U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

72-578 PS 2002

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

ACT

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

May 24, 2001

Serial No. 107-33

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

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

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on May 24, 2001 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Davis, Hon. Susan A. a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 36

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

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

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

Harman, Hon. Jane, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 37

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Pelosi, Hon. Nancy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

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

California ....................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam ................ 3

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

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, Prepared statement of ........................................................... 125

Statement of Witnesses:

Burroughs, Dr. Richard, Chairman, Department of Marine Affairs,

University of Rhode Island .......................................................................... 80

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81

Claussen, Eileen, President and Chair of the Board, Strategies for the

Global Environment ...................................................................................... 101

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Davidson, Margaret A., Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration ........................................................................ 16

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

De Luca, Michael P., President, National Estuarine Research Reserve

Association ..................................................................................................... 51

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Lawrence, Louise, Chief, Office of Resource Conservation, Maryland

Department of Agriculture ........................................................................... 58

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60

Savitz, Jacqueline, Executive Director, Coast Alliance ................................. 105

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 107

Tudor, Robert, Deputy Commissioner, New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection ............................................................................ 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38

Map of Stafford Township, New Jersey, submitted for the record ........ 47

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Wyman, Craig, Liskow and Lewis, representing The American Petroleum

Institute, et al. .............................................................................................. 83

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85

Additional materials supplied:

American Farm Bureau Federation, Statement submitted for the record .. 33

Bush, The Honorable Jeb, Governor, State of Florida, Statement

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 34

Merrell, Dr. William J., President, The H. John Heinz III Center for

Science, Economics and the Environment, Statement submitted for the

record ............................................................................................................. 31

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT ACT

Thursday, May 24, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in Room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. The Committee on Fish, Wildlife, and Oceans

will come to order.

Good morning, everyone.

We can get started because Mr. Jeffords has just made his statement, so we know what is going to happen.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the hearing on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. As most of you

know, the authorization for this important environmental law expired in 1999. We are here to discuss two pieces of legislation to

extend this landmark statute and to examine other coastal management issues.

Our witnesses will represent a broad range of coastal interests,

and I am anxious to hear their thoughts and recommendations.

I am disappointed, however, that the Farm Bureau has chosen

not to come before the Subcommittee and testify to any concerns

they might have as to the reauthorization of this act. They have

submitted testimony that we will review, but we were anxious to

have a basic exchange with them this morning. But that has not

happened.

I represent a coastal district, as do many of the members on this

panel, and I have both the bay and the oceanside. Furthermore, I

have, as do all the Members on this Committee, a deep and sound

commitment to stewardship of our coastal resources and an appreciation of the work of the state coastal management programs and

National Estuarine Research Reserves.

2

The approaching 30th anniversary of the passage of CZMA provides an important opportunity to take a new look at the Act and

our progress toward meeting its objectives.

The physical, social, and economic landscape of the coastal zone

has changed dramatically since the passage of the original law.

And it is imperative that the Act be reassessed in light of these

changes.

Coastal population and development has increased rapidly in the

last few decades, adding pressure on coastal communities to address competing uses of coastal resources and to conduct more extensive coastal hazards planning.

Furthermore, these coastal communities must provide basic services to a greater number of residents, which may come at the expense of other pressing issues in some cases, especially environmental issues.

Both H.R. 897, introduced by our good friend Congressman Jim

Saxton and the discussion draft that was provided to the witnesses

require greater involvement in the management of coastal resources at the local level. In addition, both measures call for assessment of the objectives of the Act for the development of a set

of performance indicators and measures.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning and

their testimony and their valuable insight into the next stage or

phase of the Coastal Zone Management Act, so we can meet all the

pressures and be responsible advocates for both our human colleagues that live along the coast and also migrating shore birds

that live along the coast.

And I think we can come to a conclusion that, with a greater effort, these two often conflicting issues can be resolved.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Good morning. I would like to welcome our witnesses to this hearing on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. As most of you know, the authorization for this important environmental law expired in 1999. We are here today to

discuss two pieces of legislation to extend this landmark statute and to examine

other coastal management issues. Our witnesses represent a broad range of coastal

interests and I am anxious to hear their thoughts and recommendations. I am disappointed, however, that the Farm Bureau has chosen not to come before the Subcommittee and testify to any concerns that they might have to the reauthorization

of this Act.

I represent a coastal district that has both a bay and an ocean side. Furthermore,

I have a deep commitment to the sound stewardship of our coastal resources and

an appreciation for the work of the state coastal management programs and the National Estuarine Research Reserves. The approaching thirtieth anniversary of the

passage of the CZMA provides an important opportunity to take a new look at the

Act and our progress towards meeting its objectives. The physical, social and economic landscape of the coastal zone has changed dramatically since the passage of

the original law and it is imperative that the Act be reassessed in light of these

changes.

Coastal population and development has increased rapidly in the last few decades

adding pressure on coastal communities to address competing uses of coastal resources and to conduct more extensive coastal hazards planning. Furthermore, these

coastal communities must provide basic services to a greater number of residents,

which may come at the expense of other pressing issues in some cases. Both

H.R. 897, introduced by Congressman Jim Saxton, and the discussion draft that

was provided to the witnesses require greater involvement in the management of

coastal resources at the local level. In addition, both measures call for an assessVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
3

ment of the objectives of the Act through the development of a set of performance

indicators and measures.

