public policy. A number of types 

of loss are identified: 

1. Loss of access to inter-tidal areas due to posting of private lands, and new land 

owners closing off/contesting established public access ways, traditionally used 

by clam and worm diggers; 

2. Loss of tenuous lease or use arrangements with other private pier and wharf 

owners; 

3. Conflict and competition for use of public facilities, especially those with limited parking and equipment storage space; 

4. Conversion of working wharves to residential/recreational or other commercial 

use. 

Threats to established commercial access facilities and sites are real, persistent, 

and pervasive. The surveyed communities identified a list of problems: 

1. Intense development pressure to use waterfront lands and facilities for noncommercial fishing/water dependent uses; 

2. As fishing families sell waterfront facilities, access use moves to town/public 

piers, which increases use pressure on these facilities; 

3. The use of public wharves must balance and serve both commercial and recreational use, which can lead to conflicts; 

4. Limited parking areas, combined with increased tourism use, can intensify potential conflicts; 

57 

5. In some areas with heavy recreational boating use there are limited moorings 

available; 

6. Boats are getting bigger (both commercial and recreational), which requires 

more berthing and mooring space; 

7. Increased cost for coastal towns for legal challenges over access rights; 

8. Sales of higher value property triggers re-valuation, leading to higher taxes; 

9. Municipal and private wharves have costly infrastructure and upkeep; and resulting challenge to keep them economically self-sustaining; 

10. Towns and individual fishermen cannot afford inflated market price for waterfront property. 

There is strong support and concern for protecting commercial fishing access. 64% 

of the 25 towns surveyed indicated that commercial fishing access is a problem now, 

and 80% of the towns surveyed are planning to address this issue. 

Commercial fishing access is provided through publicly owned facilities, privately 

owned commercial piers and through arrangements with other privately owned 

wharves. 25% of access usage is at publicly owned facilities, and 75% at privately 

owned facilities. Of the usage of privately owned facilities, 35% occurs at commercial 

business facilities, and 40% at other privately owned wharves. 

(Taken from A Review of the Effectiveness of the Maine Coastal Plan in Meeting 

the State’s Public Access and Working Waterfront Policy Goals. 2002) 

In 2007 in preparation for the National Symposium on Working Waterways and 

Waterfronts the National Sea Grant Network conducted a coastal zone-wide survey 

to characterize the scope of coastal access issues and the effects on coastal communities. In a report entitled Access to the Waterfront, issues and Solutions Across the 

Nation they highlighted three issues: 

• Concerns over the loss of access for commercial fishermen 

• Problems with conflicts over recreational access 

• Shrinking access for the public 

The report goes on to discuss three important conclusions: 

1. The tools and solutions to address and resolve access loss and conflicts will 

need to be localized; 

2. Given the wide spread nature of the problems, there is a need for national 

strategies to support local efforts; 

3. Although there are many tools being used, there are more innovative solutions 

yet to be identified and developed. 

Scope of the Bill 

The Committee has asked for Comments on the scope of the bill. We offer comments on three important elements of the bill: 

1. Keeping an emphasis on working access for commercial fishing and other water 

dependent uses and businesses; 

2. Differentiating between commercial facilitated access vs general public access; 

and 

3. Comments on the definition of working waterfront. 

We recognize that the problem of maintaining working access to the coast varies 

from state to state and includes issues related to the loss of recreational boating access, particularly in areas experiencing re-development into condominiums and 

dockaminiums. We think that a national program has to cover the needs of commercial fishing and those water dependent business that serve the recreational and 

boating needs of the public at large, such as marinas and boatyards. 

The Maine WWC is specifically concerned about the plight of commercial fishermen, who must have adequate working access to conduct their fishing operations. 

Fishermen are in a unique position in which they sell their catch into markets with 

set prices that they cannot influence. At the same time they face all of the cost associated with harvesting and landing the catch. They are caught between set market 

based prices and their production costs. They do not have the opportunity to push 

costs forward through to the consumers (such as a fee for business might) so they 

get pinched by rising costs such as increasing property values and taxes that have 

to be absorbed in the narrow gap between production costs and market price. It’s 

no wonder that fishermen are being squeezed off the waterfront. 

We think that the program should be focused on commercial water dependent 

uses that need to be on the waterfront to successfully conduct their businesses. This 

is not to say that certain assurances of ‘‘public access’’ cannot be incorporated into 

the outcomes of the grant program. But the issue of public access in general, at 

publically owned sites, is and has been a fundamental part of CZMA that should 

continue to be a coastal program priority but separate from a working waterfront 

program. The emphasis in this bill should be on ‘‘commercial’’ working access. That 

is, assuring that access is secure for businesses that require access to tidal waters. 

58 

We think that the public access requirement should be removed as an element of 

this working waterfront program, but certainly retained as a key element of CZMA, 

otherwise it is a deal killer! H.R. 3223 provides an opportunity to recognize the importance of dealing with the problems being faced by fishermen and other water 

dependent businesses by creating a program that fills an existing gap in CZM 

programs between public access programs and major port and harbor development 

programs. 

Definition of Working Waterfront—Members of the Maine WWC participated in 

a Working Waterways & Waterfronts Symposium Conference held in Norfolk, VA 

5/8,9,10,11/07. The concept of working waterfront was a unifying concept, but we 

learned that people have differing views of what makes up a water dependent use 

based on their particular local access issues and needs. In a wrap-up planning session the participants described working waterfront in terms ranging from commercial fisheries activities through marinas, boatyards, commercial sports fishing services, ferry services, tourist oriented nature cruising, to heavy industrial uses. A common theme of working waterfront is ‘‘commercial’’ access for water dependent businesses. For the marine industries the water access may be for recreational leisure 

time pursuits, but for those waterfront companies they are a business serving the 

public at large for a fee. Which in a way is part of the supply of public access which 

is facilitated by the business enterprise. I want to be clear that this bill is aimed 

at addressing the water access needs of businesses that need physical access to the 

water. 

One small point, in the Definitions section, aquaculture needs to be added to the 

definition of the term ‘‘working waterfront’’, to be consistent with the use of this 

term in the body of the bill. 

State Plan Requirement 

The Committee has asked for comments on enhancements to requirements for the 

development of a state plan. 

In general, the WWC supports a planning function that positions the state to deliver a good and efficient program. But it needs to be a plan that is practical and 

useful, more of a functional ‘‘program’’ plan rather than a ‘‘comprehensive’’ water 

access plan. We are concerned that preparing (and updating) a big, expensive, comprehensive access plan as a requirement for participating in the grant program will 

be a major impediment to coastal states that could otherwise put the program to 

good use. We agree that state Coastal Programs should be doing this type of planning, but it creates a major hurdle to implementing the grants program. 

As written, the current bill is asking for more planning work than is really needed 

to guide a Federal Program at the state level. We would ask the committee to consider the difference between a plan to guide the operation of a program and a plan 

that is a comprehensive analysis of the coast and access needs. A good example of 

a program participation is provided by the current Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation Program, which is administered by NOAA. 

The Maine Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program offers an example of a program that is competitive, guided by a set of project selection criteria, and responsive 

to opportunities to work with fishing businesses, property owners, municipalities, 

and willing sellers as the opportunities arise. More information can be found at the 

program website: www.wwapp.org 

Comments on the application process 

The Committee has asked for comments on the application process. The WWC offers comment on five elements of the application and granting process; 

Responsiveness to immediate opportunities 

State responsibilities, capacities, assurances, and process 

Non-profit organization as a qualified holder 

Creation of a Working Waterfront Covenant 

Violation of a Working Waterfront Covenant 

The WWC recognizes that NOAA has a long, well established record for running 

competitive grant programs, which the Committee should value and take full advantage off. As written, however, the WWC has several suggestions for your consideration regarding the application and granting process: 

Responsiveness to immediate opportunities—The bill as written correctly implies 

that there is a need to be responsive as opportunities arise or a need for action is 

paramount. We know that there is a difficult balancing act between administering 

a competitive grants program and the responsiveness needed to proceed in a timely 

manor when a critically important opportunity arises. The responsiveness (or lack 

thereof) of a government funding program is an issue for the WWC and other working waterfront advocates when they see the need to move quickly to take advantage 

59 

of an opportunity. We have found that working waterfront projects must be fairly 

patient when dealing with government programs (usually for good reasons related 

to due diligence and program capacities), but still we ask the committee to consider 

carefully how the program can be operated to be responsive to crisis situations. 

State responsibilities, capacities, assurances, and process—The grant program, as 

envisioned, would be run in cooperation with the appropriate state Coastal Program, 

or other state, regional, or other unit of government. It is up to the coastal state 

to figure out how to run a working waterfront program. The state retains the responsibility to assure the grant funds are used as proposed, make certain certification of matching funds, hold the working waterfront Covenant (or designated 

holder) and enforcement responsibilities (including policing qualified holders). In 

Maine, and a few other states, compatible working waterfront programs exist which 

could assume and exercise these responsibilities, but in other coastal states creating 

and implementing a working waterfront program will be a relatively greater challenge. 

Non-profit organization as a qualified holder—the bill provides that a state may 

designate a non-profit organization (such as a land trust or working waterfront heritage trust) as a qualified holder of a property or an interest in a property. Recognizing and authorizing this role for a non-profit non-governmental entity is a significant step for Congress. Certainly in Maine and across the country, duly incorporated 

501,c land trusts are playing a vital role in conserving the nations resources. In one 

Maine working waterfront project the holder (owner) of the protected property is a 

new nonprofit foundation dedicated to the continued operation of the property as 

working waterfront. So the model exist and a track record for nonprofits is established, the WWC feels that a nonprofit fishing heritage trust has a role to play in 

the future as the experience with these programs unfolds. 

Working Waterfront Covenant—The bill calls for the use of a working waterfront 

covenant as a means to gain permanent protection of the subject property. This is 

a relatively new mechanism for holding property interests with its roots in conservation easements and affordable housing covenants. The Maine Legislature has enacted statutory language to guide the purpose and scope of a working waterfront 

covenant. A model covenant has been created by the Land for Maine’s Future Program, and specific covenants are currently being prepared for six working waterfront projects. The first one was consummated last week and a second is due to close 

on March 12th. 

Violation of the Covenant—this section needs further work, guided by consideration of due process, legal practice, and enforcement experience with Conservation 

easements. Reference to the Maine model covenant would be useful. 

CZMA 

The committee asked for views of how the CZMA might be amended, in general, 

to better attain the goal of preserving working waterfronts and marine-dependent 

uses and the public’s access to them. 

The WWC is not in a good position to comment on the re-authorization of the 

CZMA. We understand that many good minds have been hard at work on this task. 

The WWC does feel that a working waterfront program has a place in the CZMA 

and state coastal programs. Various members of the WWC have a long, successful, 

and productive working partnership with the State’s Coastal Management Program 

and we would not want to see that change. 

The program envisioned in H.R. 3223 seems like a natural fit with the purposes 

and goals of the CZMA. A working waterfront program would be an additional tool 

to help the state achieve its objectives. A working waterfront program element in 

the CZMA, with funding support would send a strong message to state programs 

about the importance of these issues. 

In summary 

We think that H.R. 3223 has three significant impacts: 

First it recognizes the importance of the issues and brings attention to the 

problem; 

Second, the bill establishes working access as a priority in the CZMA (in addition 

to ports and harbor programs, and public access programs); 

And third, the bill creates a program with funding and access to other NOAA programs and tools that can augment and support state level efforts to preserve working waterfronts. 

The Maine Working Waterfront Coalition is pleased to be able to help craft this 

important program and stands ready to continue to assist as its experience and expertise allows. 

60 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Connors, for your 

careful consideration of H.R. 3223. 

And finally, I would like to invite Ms. Elefant to present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OFCAROLYN ELEFANT, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

OCEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COALITION 

Ms. ELEFANT. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. As you said, my 

name is Carolyn Elefant, and I am legislative and regulatory counsel to the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, or OREC. Our organization is dedicated to the commercial, to advancing and promoting commercialization of marine renewables in the United 

States, which include off-shore wind, wave, tidal, and current. 

OREC is grateful to the committee for inviting us and giving us 

this opportunity to testify, specifically on H.R. 5452. We support 

the bill’s goals of streamlining the marine renewables licensing 

process, and most importantly channeling funding to the states, 

states and territories, so that they can evaluate proposed projects 

more efficiently, while still carrying out their responsibilities under 

the CZMA. 

However, OREC believes that many of the goals of streamlining 

marine renewables are better carried out through giving funding 

for data collection and creating designated marine renewable personnel, rather than through the proposed zoning concept contained 

in H.R. 5452. 

Now, as this legislation recognizes, regulatory delay and uncertainty has been a major impediment to developing our marine renewable resources in the United States. And there is one thing I 

do want to be clear about. When people hear about regulatory 

delay, they assume it is because industry is not being cooperative. 

And what I want to point out is, the obstacles in this case isn’t 

because of intransigence on the part of our developers; rather, because of their commitment to comply with the litany of Federal, 

state, and local regulations. 

Our companies have devoted significant resources to complying 

with environmental regulations; and in fact, the cost of compliance 

comprises 30 percent to 60 percent of some of the prototype and 

demonstration projects currently under development. 

So it is for that reason that we really applaud the goals behind 

H.R. 5452 to try to streamline the process and move ahead. 

We believe that funding coastal states to survey the elements 

outlined in Section 2[b] of the legislation will help developers more 

readily identify suitable sites, and cut down on the need for them 

to gather information and try to figure out what they need to do 

to comply with the statute. And most importantly, the data will 

allow coastal states, and also territories, to fulfill their responsibilities under the CZMA mandate more efficiently, and with more 

confidence in their decisions. 

However, OREC doesn’t support the concept of zoning, at least 

at this time. And one reason is just because the industry is so nascent. Right now there is not a single commercial off-shore renewable project in the United States, and for that reason it is important that any streamlining process remains, allow for maximum 

flexibility. 

61 

There are other problems that we have with the zoning concept. 

For example, while we are confident that states would implement 

it responsibly, an unfortunate reality is sometimes zoning is vulnerable to politicization. And also, a zoning process, especially one 

that would rightly involve multiple agencies and stakeholders, can 

be very time-consuming and create delay at a time when the industry is really picking up some momentum. 

So this is our preferred approach. We do like the idea of funding 

studies for the elements outlined in the legislation. We would like 

to see states have the ability to study, to survey all of these different criteria, and to make that information available within their 

agency to other agencies that are partners in the process, and most 

importantly to developers. 

We are confident that if developers have information about a sensitive environmental area, or about an area that might be optimal 

for development, that they will take that information into account 

when they make their development decisions. And that, in turn, 

will help expedite the process. 

We also support the idea of funding designated marine renewable 

energy personnel within state agencies. That is something that is 

very important, because it helps to build a body of institutional 

knowledge within the agency. And those experts can help guide our 

developers, and they can work as part of a partnership. 

Ultimately, we do view the state coastal agencies as partners in 

the development of marine renewable resources. And with wellstaffed, well-informed, and well-funded agencies that can provide 

data on the environment, transmission infrastructure, and other 

elements, states and developers can work together and make informed decisions about marine renewable energy projects. And it is 

for that reason that we support the goals of H.R. 5452, if not the 

precise mechanism for carrying those out. 

Like my colleagues on the panel, I am also happy to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Elefant follows:] 

Statement of Carolyn Elefant, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel, 

Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC) 

My name is Carolyn Elefant and I am legislative and regulatory counsel to the 

Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC). OREC is the national trade association 

for the marine renewables energy industry in the United States with a mission of 

promoting the commercialization of marine renewable technologies such as offshore 

wind, wave, tidal and current. Founded in April 2005 with three members, OREC 

now represents forty companies, including marine renewables developers within the 

United States, Canada and Europe, environmental consultants, law firms, engineering firms, investor owned and municipal utilities and investment bankers. OREC 

members share the common goal of helping our nation build a domestic marine renewables industry to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, diversify our energy 

supply and develop an important source of emission free energy. 

OREC is grateful to the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

for extending an invitation to our organization to participate in these hearings and 

specifically, to offer testimony on The Honorable Congresswoman Capps’ bill, 

H.R. 5452, the Coastal States Renewable Energy Promotion Act. 

We support the legislation’s goals of streamlining the marine renewables licensing 

process and most importantly, channeling funding to the states so that they can 

evaluate proposed marine renewable projects more efficiently while still carrying out 

their mandate of ensuring responsible and orderly development in coastal zone 

areas. However, OREC believes that these goals are better achieved through funding for data collection and creation of a designated marine renewables expert posiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
62 

1These elements include surveys of the hydrographic, bathymetric and seismic characteristics 

of an area, environmental characteristics, other marine uses and availability of infrastructure 

and transmission to support renewable energy development. 

tion within state agencies rather than the zoning concept described in the legislation. 

My testimony is organized in three parts. First, I will describe the present regulatory impediments to marine renewables development. Second, I will discuss some 

of the problems inherent in the zoning concept and explain why this mechanism is 

not appropriate, at least right now while the marine renewables industry is in a 

nascent stage. Third, I will offer alternative suggestions for directing funding to 

states in a way that will help them carry out their statutory mandate under the 

CZMA and also help developers identify suitable project sites. 

Part I: Regulatory Delays and the Impact on the Industry 

To date, regulatory delay and uncertainty poses one of the primary impediments 

to the emergence of the marine renewables industry. Let me be clear—regulation 

poses an obstacle not because our member companies seek to evade regulation, but 

rather, because they are absolutely committed to ‘‘doing development right.’’ OREC’s 

member companies have devoted considerable financial resources to complying with 

the litany of applicable federal, state and local laws and taking into account the interest of multiple stakeholders who use our nation’s coastal waters. But complying 

with so many agencies proves costly—our present statistics show that permitting 

costs can account for as much as 30 to 60 percent of the total project cost, which 

is a deterrent to private investment. 

The length and uncertainty of the regulatory process also deters private investment. Thus far, companies like Verdant Power or Finavera have spent more than 

seven years in an effort to obtain authorization to install 6 turbines or four buoys. 

Part of the lag comes from state agencies—not because they oppose development, 

but simply because they lack the resources and staff to evaluate these projects. The 

burden then shifts to developers to gather sufficient information—which can also 

prove time consuming and expensive. And there is no guarantee of when or if an 

authorization for the project will issue. OREC is aware of several instances where 

this regulatory delay and uncertainty has killed private financing arrangements, 

which is a huge blow to the entire marine renewables industry. 

Part II: The Proposed Legislation’s Goals 

OREC applauds H.R. 5452 for recognizing the critical importance of expeditiously 

developing marine renewables and the need to streamline the regulatory process. 

We believe that funding coastal states to survey the elements outlined in Section 

2(b) of the legislation 1 will help developers more readily identify suitable sites, 

thereby cutting down the need for costly information gathering studies. Most importantly, this data will allow coastal states to fulfill their responsibilities in issuing 

certifications under the CZMA certification more efficiently and confidently. 

However, OREC does not support the concept of zoning—at least at this time, 

when the marine renewables industry is new and so much remains unknown about 

siting, operation and the environmental effects of projects. Quite simply, a zoning 

process locks the industry in a place at a time, when flexibility is paramount because technologies are still evolving. 