I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and I hope that

they will be able to provide us with valuable insight into the reauthorization of this

Act, which is the cornerstone of many of our efforts to engage in sound stewardship

of our Nation’s fragile coastal environment.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield now to my good friend, Mr. Underwood.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A

DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My opening remarks will be brief.

But before I begin, I want to, first, commend you, Mr. Chairman,

for your leadership in setting forth an agenda for the Committee.

And I want to thank you for your cooperative spirit in working

with me and the other Democratic Members of the Committee on

issues of importance to us.

A good example of just such an issue is coastal zone management. It is not an exaggeration for me to say the reauthorization

of the Coastal Zone Management Act will be one of the most important responsibilities of this Committee this Congress.

It is frequently quoted that some 60 percent of America’s population live within 50 miles of the coastline. I am happy to report

that 100 percent of the people I represent live about— [Laughter.]

—live about 3 miles from the ocean.

Mr. GILCHREST. You know, in my district, they all live less than

100 miles from the ocean or the bay.

We have something in common, Mr. Underwood.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But we must proceed thoughtfully.

As you know, efforts last Congress to reauthorization the CZMA

regrettably ground down into stalemate and some frustration. In a

sense, I fear that we may be heading down a similar path this

year.

And after reading the background memo for this morning hearing, I am reminded of the quote attributed to Yogi Berra, who said,

‘‘This is deja vu all over again.’’

[Laughter.]

I remain convinced that the best way to avoid a repeat of past

frustrations was for the Committee to take a measured pause to

gain the benefit of new insights and information.

New threats to coastal resources, such as invasive species, increased management capabilities made possible through a new geographic information systems and satellite technologies, and emerging issues such as marine bio-prospecting and marine protected

areas, are very complex. They all deserve the scrutiny of this Committee.

And for the Coastal Zone Management Act to remain relevant in

the 21st century, this Committee should not shy away from that

investigation.

Mr. Chairman, you know that I would have preferred for the

Committee to have first scheduled some general oversight hearings

before drafting and considering CZMA legislation. Nonetheless, you

4

have decided to move ahead with this morning’s legislative hearing, and I respect that decision, and I hope that we will reach a

positive end on CZMA legislation.

I remain optimistic that by working together we will be able to

craft CZMA legislation that addresses the substantial challenges

that lie ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, A Delegate to Congress

from Guam

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My opening remarks will be brief. But before I begin,

I want to first commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in setting forth an

engaging agenda for this committee, and I want to thank you for your cooperative

spirit in working with me and the other Democrat members of this committee on

issues of importance to us.

A good example of just such issue is coastal zone management. It is not an exaggeration for me to say that reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act

will be one of the most important responsibilities of this committee this Congress.

But we must proceed thoughtfully.

As you know, efforts last Congress to reauthorize the CZMA regrettably ground

down into stalemate and frustration. In a sense I fear that we may be heading down

a similar path this year. After reading the background memo for this morning’s

hearing, I was reminded of the quote attributed to Yankee great, Yogi Berra, who

said, ‘‘This is deja vu all over again.

I remain convinced that the best way to avoid a repeat of past frustrations was

for the committee to take a measured pause to gather the benefit of new insights

and information. And I ask, ‘‘Why not?

New threats to coastal resources such as invasive species; increased management

capabilities made possible through new Geographic Information Systems and satellite technologies; and emerging issues such as marine bio-prospecting and marine

protected areas are complex. They all deserve the scrutiny of this committee. And

for the CZMA to remain relevant in the 21st Century, this committee should not

shy away from that investigation.

Mr. Chairman, you know that I would have preferred for the committee to have

first scheduled some general oversight hearings before drafting and considering

CZMA legislation. Nonetheless, you decided to move ahead with this morning’s legislative hearing, and I respect that decision. And while I will continue to urge that

we not rush into marking up a CZMA bill, I remain optimistic that by working together we will be able to craft CZMA legislation that addresses the substantial challenges that lie ahead.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Saxton?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have an opening statement, which I will just ask unanimous

consent be included in the record to save time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Just let me say, first, to Mr. Underwood, who I appreciate the

great cooperation that we have had over the years, Mr. Gilchrest

and I can’t do this without you, we promise you.

And we promise you that your fingerprints will be all over this,

whether we have a legislative hearing—

[Laughter.]

5

—to begin with or whether we do oversight hearings. We need

you on this very, very much, and your concerns, as far as this

Member is concerned. The Chairman can speak for himself, but you

are our partner.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. And just let me say that, of all the things that we

do in this Committee, this has to be ranked as one of the most important.

As Mr. Underwood just pointed out, coastal areas are very highly

populated areas and, at the same time, extremely sensitive environmentally. And to the extent that we can be good stewards of

these highly populated areas, we will be successful in preserving a

good place to live for all forms of life for generations to come.

On the other hand, if we fail to act on issues that we know are

important, future generations may not be so lucky.

The Coastal Alliance, a real leadership organization on this, has

prepared and published a pamphlet or a magazine called ‘‘Pointless

Pollution; Preventing Polluted Runoff and Protecting America’s

Coasts.’’ It is extremely well-done and tells a very, very important

story.

And so I am very hopeful that this year we will be able to meet

and accommodate the needs of all the Members of the Committee,

both Republican and Democrat.