For example, a zoning process might block off an area which at present, lacks 

transmission access or may appear to have inadequate power potential. But a few 

years forward, a new technology may emerge that is capable of efficiently capturing 

the power resource or transmission access may improve. Alternatively, a zoning 

process may block an area deemed environmentally sensitive. However, a technology 

might later emerge that could prove compatible with the environmental characteristics of the area. 

By freezing conditions in place, zoning also arguably deters the emergence of more 

benign technologies. If certain areas are permanently off limits, developers have no 

incentive to innovate and come up with designs that might even have the affect of 

improving a sensitive area. Many of OREC’s members have, over time, improved or 

changed the design of their projects to respond to environmental considerations, 

which represents a positive development. 

Moreover, while OREC is confident that states would responsibly implement a 

zoning process, the unfortunate reality is that sometimes, the zoning process is vulnerable to politicization. Stakeholders intent on preventing any renewable development offshore might attempt to unduly influence the zoning process. Though we 

stress that we do not anticipate this type of mischief, past experiences suggest that 

it is a possibility. 

63 

Finally, a zoning process—particularly one that involves multiple agencies and 

stakeholders—can take time. OREC is concerned that development of projects would 

be put on hold pending completion of zoning. Any delay at this time will stop the 

marine renewables industry and quite likely, send many member companies overseas in search of greener pastures, or more aptly ‘‘bluer waters’’ that will allow for 

expeditious siting, testing and development of projects. 

III. OREC’s Preferred Approach 

As we have emphasized throughout, we commend the intent of H.R. 5452 and its 

recognition that states need funding so that they can evaluate the effects, and eventually realize the benefits of marine renewables development in coastal waters. We 

believe that the legislation will work more effectively in the following manner. 

First, states should be given funding to study all of the elements listed in Section 

2(b)(1)-(7). States would then make this data available both in-house, to resource 

agency staff and to developers. Developers could use this data to make informed decisions about where to site a project. For example, where a data survey shows baseline information about an area used by migratory mammals, a developer could 

choose to do the following: (1) it could decide to avoid the site entirely or (2) it could 

site a project there, but realize that it would need to evaluate potential effects and 

devise mitigation. A rational developer would recognize that option 2 poses more 

risk than option 1, but a developer might determine that the risk is worthwhile if 

for example, the resource offers substantial power potential or convenience to transmission. Because marine technology companies still bear the full cost of developing 

this new technology that will benefit our entire nation, ultimately, they are best 

suited to make the final decision about siting. 

Second, OREC would also like to encourage states to designate specific personnel 

dedicated to marine renewables development. The legislation might consider suggesting this option. A dedicated marine renewables office within each state coastal 

planning office will help build a body of institutional knowledge that will expedite 

certification decisions and give states more confidence in the decisions that they 

make. 

IV. Conclusion 

OREC views the state coastal agencies as partners in the development of marine 

renewables resources. Well staffed, well informed and well funded state agencies 

that can provide data on the environment and infrastructure allows both states and 

developers to work together and make informed decisions about marine renewable 

energy projects in an expeditious manner. For that reason, OREC supports the goals 

of H.R. 5452. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Ms. Elefant, for your testimony before the committee. And I do have some questions. And I 

understand Congresswoman Capps will be returning to the committee; she has some questions, as well. 

But I will begin with Mr. Stokes. I want to thank you for your 

support of the reauthorization of the CZMA. 

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to conduct a comprehensive ecological and socioeconomic assessment of our nation’s 

coastal lands and waters? 

Mr. STOKES. I don’t have a specific idea. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do you have a ballpark figure? 

Mr. STOKES. It would be difficult for me to even give a ballpark 

figure. I could go back and think about it a little bit, but I know 

we are talking, we are talking about investing some dollars to ensure that our future actions are appropriate. 

You know, in the State of Texas we have elements of some of this 

stuff going on already. So it is not like we would be recreating the 

wheel. But we need more collaboration. We have a lot of very good 

research entities, academic entities that are doing some type of this 

research already. Either, you know, using Coastal Management 

Program grants, or other sources of funding. 

64 

It may not be as expensive as what you would think, because it 

may simply be coordinating a lot of what is going on out there. But 

again, I don’t have a specific dollar figure for you, and I apologize. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Could you provide this when you—— 

Mr. STOKES. I would be glad to go back and see if we could put 

something together—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. To the committee? 

Mr. STOKES.—and bring it back to you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And similarly, do you have a sense 

of what it would cost to develop state habitat restoration strategies 

for all 34 coastal states and territories? 

Mr. STOKES. Again, I am hesitant to put a dollar figure on that. 

But I mean, again, we have elements of this already in place. 

For instance, my organization, the Galveston Bay Foundation. 

We have something called the Habitat Conservation Blueprint that 

we put together about 10 years ago, that talks about literally over 

170 different places around Galveston Bay that could benefit from 

a restoration project. 

You know, we haven’t taken the step of prioritizing necessarily 

all 170 of those places. But again, I think it is taking advantage 

of some of the existing information that is in the community, and 

really taking it a step further. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Again, the committee would like to have the figures once you have them. 

Mr. STOKES. OK. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I understand from the committee here that the 

territories are defined in the CZMA. So I am resting a lot easier 

up here. 

Mr. STOKES. Good, good. 

Ms. BORDALLO. The third question I have, does Restore America’s 

Estuaries support H.R. 1907, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act? 

Mr. STOKES. Yes, absolutely. We are supportive of bringing the 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act within the Coastal Zone 

Management Act, because we think protecting land is a comprehensive part of coastal stewardship. 

However, if, for other reasons, it needs to be a stand-alone bill, 

we are very supportive of the program in general. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And I have a couple of questions for 

Mr. Connors. I want to thank you also for your testimony before 

the committee. 

You mentioned that public access is a fundamental part of the 

CZMA, and should continue on as a priority, but separately from 

a working waterfront program. 

Should access that is appropriate not be facilitated by this grant 

program? 

Mr. CONNORS. Well, thank you for the opportunity to address 

that distinction. 

I think that the coastal zone programs through CZMA have had 

very active and high-level priority activities around public access. 

So when we use that term public access, we mean for all sorts of 

uses: view sheds, physical access to the shore, access across into 

the water for recreational pursuits, and that sort of thing. 

65 

And the distinction we were trying to draw here is to say that 

working access is really related to commercial enterprise, those 

businesses that are operating on the waterfront and need to have 

that space and that opportunity to get back and forth from the 

water to carry out their activities. 

Some of those enterprises serve the general public in the sense 

that they are open for business, at a fee, such as a marina or a 

boat yard. And so in one sense you could think of them as providing a form of facilitated public access. That is, as part of their 

business enterprise. But they have to be there to carry out that enterprise. That type of public access could be distinguished from the 

kind of public access that we often operate looking for as a public 

arena, as a publicly owned boat ramp, a public park, a facility or 

an area that is open to the general public to come and to go. So 

we are just trying to draw that distinction, that when we are talking about working waterfronts, we are really talking about businesses conducting their business. 

I left a little room in the testimony to be able to say that it is 

not unreasonable to consider that in a government granting program, that you couldn’t somehow continue to assure that that facilitated public access, at a reasonable fee to the general public, 

couldn’t be guaranteed as part of a business operation. I don’t know 

exactly how that might work out, and it might not be acceptable 

to some business operators. But you could conceive of a marina operator, for example, that could designate part of the property for 

a general access to the public, and another part of the property 

more dedicated to specific services, and so forth, for its customers. 

So that is the distinction I am trying to draw. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Connors. 

A member from California, my colleague, Lois Capps, has just returned. And she does have some questions of the panel. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you all for your testimony. Ms. Elefant, I 

want to start with you if I could, please. 

You state that zoning could lock in, your words, the renewable 

energy industry when flexibility is needed. How would the identification of areas found suitable for renewable energy development 

lock in industry? 

Ms. ELEFANT. Well, right now the industry is in a very nascent 

phase. As I point out in my testimony just before the committee, 

there are no commercial renewable, off-shore marine renewable 

projects in the U.S., either wind, wave, or tidal, right at this time. 

And in fact, the only project that is in place is a commercial-size 

project in the East River comprised of six units. So that is all we 

have so far. 

The industry is still learning a lot about what works and which 

spots are appropriate. And what might appear, look appropriate 

today, based on some of the technologies we have, may turn out to 

be less than optimal at some future point. 

Now, we certainly do not foreclose the possibility that at some 

point, as these technologies reach commercial stage, that zoning 

might be appropriate. We are just concerned at this time, when we 

don’t know enough about the technologies. And also where a lot of 

the projects that are being proposed, at least with wave and tidal 

66 

and current, at least thus far, and probably for the next five to 10 

years, are going to be small-scale demonstration projects. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Just to push it a little further. When 

you say that zoning may block transmission access, would you support surveys of off-shore areas that are updated regularly? In other 

words, kind of keep up with as the technology develops, and as the 

industries figure out what they want to do? 

Ms. ELEFANT. Right. Well, certainly for something like transmission, which is prone to change, and also where there is information available about planning. I mean, that would be something 

that would be easy to update the surveys for. 

Again, you know, certainly having regular updates would be an 

improvement; but at the same time, we still would have some concerns about putting in zones, even with updated—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. For example, can I give an example? 

Ms. ELEFANT. Sure. 

Mrs. CAPPS. If this was, if the update was sort of scheduled for 

every five years, would that account for changes in technology and 

electricity delivery? For example, that might—is that a good time, 

or too little, or too long? 

Ms. ELEFANT. Probably at this stage, it really is too long. One of 

the arguments we have made to MMS, which is doing sort of fiveto seven-year planning, is it really should be more frequent. 

But the other thing is, again, until we can start getting at least 

a little bit of operational experience with some of these projects, we 

don’t really known entirely what to look for in the zoning process. 

And obvious things to avoid, you know, like a nesting area for endangered species. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right, right. 

Ms. ELEFANT. I mean, certainly having data. And when I say 

that, you know, it states gather data, our developers will take that 

into account. They are not going to site a project on a nesting area 

for endangered species because no investor is going to finance 

something like that. And the technology is risky enough, you know, 

having this type of backlash is just going to, you know, it will sort 

of, the market will regulate the decisions at that point. 

Mrs. CAPPS. One final question for you. You mentioned that 

states and other stakeholders might influence the development of 

the zoning process, which would prevent projects from advancing. 

On the contrary, we have heard from stakeholders and states 

that it would be more helpful to do this under statutory directives. 

In other words, CZMA, they want that partnership to facilitate renewable energy, rather than an ad hoc approach currently underway. 

You don’t agree with this, right? And why? 

Ms. ELEFANT. Well, I guess, as I said, we don’t agree with it 

right at this time, just because we would like to see some flexibility. 

We also have some concerns about having a planning process at 

a time when there is no technology in place. Our industry, back in 

the 1970s, actually there was ocean thermal energy conversion legislation. It put into place a whole comprehensive scheme for licensing and permitting. And it turned out nothing was ever built. The 

technology wasn’t ready, the scheme was too comprehensive. 

67 

Mrs. CAPPS. I have got you. 

Ms. ELEFANT. And so we just have concerns that a lot of resources are going to be devoted to zoning and planning at this 

time, when really what we need to see is get some technologies in 

the water, and see really will they work; and if they work, what 

their potential is, if they are economically feasible at this time. 

Mrs. CAPPS. You have made your point well. Thank you. 

Ms. ELEFANT. OK, yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I have one more question, and I might run over 

time. If I could ask, approach Mr. Connors now. 

There is a race to the coastline going on right now. We have 

heard from Mr. Bailey that such advance planning of the kind I 

have been asking Ms. Elefant about would reduce future consistency conflicts, and lead to better projects that protect the environment and grow the industry. 

Now, public access is a focal point of the CZMA, and it is recognized prominently in my bill, or in the bill H.R. 3223. But you suggest removing that requirement as an element of the Working Waterfront Program. The shortage of access to the water impacts 

broad segments of the population, not just those directly tied to the 

water for its livelihood. We heard this from our first, very first witness. 

How can we enhance public access and commercial working access through existing and some new grant programs? 

Mr. CONNORS. Thank you for asking that question. I would like 

to say again that we suggested that that particular section of the 

bill that directly specified public access be provided at these particular kinds of places, where the business enterprise wouldn’t be 

suitable, or just wasn’t physically, perhaps, possible. 

I also do public access planning and work for our coastal program. And we have in place a number of programs that would be 

considered part of what you heard was core programs. And certainly every state I think has a public access program for all of the 

purposes. Those certainly need to be retained, and I think that 

what we offered in the testimony was that that is an important element of CZMA that needs to be retained and supported where necessary. 

We certainly need to make sure that the public, the various 

publics, are getting access to the water. 

I think the coalition’s concern here was that there was a danger 

perhaps of trying to do too much in this one program; and that by 

keeping it more focused on commercial problems, and that we still 

would have other programs available to use, would be appropriate. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. I was offered the opportunity to go further, which I would love to do, but I am going to thank our Chairwoman for allowing me this indulgence of going over time. 

Thank you. And thank you all. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank my colleague, Mrs. Capps, from California. 

I have just a couple of more questions before we wrap up this 

Subcommittee hearing. 

To Mr. Connors, can you speak further to the balance between 

administering a competitive grants program and a need to proceed 

in a timely manner when a critically important opportunity arises? 

68 

Are you asking for some type of emergency grant authority? Or 

what would trigger the use of such an authority? 

Mr. CONNORS. Well, what is underlying that point is the fact that 

the opportunity to work with a, in our case commercial fishing 

business, really is driven by the willing seller at a fair market 

value. And those provisions, by the way, are good provisions. 

And what happens is that you have to have a project that is fairly patient, in the sense that it can wait for the dollars to make it 

through the process. So, and probably what underlies a process of 

grant-making, to make it as quick as possible, it was adequate capacity in the program manager’s hands to get the paperwork done, 

because there is a process of due diligence that has to be undertaken. But basically, program capacity. 

NOAA has a long track record of providing competitive grants. 

And we all participate in that process. And I really don’t know the 

precise mechanism for an emergency. You could have a hold-back 

of a certain percentage of grant, you know, of appropriated funds 

for emergency. But emergency is always a little difficult to define, 

so I am not going to push too far on that. I just want to make sure 

that the committee is sensitive to the fact that these projects do 

have a quick turn-around time sometimes, perhaps a little quicker 

even than a land conservation project, because you have business 

owners trying to turn the property over, and you have people trying to buy it, and you can hold them up. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good, thank you. Mr. Stokes, I have one 

question for you, as well. 

In your statement you said that a way to strengthen the non-governmental role in coastal habitat restoration is to provide the explicit authority to establish cooperative agreements between NOAA 

and the non-governmental operations. 

Is this authority not already provided to NOAA under Section 

310 of the CZMA? And do you mean for this authority to be more 

specific to environmental restoration activities? 

Mr. STOKES. I think there are elements of the authority there. 

I think we have partnerships with NOAA, and we felt like it would 

just be more helpful to explicitly have that listed, and certainly as 

it applies to restoration activities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So you do want to be more specific, is that what 

I am hearing here? 

Mr. STOKES. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. Well, again, I want to thank Mr. Stokes, Mr. 

Connors, and Ms. Elefant—is that the way—— 

Ms. ELEFANT. Elefant, that is right. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Elefant. 

Ms. ELEFANT. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. For your testimonies this morning. And thank 

you for your patience in waiting for the third panel to be seated. 

But we appreciate all your input. 

Also, to the members of the Subcommittee, if any of you may 

have—they are not here right now, but I am sure their committees 

will pass the word—if any of them have additional questions for 

our witnesses, we will ask you to respond to those in writing. And 

the hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these responses. 

69 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the 

Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and 

our witnesses this morning. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[A letter submitted for the record by Frank Blum, Executive 

Director, South Carolina Seafood Alliance, follows:] 


40957.001.eps
70 

[A letter submitted for the record by Hugh Cowperthwaite, 

Fisheries Project Director, Coastal Enterprises Inc., follows:] 


40957.002.eps
71 

[A statement submitted for the record by Michael P. De Luca, on 

behalf of the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, 

follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Michael P. De Luca, on behalf of the 

National Estuarine Research Reserve Association 

Introduction 

Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of H.R. 5451, the Coastal Zone Management Act 

Reauthorization Amendments, and related coastal amendments. My name is Mike 

De Luca and I serve as the Legislative Director for the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve Association (NERRA). I also manage the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve and serve as the Senior Associate Director of the Institute 

of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University. With the broad expertise in 

working waterfronts, climate change, and coastal renewable energy represented by 

the other witnesses today, my comments will focus primarily on H.R. 5451. I will 

emphasize the importance of regional approaches to coastal management, the need 

to capitalize on emerging ocean technologies for coastal applications, and the importance of broadening efforts to build capacity among the coastal management community and engage the public in stewardship of our coasts. 

Appended to my testimony is a draft NERRS subtitle for consideration in the 

CZMA developed by NERRA. The draft aims to codify core programs established 

since the last reauthorization of the CZMA, establishes a regional role for the 

NERRS to leverage the capabilities of protected area networks on behalf of regional 

coastal and estuarine conservation issues, and seeks support for technologies for research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities. I respectfully request that this Appendix and my complete written statement be included as 

part of the written record. 

National Estuarine Research Reserve Association 

NERRA is dedicated to science-based management of our nation’s estuaries and 

coastal systems, and serves as the primary advocate for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), a network of 27 (soon to be 29) regionally-based 

programs representing diverse estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the 

U.S. and its territories. Through a state-federal partnership codified in the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, the reserves play a critical role in national efforts to sustain 

healthy estuaries and coastal communities. NERRA strongly supports amendments 

to the CZMA that enable coastal states and communities to protect coastal resources 

in the face of a rapidly shifting environment and new demands for renewable energy 

resources. 

Comments on CZMA Reauthorization Amendments 

Much has changed since the CZMA was last authorized in 1996. Devastating 

storms, natural disasters, declining natural resources, booming population growth 

along the coast and changing climate have altered the pace and scope of environVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:40 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\40957.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

40957.003.eps
72 

mental change. This has led to alteration and loss of coastal resources, and degraded water and habitat quality throughout much of the nation’s coastal zone. The 

rapid pace and scale of change demands regional approaches to coastal conservation, 

use of innovative technology, broad efforts to build capacity among coastal decisionmakers, and heightened public awareness to engage citizens in active stewardship 

of our coasts. Collectively, these actions can help to reduce the vulnerability of 

coastal resources and communities to unwanted change, but will require substantive 

resources. 

Regional Approaches to Coastal Conservation 

The broad national mandates that constitute the CZMA are administered through 

state-based programs. Many successful coastal management strategies, tools, and 

programs have resulted from past support. Successes, as well as some failures, are 

shared through a variety of information and learning networks. Today, an increasingly broad suite of regional environmental issues transcend state boundaries and 

bear on coastal ecosystem health, and the quality of life and economic vitality of 

coastal communities. These include sediment and water contamination, fishery management, nutrient enrichment, declines in natural resources, habitat loss, beach erosion, and harmful algal blooms. 

A myriad of government, academic and private agencies and institutions deliver 

coastal programs and services at many scales. Two excellent regional mechanisms 

have emerged to coordinate coastal activities in the Gulf of Mexico and on the West 

Coast—the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and the Western Governors Association. Although relatively new, these organizations show promise as regional conveners and 

a means to leverage resources on behalf of regional coastal issues. Long-term support will be required to stabilize these organizations and to foster similar approaches in other coastal regions. 