And incidentally, this certainly wasn’t any fault of the Democrats

that we didn’t get this done last time.

[Laughter.]

But I hope that we will be able to accommodate the needs of all

the Members of the Subcommittee and the Full Committee, and the

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which will be, I am

sure, a very interesting task.

But I am glad that we are starting this process. It is extremely

important, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,

and the Ranking Member.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, for holding this hearing on reauthorization of

this important Act. I am very pleased to see a broad range of perspectives represented here today, though I too am disappointed that the Farm Bureau chose not

to testify.

As a representative of a coastal district in the most densely populated state in

the country, I know firsthand the impact of human activities on coastal and ocean

resources and the impact of the degradation of these resources on our economy and

quality of life. Of particular concern to me is the issue of non-point source pollution.

As the leading cause of degradation of our coastal waters, non-point source pollution

can have devastating effects on a state’s seafood, tourism and shipping industries

by closing shellfish beds, closing beaches and clogging major shipping lanes. To

begin to address this critical issue, my bill, H.R. 897, requires that states spend the

lesser of $10,000,000 or 35% of the funds available for the resource management

improvement grants on their non-point source pollution control programs.

Like Maryland, both New Jersey and the nation are dependent upon healthy

ocean and coastal resources. Programs such as state coastal management programs

and National Estuarine Research Reserves provide the necessary management capabilities and research opportunities to protect our coastal environment. I am fortunate that my own state, New Jersey, is a leader in both these areas, and I am

pleased that both Bob Tudor from the New Jersey coastal management program and

Mike DeLuca from the New Jersey’s Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research

Reserve are here today to testify to the merits of these programs on behalf of their

6

respective national organizations. I welcome you both and look forward to your testimony.

As the Chairman explained, my bill also provides for greater involvement in the

management of coastal resources at the local level. I believe it is important to engage local communities in this process. These local communities are facing difficult

coastal management decisions as a result of the rapid rate of coastal development

that they are experiencing and they need to be more fully involved in the state programs.

In addition, my bill calls for the development of a set of performance indicators

and measures. Performance indicators and measures will help us determine our

progress towards meeting the objectives of the Act and whether we are fulfilling our

commitments to our coastal constituents and the Nation.

We must ensure the responsible stewardship of our important coastal resources.

The CZMA helps provide that stewardship and deserves our support. I believe a

timely reauthorization of the Act will demonstrate our commitment to protect our

coastal resources. I too am looking forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and I thank Chairman Gilchrest for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Underwood is a good partner in this effort, and I appreciate

it.

We often say, ‘‘I appreciate the hard work of my colleague Mr.

Saxton,’’ but Mr. Saxton has done yeoman’s work over the past several years toward these important endeavors, and will continue to

work hard in this effort to make this Act what we think the Act

was supposed to do in the first place.

We have two of the four Members present here.

Welcome, Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Davis. We look forward to

your testimony.

Mrs. Davis, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning, despite the fact that you

can tell I have a chest cold.

In the interest of your time, I would like to associate myself with

the detailed and written remarks that will be submitted by Representative Farr.

This morning, I would like to present two ideas.

The first one is that the Coastal Zone Management Act is a document representing thoughtful policy that has controlled the interaction of states and the Federal Government for nearly 30 years regarding the management of the outer continental shelf.

This policy, as I think you well know, has been supported by several Presidents who otherwise held differing views.

Congress has yearly prohibited the development of the 36 leased

areas off of our coast. Changes should not be made hastily or without time for a complete and informed review.

The second point that I would like to make is that actions that

occur off of our shores and which, therefore, could impact the precious coastline in my district in California—and, indeed, the whole

state—are of passionate interest to my constituents.

And briefly, may I suggest some basic policy perspectives as you

consider changes to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Number one, we must continue to support Federal consistency.

The perspective that it is the rights of states to control their

7

coastal zones is paramount. Where Federal needs are seen to conflict, the policy of Federalism and respect for a state’s views must

have a thorough and contemplative review.

Second, change, if it is to be made, needs to be based on clearly

identified problems with the act. It was amended over 10 years

ago, a period which offers ample time to demonstrate whether or

not there are pervasive problems with the language or process of

the act.

Third, good public policy establishes a system for review by an

agency independent from the parties of the decision. Sufficient time

must be allowed for a thorough finding of the facts or issues. And

following that, decisions must be made in a timely fashion.

Because of the nature of coastal zone management, it is worth

framing this policy issue in the context that decisions about using

coastal resources are decisions that, once done, cannot be undone.

Fourth, changes in language must be realistic. Actions taken on

the outer continental shelf, by their very nature, will affect the

coastline whether that action occurs within the legal limits of the

state’s boundaries or outside them.

My constituents live along the most southwestern point of the

United States, a coastline stretching from the border of Mexico

through the towns of Imperial Beach, Point Loma, Ocean Beach,

Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, and La Jolla—some of the most photographed and appreciated stretches of sand and scenic backdrops

for joy in the world.

Indeed, not only the residents of these communities but the 2

million citizens of San Diego consider them their jewel.

I imagine that some of you who have served in the military and

have been stationed at one of the many installations in San

Diego—or perhaps you have visited for a convention or family vacation—know the beauty of our coastline.

Not only is this coastline a precious local resource and a foundation of the economy, it is also a national treasure.