Broader regional networks also are in place that coastal managers can capitalize 

on to align technical capacity with regional needs. One example is the Regional Associations created to implement the integrated ocean observing system. User needs 

and management priorities vary from region to region and the Regional Associations 

are presently engaging a broad representation of industries, government at all levels, academic institutions, and the public. Broader representation from the coastal 

management community is needed in the leadership of these and other regional 

structures to focus capacity on regional coastal issues. 

It should also be noted that the NERRS have expressed strong interest in leading 

efforts to leverage the capabilities of protected area networks to address regional 

coastal and estuarine conservation issues. Capabilities that could benefit these networks include mapping and characterization of marine and coastal protected areas, 

engagement of citizens in stewardship of marine and coastal protected areas, and 

building capacity of coastal managers to conserve, manage and protect coastal and 

estuarine ecosystems. 

Innovative Technology 

Advances in undersea research and technology have enabled us to enter a new 

era in oceanography—that of the well-sampled ocean. New samplers, sensors, autonomous vehicles and ocean observatories now allow us to sample the ocean at time 

and space scales never before achieved. Technology development, including development of samplers and sensors for the emerging network of ocean observing systems, 

represents an opportunity for the coastal management community. Emerging technologies such as coastal ocean observing platforms and autonomous undersea vehicles have begun to provide timely information on coastal processes. When complete, 

this system will enable integration of real-time physical and biological data from 

chemical, optical, and acoustic sensors, satellites, undersea robots, and a high-frequency radar system for synoptic measurement of surface currents. Real time data 

from arrays of sensors and forecast models will be used to mitigate the effects of 

flooding and erosion from hurricanes, tsunamis, and other severe storms. The 

sources, fates, and effects of pollutants will be better understood using better means 

of tracking sediments and pollutants in the ocean. High resolution surveys of ocean 

habitat using autonomous underwater vehicles, and use of the observing system will 

advance tracking and sampling of fish populations. The maritime, coastal recreation, and power industries require accurate forecasts to maintain efficient and reliable operations. All coastal stakeholders will benefit from better observations of our 

coastal ocean surroundings. 

As a result of observing system technology, efforts are under way to develop a predictive capability to enable resource managers and coastal decision makers to use 

science-based decisions to address management issues. The success of these efforts 

will benefit from expansion of the estuarine components of the observing system 

73 

(e.g., NERRS System wide Monitoring Program), provision of technical assistance to 

develop coastal information products in response to management needs (e.g., scale 

up of the NERRS Coastal Training Program), and use of regional networks to bring 

the capacity of the science and technical community to bear on the needs of the 

coastal management community. 

To date, technology development efforts at NOAA have been driven by operational 

research needs in the ocean and Great Lakes, and the undersea research needs of 

the academic community. This has led to development of an impressive inventory 

of undersea assets and capabilities in response to scientific demand. A mechanism 

is required to harness this capacity on behalf of pressing coastal issues. One approach is to align the capabilities of the National Undersea Research Program with 

the information needs of coastal managers. This can be accomplished in a number 

of ways, but certainly could benefit by inclusion in the CZMA. 

Build Capacity Among Coastal Decision-makers 

One of the most significant challenges in managing the nation’s coasts today is 

the need to link science-based information to local coastal communities. Decisions 

made by coastal communities can have profound, long-term consequences for estuarine and coastal environments. Issues such as nonpoint source pollution, stormwater 

management, fisheries management, habitat loss and alteration, and shoreline management are the subject of constant debate by the public, the media, and coastal 

decision-makers. A common feature of these debates is the need for better information and training about the coastal environment. Elected officials, land use planners, 

regulatory personnel, coastal managers, and agricultural and fisheries interests are 

key decision makers who often do not have adequate access to relevant sciencebased information, training, or available technology to make informed decisions affecting the coast. Building on past success with services for coastal decision-makers 

(such as workshops on global climate change or the transfer of management-oriented research to coastal decision-makers in many states using an interactive format via the Internet), the NERRS has developed a Coastal Training Program (CTP) 

to meet this need. 

The CTP enhances existing NERRS training delivery systems to provide the best 

available science-based information, tools, and techniques to individuals and groups 

that are making important decisions about resources in coastal watersheds, estuaries, and nearshore waters. Programs have taken the form of workshops, seminars, 

distance learning, technology applications and demonstrations. Opportunities for information exchange and skill training are expanding coastal management networks 

and collaboration across sectors, and improving local understanding of the environmental, social, and economic consequences of human activity in the coastal zone. 

These programs also make use of field experiences, relevant research and monitoring, and facilities provided by the site-based reserves. 

The CTP was designed to increase the current capacity of Reserves to deliver 

technical training services to under-served constituent groups. Reserve staff continues to work closely with State coastal programs and others to identify critical 

issues in the region and key coastal decision-makers that could benefit most from 

relevant science and training. Participants in CTP have included state and local 

elected and appointed officials, agency staff, volunteer boards, members of NGOs, 

business organizations, and state and regional professional associations whose daily 

decisions impact coastal resources. 

Reserve staff implement the CTP in partnership with national and local organizations. At the national level, NOAA’s Estuarine Reserves Division provides strategic 

and budget planning and support in partnership with NOAA’s Coastal Management 

Programs, Sea Grant, and the Coastal Services Center. At the local and regional 

levels, individual Reserves are developing CTP partnerships with State coastal programs, Sea Grant programs, local universities and researchers, professional organizations, local government agencies, non-profit organizations, and a variety of others 

with expertise, skills, training sites, and logistical support. Support is needed particularly to support delivery of CTP programs at these regional scales. 

Citizen Engagement in Coastal Stewardship 

Many of us in the hearing room today are well aware of the value of coastal resources to the environmental quality and economic vitality of coastal communities. 

What continues to be surprising though, is the general lack of awareness of this 

value among the public, especially those who reside in or vacation in coastal areas. 

My home state of New Jersey has 130-miles of shoreline and our beaches receive 

millions of recreational visits annually. Despite our close connection to the shore for 

recreation, and its dramatic effect on our weather, recreation, and economy, New 

Jersey students are not required in the state science education standards to learn 

74 

about our coasts and oceans. In general, concepts and topics about the coastal ocean 

are hardly taught in K-12 schools, and rarely appear in a meaningful way in curriculum materials, textbooks, assessments or standards. The burden of advancing 

coastal and estuarine literacy is increasingly the responsibility of the coastal and 

estuarine science and management communities and educators who are willing to 

teach ‘‘outside the box.’’ 

Many of us are very familiar with grass roots education efforts that have made 

a difference with recycling programs, litter control, seat belt use, and cigarette 

smoking to name a few. The common denominator among these programs was 

heightened awareness about how changes in individual behavior could produce 

broad societal benefit. Support for broad national efforts is needed to increase understanding and awareness of estuarine systems and improve decision-making 

among key audiences (K to Gray) to promote stewardship of the nation’s coastal resources. Many excellent programs exist at the local and state levels, but lack the 

resources and delivery system to scale up nationally, and to be made regionally relevant. Formal and informal education and interpretation programs must be tailored 

to key audiences around priority coastal resource issues and incorporate sciencebased content. We must also make new technologies and real time, real world coastal science information accessible to the classroom and the general public. Programs 

such as the CoolClassroom that harness real-time data streams from ocean observing systems for classroom applications are good models. These programs do not have 

to be created, they just have to be tailored to coastal issues. These programs do not 

have to build new administrative structures, they just need to be advanced in partnership with existing organizations such as the National Marine Educators Association, Centers of Ocean Sciences Education Excellence and the NERRS. 

Summary Recommendations 

NERRA offers the following recommendations in support of CZMA Reauthorization. 

• Codify the research and monitoring, education and coastal training, and stewardship programs as core elements of the NERRS. 

• Establish a role for the NERRS to lead efforts to leverage the capabilities of 

protected area networks to address regional coastal and estuarine conservation 

issues 

• Authorize traditional funding for construction and land acquisition as a core 

NERRS element 

• Authorize funding for technologies for research and monitoring, education and 

training, and stewardship activities. 

• Provide incentives for regional approaches to coastal management 

• Capitalize on emerging ocean technologies for coastal applications 

• Align the capabilities of the National Undersea Research Program with the information needs of coastal managers 

• Broaden efforts to build capacity among the coastal management community 

• Broaden efforts to engage the public in stewardship of our coasts 

• For grants under section 315, authorize funding for FY 2009 at a level of $40 

million for operations, $15 million for construction, land acquisition and improvement, and technology, and $10 million for regional coordination, with authorized levels increasing in the out years per the attached appendix. 

With respect to authorization levels, the annual appropriation for the NERRS has 

remained flat since FY 2002 when the budget was $ 16.4 million. Costs for operations and the addition of new sites have impeded efforts to expand existing successful programs (SWMP and CTP) in response to growing demand, and have stifled 

growth of system wide initiatives such as KEEP, an emerging K-12 education program. Two additional sites may be designated soon compounding the static budget 

situation even further. 

H.R. 5452 Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008 

This represents a laudable effort to survey coastal state and federal waters to assess areas for potential development of renewable energy sources. Data to be collected, such as hydrographic and bathymetric surveys, characterization of sensitive 

marine ecosystems, and surveys of existing marine uses will have many other uses 

beyond the intent of this amendment. Given the need to develop regional approaches to coastal management, and the value of these types of data for regional 

programs, the amendment should direct the Secretary to establish consistent standards for data collection to optimize use and value of the data. 

NERRA also notes that the cap on annual grants of $750 thousand may not be 

suitable to survey certain areas that are relatively inaccessible to conventional survey equipment. For example, the Hudson Submarine Canyon off the coast of New 

75 

Jersey and New York requires advanced undersea technology to sample and survey. 

A single cruise to this important marine ecosystem may easily exceed the proposed 

cap. 

NERRA also notes that a bill to authorize integrated ocean mapping is pending 

in Congress. Mapping and survey activities conducted under the authority of these 

two bills should be coordinated. 

H.R. 5453 Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008 

Climate change has been an issue of strong interest for the NERRS, especially 

in relation to the role of reserves as long-term reference sites. The NERRS receive 

regular consideration by funding agencies as preferred systems in which to conduct 

long-term research. This is based primarily on the relatively low level of human disturbance at reserve sites, history of targeted research on estuarine variability, and 

the commitment to a long-term monitoring program that helps to characterize the 

natural variability that governs structure and function of estuarine ecosystems. 

NERRA recommends that the amendment recognize the role that reserves can play 

as pilot and demonstration sites for adaptive management strategies for climate 

change. Coastal states should be encouraged to capitalize on reserve sites for this 

purpose, as well as for assistance with training programs that can be supported by 

the existing Coastal Training Program and monitoring programs that can be informed by the existing System wide Monitoring Program, the only national monitoring program for estuaries in the U.S.. 

H.R. 3223 Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 

Working waterfronts have increasingly become difficult to sustain with rising 

property taxes and competing interest from private developers to build residential, 

waterfront properties. Many benefits are derived from working waterfronts and a 

grant program to help preserve, protect and expand access for this stakeholder 

group is certainly warranted. Inclusion of a public access requirement in the vicinity 

of a working waterfront is a good and necessary element of a working waterfront 

plan. 

Closing 

Reauthorization of the CZMA provides an opportunity to enhance the capabilities 

of coastal communities by: 

• Providing effective regional mechanisms and harnessing new technologies to 

meet information needs 

• Strengthening the capacity of the state-federal partnership to support research 

and monitoring, education and coastal training, and stewardship efforts relevant to local, state and especially regional needs, and 

• Improving the access and delivery of science-based information to build capacity 

to forecast and inform community responses to changes in coastal systems. 

Existing capabilities within the NERRS, combined with regional approaches to 

coastal management and application of emerging technologies to coastal management issues can help build science-based capacity for decision-making, actively engage the public in coastal stewardship, and enable us to make informed decisions 

with respect to the dynamic drivers that govern change and stability in our coastal 

systems. 

I’d like to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have 

at this time. 

Appendix. NERRS Subtitle for inclusion in CZMA Reauthorization 

Title I. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System 1/23/08 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this Title is to support science-based management of the nation’s 

coastal and estuarine systems through a national network of estuarine research reserves. The network shall play a critical role in efforts to improve the understanding, management, and protection of coastal and estuarine resources. Each reserve shall conduct research, monitoring, education, training and stewardship programs tailored to meet local, regional, and state information needs. Reserve programs shall support coastal management through a process that engages a diverse 

community of coastal stakeholders, and that complements or supports the statebased coastal zone management programs. 

76 

2. Establishment and Responsibilities of the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System 

A National Estuarine Research Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Reserve System’’) is established as a state-federal partnership program between the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter referred to as 

NOAA) and the coastal states. The Reserve System shall be dedicated to sciencebased management of our nation’s estuaries and coastal systems, and shall represent the diverse estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the U.S. and its territories. State-federal cooperation shall be used to develop system-wide plans, partnerships, initiatives and any other national activities of the Reserve System. 

The Reserve System consists of those estuarine research reserves designated 

under section 3 of this act and in operation as of January 1, 2008. 

Primary responsibilities of the Reserve System are to: 

• Deliver science-based information to local, state, and national decision-makers 

to further the sound management of coastal and estuarine resources and communities, • Serve as a national model for the stewardship of coastal and estuarine resources and best management practices using a system of protected areas, • Support research and monitoring relevant to local, regional and national needs, • Provide effective mechanisms to assess the research, technology and information needs of coastal communities at local and regional scales, and • Increase the nation’s awareness of coastal and estuarine environments through 

education programs for educators, students, adult learners and the public. 

3. Designation of National Estuarine Research Reserves 

As of January 1, 2008, the Secretary may designate a coastal and estuarine area 

as a national estuarine research reserve if ‘‘ • the Governor(s) of the coastal state(s) nominates the coastal and estuarine area 

for such designation, • the Secretary finds that 

Æ the area is a representative coastal or estuarine ecosystem that is suitable 

for long-term research, monitoring, education and training, and stewardship, 

and contributes to the biogeographical and typological representation of the 

Reserve System, Æ existing state laws provide adequate, long-term protection of reserve ecosystems including relevant watersheds and coastal ocean areas, and ensures 

a stable environment for research, monitoring, education and training, and 

stewardship, Æ the reserve designation will promote public awareness and understanding, 

science-based actions and decisions, and provide suitable opportunities for 

public education, interpretation, and training, Æ the coastal state(s) in which the reserve is proposed has complied with any 

regulations promulgated by the Secretary to implement this section. 

The Reserve System shall be complete when there is at least one reserve in each 

coastal and Great Lakes state. Coastal and Great Lakes states with more than one 

major biogeographic region may establish an additional reserve(s) to represent these 

areas. 

4. Research and Monitoring 

Research 

The Reserve System offers a wide range of relatively pristine estuarine environments in which to conduct both basic and applied research, and provides a stable 

capacity for research through long-term protection of coastal and estuarine resources. An overarching priority for the Reserve System shall be to collaborate with 

scientists to conduct and support research activities within reserve boundaries and 

adjacent areas that address significant coastal management concerns through coordinated research and monitoring, and to make results of this research available 

to inform science-based management of coastal and estuarine systems. 

Research and monitoring efforts of the Reserve System shall focus on integrating 

themes that can be addressed at local, regional and national scales in response to 

coastal resource management needs. Examples of integrating themes include but 

are not limited to: • Estuarine and coastal ecosystem response to climate change; 

• Land-sea-air linkages and interactions with estuarine and coastal ecosystems; 

and 

• Human interactions with estuarine and coastal ecosystems. 

Site-specific research and monitoring programs shall be directed at improving understanding of ecosystem function and responses, restoration success, anthropogenic 

77 

impacts on critical estuarine resources, and human health connections to these resources. Reserve education and training programs shall ensure that findings from 

the research and monitoring programs are incorporated into timely education and 

outreach materials and workshops. 

Monitoring 

The Reserve System shall establish and maintain a System-wide Monitoring Program to advance knowledge of coastal and estuarine ecosystem function, detect 

trends in water and habitat quality, support ecosystem modeling, science-based ecosystem management, education and training programs, and to serve as a reference 

site for long-term studies. The System-wide Monitoring Program shall be designed 

to identify short-term variability and long-term trends in coastal environmental 

quality and health at national, regional, and local levels, and focus research efforts 

on three critical areas: 1) coastal and estuarine water quality, 2) coastal and estuarine biodiversity, and 3) coastal and estuarine land use and habitat change. Systemwide monitoring data collected by the Reserve System shall be managed and 

accessed via a central repository and made available to state and federal agencies, 

universities and coastal communities. 

The System-wide Monitoring Program shall be operated as a backbone element 

of the nation’s coastal ocean observing system, support development of information 

products for coastal managers and stakeholders, and support enrichment of science 

education and public awareness of coastal and estuarine issues. 

The Reserve System shall establish and maintain training opportunities for graduate students including the conduct of research that responds to coastal management priorities identified by the Reserve System and individual reserves. 

Results of research and monitoring programs shall be synthesized on a periodic 

basis for the coastal management and research communities. 

5. Education and Coastal Training 

Education 

The Reserve System shall establish educational programs for K-12 educators and 

students, adult learners, and the general public to enrich science education, advance 

ocean literacy and raise awareness of coastal and estuarine issues. The Reserve System shall support education opportunities for the next generation of coastal and estuarine researchers, educators, natural resource managers, and the public. 

Coastal Training Program 

The Reserve System shall establish and maintain a Coastal Training Program to 

build capacity of coastal communities to address issues of coastal protection and development, meet the need for science-based information to inform coastal decisionmaking at the federal, state, and local levels, and to improve local understanding 

of the environmental, social, and economic consequences of human activity in the 

coastal zone. Specifically, the Coastal Training Program shall advance science-based 

management of coastal and estuarine ecosystems, build technical capacity and 

transfer best management practices to the coastal management community. This 

program shall respond to coastal management needs at national, regional, and local 

scales. 

6. Stewardship 

The Reserve System shall provide long-term protection of natural resources within 

a national network of protected areas, serving as a model for sustainable management practices to coastal communities. Stewardship efforts shall be conducted 

through an integrated program involving protection, management, and restoration 

of estuarine and coastal ecosystems and their associated uplands. 

Stewardship efforts of the Reserve System shall focus on integrating themes that 

can be addressed at local, regional and national scales in response to coastal resource management needs. Examples of integrating themes include but are not limited to: • Effects of invasive species, • Restoration science, and • Public use of coastal and estuarine habitats and resources. 

7. Technical Assistance 

The Reserve System shall provide science and technical assistance to improve the 

capacity of coastal communities to protect and conserve coastal resources through 

research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship programs. Where 

suitable, these programs shall be conducted in collaboration with relevant partners 

to leverage resources, complement the mutual interest of other protected area programs, and to avoid duplication of effort. Particular emphasis should be given to 

78 

partners that manage marine protected areas, and to partners that have coastal 

management responsibilities. Support shall be provided by the Secretary to foster 

interagency collaboration on coastal management programs, activities and services, 

and to support seamless networks of marine protected areas. 

Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology 

The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology 

shall collaborate with the Reserve System to develop and apply innovative coastal 

and estuarine technology, and to support the development, application, training, 

technical assistance, and transfer of coastal management technology, information, 

and practices. 