So I urge you to keep that vision in mind and your policy practices in place as you consider requests to change the language of

the Coastal Zone Management Act and facilitate the exploitation of

petroleum resources near our shores.

I want to thank you very much for your work on this issue, and

thank you for the time to present this morning.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Susan Davis, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

In the interests of your time, I would like to associate myself with the detailed,

written remarks that will be submitted by Representative Farr.

This morning, I would like to present two ideas. First, the Coastal Zone Management Act is a document representing thoughtful policy that has controlled the interaction of states and the Federal Government for nearly 30 years regarding the management of the Outer Continental Shelf. This policy has been supported by several

presidents who otherwise held differing views. Congress has yearly prohibited the

development of the 36 leased areas off of our coast. Changes should not be made

hastily or without time for a complete, informed review.

The second is that the actions which occur off of our shores and which, therefore,

could impact the precious coastline of my district in California and, indeed, of the

whole state are of passionate interest to my constituents.

8

Briefly, may I suggest some basic policy perspectives as you consider changes to

the Coastal Zone Management Act.

1) We must continue to support ‘‘ Federal consistency —the perspective that the

rights of states to control their coastal zones is paramount. Where Federal needs

are seen to conflict, the policy of Federalism and the respect for a state’s views must

have a thorough, contemplative review.

2) Change, if it is to be made, needs to be based on clearly identified problems

with the act. It was amended over ten years ago, a period which offers ample time

to demonstrate whether or not there are pervasive problems with the language or

process of the act.

3) Good public policy establishes a system for review by an agency independent

from the parties to decision. Sufficient time must be allowed for a thorough finding

of the facts at issue. Following that, decisions must be made in a timely fashion.

Because of the nature of Coastal Zone Management, it is worth framing this policy

issue in the context that decisions about using coastal resources are decisions that

once done can’t be undone.

4) Changes in language must be realistic ‘‘’’ actions taken on the outer continental

shelf by their very nature will affect the coastline, whether that action occurs within

the legal limits of the state’s boundaries or outside them.

My constituents live along the most southwestern point of the United States --

a coastline stretching from the Border of Mexico through the towns of Imperial

Beach, Coronado, Point Loma, Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, and La

Jolla -- some of the most photographed and appreciated stretches of sand and scenic

backdrops for joy in the world.

Indeed, not only the residents of these communities but also the two million citizens of San Diego consider them their jewel. I imagine that some of you may have

served in the military and have been stationed at one of the many military installations in San Diego, or perhaps you have visited for a convention or family vacation.

Not only is this coastline a precious local resource and a foundation of our economy,

but it is also a national treasure.

I urge you to keep that vision in mind and your policy practices in place as you

consider requests to change the language of the Coastal Zone Management Act to

facilitate the exploitation of petroleum resources near our shores.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.

I did spend a little time at Camp Pendleton, and the Marines allowed us a great deal of time to soak up the sun on the beach.

[Laughter.]

Beautiful place.

Mrs. DAVIS. Good for you. Please come back.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure.

Mr. Thompson?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members.

I would like to thank you for your past record and the history

of this Committee in protecting our beautiful coastal resources and

would hope that you will continue that in looking at the Coastal

Zone Management Act specifically as it applies to the Federal consistency provision and as that relates to offshore oil drilling.

The district that I represent is the entire north coast of California, just north of the San Francisco Bay all the way to the Oregon border. And anything that happens off our coastal—and in

particular, oil drilling off our coast—is going to impact my district

and the people I represent a great deal. We have a sport fishing industry that is about a $7 billion an- nual industry. Tourism of nearly $10 billion. And most of the commercial fishing off the California coast is done in my district.

9

So the health of our coast and the things that live there directly

impact not only the coast but every industry and every business

along that coast, and that ripples out throughout California.

A couple of examples are the salmon and steelhead populations

off the California coast. Their endangered classification is directly

impacting industries such as timber, mining, real estate development, road building; anything at all that would impact the habitat

of that fishery is going to spill over into the local economy.

Another example is right before coming to Congress, I was in the

state legislature. And one of the last things I had either the pleasure or displeasure of doing was passing legislation that became law

that forbid the commercial harvesting of abalone in southern

California—passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Republican governor.

And it also included a requirement that abalone fishers purchase

a stamp, that money going in part to help bring back the species.

And it was noted by every scientific mind looking at this that so

much as a small oil spill in the two remaining colonies of abalone

in southern California would completely wipe out the species forever.

So I think that this is emblematic of the importance of what is

happening here. The wrong move on policy will not only hurt California, but it is going to hurt the nation. And any change to the

Coastal Zone Management Act that weakens the Federal consistency provisions puts California’s coast and our economy in harm’s

way.

If we take away the state’s ability to review Federal activity, that

is going to impact our coastline. It is anti-states’ rights, and it is

big government at its absolute worst.

And to shift the review of state’s appeals to Federal activities impacting our coast from Commerce to Interior is devastating. It is

tantamount to the proverbial fox watching the chickenhouse.

I just want to add that I don’t understand the need for any

amendment of this type that would bring about this type of devastation. Current law allows states to review what the Federal Government does along our coast. It fosters cooperation between the

state and the Federal Government.

And I don’t think there have been any problems. As a matter of

fact, the state coastal management plans have agreed with 96 percent of all Federal actions. And since its inception in 1972, there

have only been 40 appeals to the Secretary, and this is out of thousands of activities.