Coastal Service Center 

The Coastal Service Center at NOAA shall collaborate with the Reserve System 

to develop and apply innovative coastal management products and services, and to 

support the development, application, training, technical assistance, and transfer of 

coastal management products, information and services. 

Regional Associations of the Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System 

The Regional Associations of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing System 

shall cooperate with the Reserve System to develop and apply information products 

and services in response to the needs of coastal managers, and to support development, application, training, technical assistance, and transfer of coastal information. 

8. Promotion and Coordination of the Reserve System 

The Secretary of Commerce shall take such action as is necessary to promote and 

coordinate the use of the Reserve System for research and monitoring, education 

and training, and stewardship purposes including: 

• Requiring that NOAA give priority consideration to research and monitoring, 

education and training, and stewardship activities that use the Reserve System 

to conduct or support activities that relate to coasts and estuaries, 

• Consulting with other federal and state agencies to promote use of one or more 

reserves within the Reserve System by such agencies when conducting research 

and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities, and 

• Establishing partnerships with other federal and state agencies to coordinate 

and collaborate when conducting estuarine research and monitoring, education 

and training, and stewardship. 

9. Construction, Land Acquisition and Improvement, and Technology 

Designated reserves shall acquire and improve property, and construct and renovate facilities to strengthen protection of key land and water areas, enhance longterm protection of the areas for research and education, and provide for facility and 

exhibit construction to further education and research goals. Designated reserves 

shall also acquire, upgrade and operate major equipment in support of system-wide 

programs and site-specific programs. 

A competitive process shall be established to support construction and renovation 

of core facilities and capabilities for the Reserve System in support of research and 

monitoring, education and coastal training, stewardship, and interpretation programs, activities and services. Similarly, a competitive process shall be established 

for land acquisition and improvement to add key land and water areas essential to 

conserve, manage and protect ecological integrity of reserves, including adjacent watersheds and coastal ocean areas. The Reserve System shall also establish a mechanism to support acquisition, replacement and upgrading of equipment, and operation of shared major equipment for research and monitoring, education and coastal 

training, and stewardship programs and activities. 

The Reserve System shall establish, maintain, and periodically update priorities 

for the construction and renovation of facilities, the acquisition and improvement of 

key land and water areas, and the acquisition, upgrading or replacement of equipment vital to research, environmental monitoring, and education. 

10. Regional Coordination 

The Reserve System shall lead efforts to leverage the capabilities of protected area 

networks to address regional coastal and estuarine conservation issues. Existing 

mechanisms shall be used where possible to: 

• support a seamless network of marine and coastal protected areas 

• map and characterize marine and coastal protected areas 

• engage citizens in stewardship of marine and coastal protected areas, and 

• increase the technical capacity of coastal managers to conserve, manage, and 

protect coastal and estuarine ecosystems. 

79 

The Secretary shall provide financial assistance for the Reserve System to contribute science, training and education capabilities to protected area networks, and 

to coordinate and convene regional-scale programs, activities and services of this 

section. 

11. Financial Assistance 

The Secretary shall make grants to a reserve for the following purposes: 

• to operate and manage a reserve, and to support research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities consistent with the guidelines 

stated in sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 above, • to acquire and improve such lands and waters, and any property interests 

therein, as are necessary to ensure the appropriate long-term management of 

an area as a reserve, as stated in section 9, • to construct and renovate appropriate reserve facilities as stated in section 9, • to acquire, upgrade, replace, operate and maintain equipment or shared major 

equipment for research and monitoring, education and coastal training, and 

stewardship programs and activities as stated in section 9, and • to contribute reserve science, training and education capabilities to protected 

area networks, and to coordinate and convene regional-scale programs, activities and services of section 10. 

The amount of financial assistance to operate and manage a reserve may not exceed 70 percent of the costs incurred. 

The amount of the financial assistance with respect to the acquisition and improvement of lands and waters, or interests therein, for any one reserve, may not 

exceed an amount equal to 50 percent of the costs of the lands, waters and interests 

therein. 

The amount of financial assistance to construct and renovate reserve facilities 

may not exceed an amount equal to 70 percent of the costs of the construction. 

The amount of financial assistance under this section provided from amounts recovered as a result of damage to natural resources located in the coastal zone may 

be used to pay 100 percent of the costs of activities carried out with such funding. 

The Secretary may— 

• enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with any nonprofit organization 

established to benefit a reserve or the reserve system, authorizing the organization to solicit donations to carry out projects, other than general administration 

of the reserve or the System, that are consistent with the purpose of the reserve 

and the System, and • accept donations of funds and services for use in carrying out projects, other 

than general administration of a reserve or the System, that are consistent with 

the purpose of the reserve and the System. 

Donations accepted under this paragraph shall be considered as a gift or bequest 

to or for the use of the United States for carrying out this section. 

12. Evaluation 

A periodic review of system-wide programs shall be conducted by NOAA to evaluate performance and responsiveness to program priorities of the Reserve System. 

Performance metrics shall be established for all system-wide programs. The Secretary shall periodically review and evaluate the operation and management of each 

reserve including the research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities conducted with the reserve. 

13. Authorization of Appropriations 

For Fiscal Year 2009 

$ 40 million for section 2. 

$ 15 million for section 9. 

$ 10 million for section 10. 

For Fiscal Year 2010 

$ 45 million for section 2. 

$ 18 million for section 9. 

$ 15 million for section 10. 

For Fiscal Year 2011 

$ 50 million for section 2. 

$ 20 million for section 9. 

$ 20 million for section 10. 

For Fiscal Year 2012 

$ 55 million for section 2. 

$ 25 million for section 9. 

$ 20 million for section 10. 

For Fiscal Year 2013 

80 

$ 60 million for section 2. 

$ 30 million for section 9. 

$ 20 million for section 10. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Lynne Hale on behalf 

of The Nature Conservancy, follows:] 

Statement of Lynne Hale on behalf of The Nature Conservancy 

The Nature Conservancy (The Conservancy) is an international non-profit dedicated to protecting ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. 

Our success in protecting over 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of rivers 

worldwide and operating over 100 marine conservation projects globally has depended on our ability to use a science-based approach to pursue pragmatic solutions 

with our partners in all levels of government and the private sector. We would like 

to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing to review recent proposals to 

reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and are pleased 

to submit the following written statement for the record. 

Since it was first enacted in 1972, CZMA has played an important role in creating 

the context in which The Conservancy has worked with its partners on coastal and 

marine issues. CZMA creates a framework in which coastal states, in partnership 

with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), strive to sustain the values of the coast, weigh tradeoffs, and make decisions to manage the multiple uses that must be accommodated in coastal areas, including conservation of 

wetlands and other important coastal and marine habitats, economic development, 

and appropriate access to public resources, among others. Since its enactment over 

35 years ago, the essential elements of CZMA—the voluntary nature of the statefederal partnership; the importance of the federal consistency provision for approved 

state programs, and the central role of public participation—have proven sound and 

provide a strong foundation on which to build. This foundation of programs, policies, 

and processes enable coastal managers to face today’s challenges as well as those 

that will surely arise in the future. While the legislation discussed here today propose important changes to funding and additional programs and authority, The Conservancy believes CZMA as a whole needs to be updated and amended to reflect the 

lessons learned over the last 30 years, to include specific provisions that will better 

enable it to meet future challenges. As such, we offer suggested principles for consideration in a broader reauthorization process, followed by more specific comments 

on the proposed legislation discussed here today. 

Principles for CZMA Reauthorization 

Multi-objective Planning for Ecosystem Function and Human Uses 

The Conservancy supports a reauthorized CZMA that reaffirms the vision of management of coastal and ocean areas for ecosystem functions and human uses 

through multi-objective planning. The power of the original CZMA was its acknowledgement of the need for land-use planning that considers multiple objectives and 

competing needs. This was essentially an early expression of the concept that is now 

discussed as Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). Despite years of discussion and 

work, EBM is still a concept for which we have yet to reach consensus on how it 

should be defined. Nor do we have robust examples of how EBM can be implemented. As such, state and local CZM decision-making often focuses on individual 

uses and threats. A renewed commitment to multi-objective planning for coastal 

lands and waters is necessary to ensure future decisions better protect coastal and 

marine environments while encouraging appropriate economic activities. Further, 

incentives should be provided to assist states and federal agencies to develop and 

apply more multi-objective planning tools. 

Boundaries at the Appropriate Scale 

Another principle embodied in the Ecosystem-Based Management concept is that 

planning should be carried out at a scale that is ecosystem-relevant. State CZM programs are primarily focused on traditional shoreline uses within the coastal zone, 

and have devoted less of their programs’ limited resources to the management of 

the ocean or lake waters within their jurisdiction, or uses in coastal watersheds that 

directly impact the coast. A reauthorized CZMA should better enable states to incorporate management of the entire coastal ecosystem, including watersheds and marine and lacustrine waters under state jurisdiction into their CZM programs. Both 

the multi-objective planning and expansion of traditional coastal zone boundaries to 

81 

reflect their upland and offshore connections should be encouraged through strong 

financial incentives to the states. 

Goals and Accountability 

The Nature Conservancy also supports enhancement of CZMA to improve accountability and performance. The goals of the current CZMA are not clear, hence it has 

been difficult to assess progress and program performance. This has led to a perceived lack of program accountability, as well as ambiguity regarding desired program outcomes. To increase effectiveness, CZMA needs clear national goals and a 

strong set of performance standards to assess both ecosystem health and program 

implementation. A set of clearly defined national goals that can be translated into 

measurable outcomes at the state and regional levels should address: conservation 

of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems; creation and maintenance of resilient habitats and communities that can better tolerate the impacts of climate 

change, natural hazards, and coastal development; ecologically sustainable economies; and healthy water and air quality. Performance-based indicators should also 

be developed to track progress toward meeting the national goals. 