So, Mr. Chair and Members, I would hope that you would continue to take into consideration the beauty and the importance of

our coastal communities.

And in the case of California, the entire state has spoken repeatedly and consistently against adverse actions along our coast that

would hurt both that scenic beauty and the species that live along

that area.

So I thank you for the hearing and thank you in advance for

your careful consideration of any proposed amendments that may

be forthcoming.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

10

Statement of The Honorable Mike Thompson, A Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), specifically on section 307, the Federal consistency provision

of the Act as it relates to offshore oil drilling. As a Member of Congress that represents a district that has one of the longest coastlines in the Continental United

States, offshore oil drilling is an issue that is very important to me and the people

of my district.

Tourism and sport and commercial fishing are very big industries in my district.

A 1997 study found that the California coast receives about 43 million visitors a

year. Coastal tourism generates about $9.9 billion dollars a year and in some years

is the largest economic component of the California economy. According to the California Resources Agency, the economic impact of sport fishing in California is $7 billion and the large commercial fishing industry makes California makes one of the

top five seafood producing states in the country.

In addition to industries dependent on healthy coastlines, California’s Department

of Finance determined that of the 35 million people that live in the state, 85% of

them (29 million people) live within two hours of the coast. And the population is

rapidly rising. This increase will continue to stress the coast’s already limited resources.

The bottom line is, an oil spill off the California Coast would be catastrophic.

In offshore areas currently drilled, there are routine small spills, and periodic

major spills, not to mention environmental degradation from business-as-usual operations. According to the Department of the Interior, there have been 73 incidents

and 3 million gallons of oil spilled from OCS oil and gas operations in the last 20

years.

An amendment was recently proposed by the oil and gas industry that would strip

the Coastal Zone Management Act from one of its most important functions - the

right to review Federal activity that would impact a state’s coastline. This proposal

is a thinly disguised veil to weaken the state’s ability to comment on or restrict

outer continental shelf leasing.

Another proposed amendment would shift the responsibilities of a state’s appeal

from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Interior. This would be a major

conflict of interest, effectively giving the same Federal agency (Department of Interior) that approves oil or gas development leases, the authority to override a state’s

objection to oil and gas leases.

The suggestion of altering the Federal consistency provision is very troubling to

me. From the California’s Coastal Commission’s perspective and mine, the Federal

consistency provision is the most significant aspect of the CZMA. It ensures that

states have some oversight over what the Federal Government can do to a state’s

coast. The Federal consistency requirement is a primary reason for states to join the

national coastal management program, a program utilized by almost every eligible

state. The provision fosters cooperation and coordination between Federal and state

activities.

Furthermore, this provision is not one that has created significant conflict between states and the Federal Government. In fact, state coastal management plans

have agreed with almost all Federal actions (96% of the time).

Additionally, since the inception of the Act, there have only been 40 cases (out

of thousands) where the states have appealed proposed Federal actions to the Secretary. 14 of the 40 have dealt with offshore oil drilling.

Local communities throughout California have repeatedly voiced their strong opposition to oil drilling off of the California coast. California has put a moratorium

on off shore drilling in state waters, has adopted a resolution opposing leases in

Federal waters, and has recommended the termination of the existing 36 Federal

leases. The people of California have spoken. They do not want oil drilling off their

coast.

Approximately 300 varieties of fish and shellfish are native to California’s 1,000

mile coastline. California’s population far exceeds the state’s ability to provide for

the outdoor recreational needs of its residents and visitors.

An oil spill off of the northern California coast would affect 36 species of seabirds,

17 species of marine mammals, 2 species of turtles and countless species of fish, including endangered salmon species. Given these statistics, it would be grossly irresponsible for us to relax our standards on offshore drilling.

Furthermore, the recoverable oil resources off our coast will certainly not come

close to solving our energy crisis. Energy efficiency and conservation will do much

more to solve our problems than drilling off our coastline.

11

In conclusion, states should have the ability to review and comment on Federal

actions that would affect their coastal areas, especially off shore oil drilling and especially when the people of the state are so adamantly opposed to it.

Therefore I appeal to the Committee, the Congress and the President—do not

weaken provisions that not only protect states’ rights but also protect our very valuable coastal resources.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Miller?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to be here with my California colleagues to speak

to you about the suggestion that we should somehow change or

amend—and, I believe, weaken—the Coastal Zone Management

Act.

I must tell you, however, I can’t think of two better people to testify to, who understand not only the complicated ecosystems of our

oceans, but also the connections of our oceans to our lands, to our

bays, to our estuary systems, to our wetlands, and others, than my

colleagues on this Committee.

I think my California colleagues have made it very clear that our

feelings in California are very strong with respect to this issue, as

they are in many, many other coastal states in this nation.

I had the opportunity, when I was first in Congress, to serve on

the select Committee on the OCS, where we rewrote the OCS Act

for this nation to allow and to provide updated provisions for oil

drilling off the coastal United States.

I also had the opportunity, under an unfortunate circumstance,

after the Exxon Valdez to write the oil spill liability provisions.

I think I am somewhat familiar with this industry. And I must

tell you, I have great respect and am held in awe by what this industry is capable of doing. If you read the oil and gas journals, the

business pages, to see what this industry can do in the deepwaters,

the kind of capital that they bring together and accumulate to provide for deepwater oil drilling today in the Gulf of Mexico, their accomplishments in the North Sea and the environments of offshore

Alaska, this is an incredible industry.

It is a very different industry and a very different technology

than we in California experienced with Santa Barbara oil spill. But

it is not foolproof.

It is not foolproof in any manner. And when things go bad, they

go very, very bad.

And it is a fiction to believe that we can clean up an oil spill in

the open water. It is simply a fiction.

It is like the escape hatch on the shuttle. It is there so we can

say to the public, ‘‘Well, they could get out, maybe.’’ You know, we

provided them an exit.

We have Clean Bay, and we have all this, a huge investment by

the industry to have cleanup facilities all along various coastal

areas where there is drilling and where, in my district, there is a

huge amount of tanker traffic.

But the fact of the matter is, we have no ability to clean that up.

We simply manage oil spills, but they do a huge amount of damage

12

in the meantime, as they work their way into either the rough

coast in Mr. Thompson’s district or the beaches of Mrs. Davis’s district. And California has all of that.

This is not a partisan issue in our state. We are joined by our

colleagues from the other party. We are joined by our colleagues of

both parties and nonpartisan officers in every city, in every county,

in the state legislature, and in the Congress on this issue.

Some people think this is a position of luxury, that Californians

simply don’t want to go along with the program. But I must tell

you, we are also among the best users of energy in this nation.

I think we are 44th in per capita use. We are using less energy

right now, for a number of reasons.

[Laughter.]

But we were using, before that—and this is why we have a little

problem with the pricing policy—we are using less now than we

were in 1998, but we happen to be paying 10 times as much for

it. But that is another issue for another time.

The simple fact is this: You are not going to run over the coastal

states in seeking to drill offshore. President Bush knew that. President Carter knew that. President Ford knew that. President Nixon

knew that.

This movement is very strong because it is wedded in people’s visions and views of their states. And it is not just in liberal California, northern California, it is not just in conservative southern

California, but it is in North Carolina and South Carolina and

along the Florida coast.

People have made a decision that they have an opportunity to

have a much more diverse and sustainable economy and recreational opportunities and quality of life without this production.

Other states have made other decisions, and I respect that. And I

respect that.

We just finished, last year, because they felt that, in fact, they

were taking the risk and they weren’t getting rewarded, we just

finished, last year, rewarding them more in the CARA act, where

Louisiana, Alabama, and other states who were drilling get additional rewards for assumed impacts or whatever. But they are getting rewarded for that.

They made those decisions. California has chosen to do otherwise. We will continue to do that.

But to suggest that we now need to amend and weaken this act,

when, as Mr. Thompson pointed out, of some 10,000 actions, 40

have been appealed, and only 7, I believe, have been held up or

overturned on appeal.

This Act is working because, in fact, it puts the state and coastal

communities and others in a partnership to make these determinations and to come up with the provisions that they think are sufficient.

I don’t think this is where the Federal Government should go or

the Federal Government is going to want to go in terms of overriding those decisions by millions of Americans who live along the

coast of the United States.

We have been willing to make additional sacrifices and we will.

And obviously there is a whole debate about energy policy. It is

very hard to argue that you want to drill off the coast of southern

13

California, Santa Barbara, off the Mendocino coast, at a time when

it is clear to everyone that we continue to waste that energy without improved CAFE standards.

And, Mr. Gilchrest, I shouldn’t be lecturing you on any of this,

but it just simply doesn’t make any sense at this point. It simply

doesn’t make any sense at this point.

I realize there is a quest on within this administration to get to

the public lands. But clearly, to say that there is an artificial line

out there, whether it is 3 miles or 10 miles or 200 miles, that is

all interesting, but once the oil is loose on the water, once a mistake is made, once a pipeline breaks coming across state lands, it

doesn’t know those state lands from Federal lands, Federal waters

from state waters.

That is an integrated problem. And that is why we have an integrated system of coastal zone management and consistency provisions.

And we have provided these powers, because if we didn’t provide

these powers, in fact, we would be in a much worse political situation than we are today.

And so I would hope that this Committee, in its review of these

proposals, would give strong consideration to holding on to the current law that provides the states for this voice and for some determinations about their economic and their environmental future.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife

and Oceans Subcommittee. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) covers numerous issues, including the management of the Outer Continental Shelf. To be

clear, I adamantly oppose any changes to CZMA which would weaken protections

for California’s coast. On Wednesday, the Gas Subcommittee of an Interior Department Advisory Panel recommended that the government begin preliminary exploration activities in five areas where drilling is currently prohibited. In addition, the

American Petroleum Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association have

proposed amendments to CZMA which would effectively weaken existing protections

for California and other protected coastal areas.

California has 1,100 miles of coastline which contribute $50 billion to California’s

economy. California began efforts to protect its coast line in 1929. Beginning in

1955, the California State Legislature prohibited oil and gas leasing in parts of the

state waters. In 1994, the State Legislature approved the Coastal Sanctuary Act

which prohibits future oil and gas leasing in state waters.

Executive Orders issued by President George Bush, Sr., and President Bill Clinton have prohibited new leasing in Federal waters. On a year to year basis, Congress has continued to prohibit the development of the 36 leased areas off California’s Coast. It should be clear to this Committee and the Bush Administration that

Californians do not want to see their coast developed for oil and gas.