Managing for Tomorrow’s Challenges 

One of the greatest challenges coastal managers will face in the coming years is 

the impact of climate change on coastal areas—sea level rise, lake level decline, 

habitat shifts, changes to hazard risks from altered storm frequency and intensity, 

among others. Coastal communities will need to develop adaptation plans that consider impacts on development as well as biodiversity and habitat needs. CZMA, as 

a framework to make multi-objective planning and management decisions, weighing 

both human and ecological concerns, will be an important tool as we look to adapt 

to these changes. CZMA should be amended to encourage states and local governments to make coastal communities and ecosystems more resilient to the impacts 

of climate change. New approaches could include planning processes that consider 

impacts related to biodiversity and habitat, and efforts to identify mitigation measures such as protection, enhancement and restoration of wetland, estuarine, and riparian areas. Current land acquisition plans could be updated to include strategies 

to allow for the landward migration of vulnerable coastal habitats and identification 

of opportunities to protect or restore ecological functions in newly submerged or 

emergent lands 

In order to develop robust adaptation strategies, additional science will be required to inform planning efforts. Science needs include baseline data for current 

coastal ecosystems as well as possible scenarios for change and identification of conservation and wildlife corridors. 

Governance—Integration and Regional Approaches 

The original vision of CZMA includes integrated management across multiple levels of government. One of the greatest strengths of the Act is the federal-state consistency provisions. The requirement that federal actions affecting a state’s coastal 

zone be consistent with that state’s CZM Program recognizes the states’ rights to 

influence decisions affecting their coastal resources. The consistency provisions have 

helped us move toward the goal of integrated management, and have provided 

strong incentives for state participation. These provisions should be maintained and 

strengthened in the future. 

While the federal-state consistency provisions have proven invaluable in moving 

toward more integrated management, we are still far from fulfilling the original vision of the Act. Much of current coastal planning and CZMA implementation remains narrowly focused and fragmented. There is not yet sufficient integration within and among local, state, regional and federal levels in either planning or implementation. The lack of adequate integration is in part due to overlapping jurisdictions and lack of authority within the coastal zone as well as the absence of provisions within the current CZMA language to link state and local planning and implementation. 

Under CZMA to date, there has also been a paucity of regional planning and management. More recently, efforts around the country are demonstrating that states 

with overlapping interests are willing to self-organize and develop regional priorities 

and plans. A reauthorized CZMA should support such efforts with authority and 

funding, but carefully avoid creating unnecessary and ineffective layers of bureaucracy. Additional management-relevant science will be necessary to support both regional approaches as well as better integration across levels of government. 

Flexibility and Partnership 

Two other powerful concepts from the existing CZMA are flexibility for states to 

develop programs that meet their unique set of circumstances, and the partnership 

82 

approach between federal and state entities. Both of these concepts are based on the 

understanding that, while national leadership is valuable, decisions about coastal 

resources are made at the state and local level. In order for management to be effective it needs to be designed in a way that accounts for local circumstances and priorities. With expanded expectations for the range of issues each state should address, 

it will continue to be important for states to have flexibility in designing approaches 

that work. However, the role of the federal government as partner needs strengthening. NOAA can provide resources, technical assistance, research, and education to 

help states meet shared national and state goals. NOAA can also play a leadership 

role within the federal government by collaborating with and leveraging resources 

of other federal agencies implementing programs and policies in the coastal zone. 

A reauthorized CZMA needs to maintain an appropriate balance between state and 

federal interests and authority in order to strengthen this crucial partnership. 

Improved Services from NOAA 

NOAA has a number of programs that address coastal issues and provide services, 

technical support, research, and education to the coastal management community. 

A lack of coordination among these programs, however, has diluted their impact and 

possible contribution to advancing coastal management. The agency needs to embrace coastal management as one of its primary missions and pursue it in a more 

strategic and coordinated fashion. The Conservancy supports enhancing existing 

NOAA coastal programs and improving coordination to support implementation of 

CZM plans for the long-term goal of improved conservation of the coastal zone. In 

addition, the Coastal Services Center should be formally authorized as part of any 

CZMA reauthorization. 

Increased Funding 

The broad and important objectives of CZMA have long outstripped the resources provided to the program. Most states receive little more than $2 million of federal 

support annually to operate their programs. Coastal managers simply cannot 

achieve the current objectives of the Act within current resources, let alone take on 

new programs and authorities discussed above. Federal dollars should provide a stable base of funding, supplemented by funds that are competitively awarded and tied 

to performance. Specifically, new funding should be available to broaden planning 

efforts to include state marine and lacustrine waters and activities in coastal watersheds that are directly impacting coastal waters; develop climate change adaptation 

plans; develop multiobjective planning tools and implement demonstration projects; 

design and implement performance measurement systems; and establish and implement regional management priorities. 

Specific Comments on H.R. 3223, H.R. 5451, H.R. 5452, and H.R. 5453 

H.R. 3223, Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 

H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 would establish a new 

grant program as part of CZMA to provide funding for state and local governments 

to acquire areas or interest in areas to be managed and used as working waterfronts. The Conservancy recognizes the important services these areas provide, including public access and services for commercial and recreational fishing, as well 

as other water dependent industries. A vibrant coastal zone can accommodate these 

water dependent activities, while maintaining ecological functions that draw many 

of these interests to the coasts. The Conservancy supports the consideration of potential impacts of projects funded through this program on coastal ecosystems. 

H.R. 3223 currently requires this, but additional language could be added to enhance and more clearly define this requirement. In addition, The Conservancy suggests ensuring that the non-federal matching requirements are equivalent to those 

of the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) so as not to provide incentives that would favor one type of project over the other. 

H.R. 5451, The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008 

H.R. 5451, The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008 reauthorizes funding 

for existing grant programs under the CZMA. While the specified funding amounts 

represent much needed increases in funding, The Conservancy supports a broader 

reauthorization effort to improve the program and provide new tools and incentives 

for better coastal management. Additional funding beyond what is provided in 

H.R. 5451 would be needed to implement these program improvements. 

H.R. 5452, the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008 

The Conservancy supports the intent of H.R. 5452, the Coastal State Renewable 

Energy Promotion Act of 2008. Renewable energy will be an important component 

of our nation’s strategy to meet increasing energy demands in an environmentally 

83 

sustainable way. The site-specific nature of these projects makes them ideal candidates for spatial planning approaches. H.R. 5452 encourages the identification of 

sites that are appropriate places for these projects, as well as those areas that are 

unsuitable. The CZMA program, with its focus on multi-objective planning mechanisms within the coastal zone, and its state-federal partnership mechanism, is an 

ideal program to implement this effort. 

While the direction to identify areas unsuitable for renewable energy projects inherently includes consideration of other values and uses for marine waters, The 

Conservancy would support legislation that allows for a broader planning effort to 

identify suitable and unsuitable areas for a range of uses. In addition to renewable 

energy projects, aquaculture facilities, sensitive habitat areas, and other site specific 

marine uses could be included in these surveys. 

It will also be important to link these spatial plans for marine areas to spatial 

planning on the shore. For example, in choosing where a renewable energy project 

might be sited, managers should also consider the implications for shore side development in that area. In addition, the impacts of future development to coastal water 

quality may need to be evaluated in siting near-shore aquaculture operations. Finally, we suggest expanding the agencies specifically authorized in section 2(l) to 

provide technical assistance to coastal states in implementing this Act. The Department of the Interior’s Mineral Management Service will be an important partner in 

these efforts. 

H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008 

As stated above, The Conservancy sees climate change as one of the most significant issues that coastal managers will face in the near future. Efforts to plan for 

adaptation, both for coastal communities and coastal resources should commence as 

soon as possible. H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008 

would provide funding and assistance for states to start taking on this challenge. 

The multi-objective focus of the CZMA and the historical focus on addressing both 

human and ecological needs make it the ideal program to address these issues. 

However, we are concerned that the elements listed in new Section 320(c)(2), as currently written, may be too narrowly focused for consideration of the full range of 

climate change impacts to coastal communities. As such, these plans may not take 

full advantage of the broad scope covered by the community and land-use planning 

tools of the CZMA. 

Beyond specific authority for climate change adaptation plans, additional aspects 

of CZMA may need to be adjusted to fully address climate change, including increased and better coordinated science and technical support from NOAA to assist 

states in developing these plans, and authority and funding for regional strategies 

and approaches. Finally, we are also concerned the Section 320 (d) that requires the 

Secretary to publish program requirements only after a state plan has been approved may place that state at a disadvantage in meeting those requirements and 

successfully participating in the program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s views on reauthorization and amendment of the Coastal Zone Management Act. We would be 

pleased to provide the Subcommittee with additional information. Please do not 

hesitate to contact me or Emily Woglom, Senior Policy Advisor, at (703) 841-5374, 

if you have any questions. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to 

the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Our on-the-ground and in-thewater conservation work is carried out in all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries 

and is supported by approximately one million individual members. We have helped 

conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada and more 

than 102 million acres with local partner organizations globally. 

The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves throughout 

the United States—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. 

We recognize, however, that our mission cannot be achieved by core protected areas 

alone. Therefore, our projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human 

uses to address sustained human wellbeing. 

84 

[A letter to Congressman James E. Clyburn submitted for the 

record by The Honorable Burley L. Lyons, Mayor, Town of Edisto 

Beach, South Carolina, follows:] 


40957.006.eps
85 


40957.007.eps
86 

[A letter submitted for the record by Bruce J. Stedman, 

Executive Director, Marine Fish Conservation Network, follows:] 

Æ 


40957.008.eps