This is the precise reason I am so concerned with proposed amendments which

would weaken a state’s ability to control coastal development. CZMA contains a provision, commonly called Federal consistency, which requires that Federal actions inside or outside the coastal zone must be consistent with state coastal management

programs. Ninety-five percent of the time, the state and Federal Government concur. Since 1978, the Minerals Management Service has approved 10,617 Exploration

Plans and 6,096 Development and Production Plans. There have been only 14 cases

where the oil and gas industry appealed a state’s objection to their plan to the Secretary of Commerce. Only 7 of the 14 appeals resulted in the Secretary of Commerce

deciding against the oil and gas industry. The current Federal consistency provision

works. It allows low impact, non-controversial proposals to move forward while providing a process to resolve higher impact and controversial proposals.

14

I simply cannot understand why the consistency provision needs to be amended.

The American Petroleum Institute and National Ocean Industries Association have

proposed amendments which limit the scope and authority of states to review impacts of Federal actions and would short-circuit the appeals process. States should

continue to have the authority to review Federal activities in Federal waters impacting the state’s coastline. The purpose of the Federal consistency provision is to ensure that Federal actions in Federal and state waters are consistent with a state’s

coastal management program. States should also have access to all the information

in Federal proposals, not just bits and pieces. Also, there needs to be an independent review, outside of the Department of Interior which has to initially approve

the Federal activity, when Federal actions are disputed. Changing the appeals process to allow the Department of Interior to hear appeals is like having the fox guarding the hen house. Finally, the current appeals process works. In the rare instances

when the Secretary of Commerce hears appeals, it is necessary that the Secretary

and other parties have adequate time to submit and review information on coastal

impacts.

It should be clear that I am very sensitive to any changes to CZMA which upset

the delicate balance between state and Federal interests in the coastal zone. These

efforts to weaken the consistency provision combined with the actions of the Department of Interior Advisory Committee put California’s coast at risk. I can assure this

Subcommittee that efforts to undermine the consistency language or undo the moratorium on leasing in Federal waters will create a huge firestorm in California. I

urge this Subcommittee to reject efforts to amend the consistency provisions in

CZMA and continue to support the protection of California’s coast.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

We don’t want to hold on to the current law because we don’t

think the current law is effective enough in protecting our coastlines.

Certainly, there is no consideration by this Committee or the two

proposed bills to do anything to weaken the consistency provisions.

If anything, we want to strengthen the consistency provisions.

And there is nothing in any of the legislation—although it was

pondered, to see if it would be more effective—to move this authority from Commerce to Interior. But there is nothing in either one

of these draft bills to do that either.

We want to make sure that we hold on to the integrity of CZMA.

And to do that, you have to ensure that each state and each program has the ability to be seen as an equal player with the Federal

Government—and maybe even more so.

So it is our intent to look at the reauthorization of the Coastal

Zone Management Act at its next phase. We have certainly

planned enough for 30 years; now it is time to implement a lot of

the ideas and concepts on the ground, including the more controversial one—of course, the word controversial is a relative term

in political circumstances—but the controversial issue of nonpoint

source pollution and how we can help strengthen that provision so

that the concept of reducing or eliminating that problem will be an

effective part of this act.

So we appreciate your testimony, especially from Members from

California, who have a long coastline.

And, Mr. Miller, the opening part of your statement where you

mentioned the oil industry, the oil and gas industry—and even, to

some extent, the oil, gas, and coal industry, or the energy industry

in general in the United States—it is a pretty phenomenal, highly

technical, sophisticated industry.

15

They do astounding feats with human ingenuity to provide the

amount of resources to the number of people that they do. It is extraordinary.

But one small mistake can be catastrophic. So it is important for

us to work with the industry as well, to ensure that they provide

the resources that are necessary for the public. I would hope that

we can move into a new phase of energy resources in the not-toodistant future.

But we appreciate your testimony. I don’t have any questions

right now, but I will yield to Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for your testimonies today. The spirit and the

commitment that you have displayed will go a long way toward

protecting the consistency provisions.

And I don’t think either of the legislations that are proposed deal

with those specific issues.

I do want to indicate that I am also struck by Mr. Miller’s statement about the role of technology in this.

There is always the attempt to convince people that technical expertise and technical know-how can overcome almost any problem.

And they can overcome a lot of problems, but you have to balance

against the potential damage of any one of these incidents of things

that go wrong with oil spills.

Again, I just want thank you for your testimony.

I would take the time, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just to acknowledge the presence of one of my colleagues from Guam, who was a

former senator in the Guam legislature, Carlotta Leon Guerrero,

who is now with the Pew Trust.

Could you stand up, Carlotta?

And just to indicate that she has taken a great deal of interest

in fisheries issues and coastal management issues. She is a

Republican—

[Laughter.]

—so it is a very bipartisan effort.

I just wanted you to know.

Mr. GILCHREST. Lose one, gain one.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That’s right.

I resisted the temptation to say, ‘‘Thank you, Jim,’’ earlier as we

heard the chant on TV.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Saxton?

Mr. SAXTON. I am not sure I have anything to add except to say,

‘‘Me, too.’’

[Laughter.]

I guess I would just say this, that together on east coast—I am

from New Jersey—and on the east coast of New Jersey, we have

worked together— former Congressman Bill Hughes, former Congressman Jim Howard, Congressmen Frank Pallone, Frank

LoBiondo, Chris Smith—we have worked together as a delegation

to try to move forward on various issues which had an adverse effect on our coastal waters.

16

For many years, for example, New York City and northern New

Jersey dumped sewage sludge 12 miles offshore, and then later,

106 miles offshore. And together, our delegation got it stopped. It

took a long time.

There was an outfall pipe from a Ciba-Geigy chemical plant that

went into the ocean in my district, where the Chairman’s father

lives, incidentally, in Toms River, and we got that out of the ocean.

And we got all chemical dumping in the ocean offshore waters

stopped.

We got a practice that we called wood burning stopped offshore,

because it was detrimental and harmful to the environment.

All of these things were point sources of pollution. We haven’t

done squat about nonpoint source pollution, and that is where the

problem is. And sooner or later, we are going to be successful in

doing it.

And so, in our discussions in trying to determine how to move

forward with this, I said I guess this is just like going swimming:

You have to jump in and see where we swim to.

But this is an extremely important issue. And I will also just say,

parenthetically, that there is no way that I am going to support

any effort to weaken the consistency provisions of this legislation,

this law, either.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. So, thank you for your testimony. We look forward

to working together to move this issue forward.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

And as I said, I think there are no three people that we could

testify before who had more knowledge and experience in dealing

with our coastal zones and our oceans than you three. And we appreciate the opportunity to testify here this morning.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller, Mr. Thompson, Mrs. Davis.

Our next panel will be Ms. Margaret Davidson, Assistant Administrator for Oceans, Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Robert Tudor, Vice Chairman, Coastal States Organization; Mr. Michael P. DeLuca, President, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association; Ms. Louise

Lawrence, Chief, Resource Conservation, Maryland Department of

Agriculture.

Thank you very much. We look forward to your testimony. We

appreciate your travel here this morning.

Ms. Davidson, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF MARGARET DAVIDSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OCEANS, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Ms. DAVIDSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Congressman Underwood, Congressman Saxton,

Congressman Miller, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before

you today on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management

Act.

My name is Margaret Davidson. I am the acting assistant administrator for ocean and coastal services for the national ocean service

17

component of NOAA, or as they said on ‘‘West Wing’’ last week, ‘‘NO-A-A.’’

[Laughter.]

We are here today to talk to all three panels about the Coastal

Zone Management Act (CZMA). And it is timely to do so. I am particularly pleased because 25 years ago as a law student, I actually

worked on the original coastal legislation for the State of

Louisiana.

[Laughter.]

So for me, it is a particular pleasure to be here today.

We are going to focus on three major issues in my quick testimony: the success of the CZMA; the emerging coastal management

issues across our country that challenge our Federal, state, territorial, local, and tribal governments; and I also want to talk with

you about proposed alternatives for addressing those emerging

issues.

CZMA, as has been testified, was actually passed in 1972, which

was nearly 30 years ago. And in the beginning of CZMA, we focused on a couple of key things, one of which was, actually, establishing state coastal programs.

One of the beauties of CZMA, as Mr. Miller has pointed out, is

that it is a highly participatory program with the states; the feds

provide the national framework, and state government can choose

to participate in coastal zone management as they wish to do so.

And it is a state plan, and it is state authorities that actually

guide coastal management in each of the individual states. In fact,

I view it as one of the first enacted pieces of states’ rights legislation in this country.

And the central tenet of CZMA is to balance conservation concerns with economic development issues. NOAA provides the

framework at the national level. We also provide some funding.

And the states choose whether to participate. In the last 25, 30

years, 33 out of 35 possible states and territories have chosen to

participate.

In fact, the 34th of those states, that program plan is under development in the State of Indiana. And I have just been informed

this week that the State of Illinois wishes to talk to us as well

about participating in the coastal zone management program.

In which case, all states and territories that would wish to participate are coming on board. So national framework was a very

important thing.

In addition, CZMA also provides for the National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRS), which has been a very successful program. We now have 25 NERRS sites, as we refer to the acronym,

in 21 states. And there are two in the pipeline that have been requested by states and local governments and await adequate resources and processes.

I would like to just quickly point out to you some examples in

some of the states that have been undertaken over the last few

years, as well as the fact that even USA Today saw fit last summer

to run a series over several weeks that really talked about the

kinds of issues that the Committee and the legislation grapples

with on a regular basis.

18

In the State of California, the San Francisco Bay Development

and Conservation Commission, which is actually a regionally authorized coastal management program, has had a particular focus

over the last two decades on the issue of reversing wetlands loss

in San Francisco Bay, which has been a very significant issue for

them, with the result that in 1970, they were losing about 2,300

acres of wetlands in San Francisco Bay on an annual basis. And

that loss has now been reduced to somewhere around four acres

per year, which is a very significant issue. And, indeed, there has

been fairly significant wetlands restoration undertaken with the

bay.

The State of Maryland, which I might mention was, the first

state to step forward to address nonpoint source issues under the

6217 nonpoint provisions that were enacted in 1990. And Louise

Lawrence will be testifying in a little bit about a variety of Maryland issues.

Maryland was the first nonpoint program in the country, and one

of their great areas of emphasis and success has been to focus on

issues associated with the tremendous boating population on the

bay.

As you well know, Mr. Chairman, this is not just the residents

of Maryland who like to boat on the bay. There is a great number

of people, not only from Virginia and Maryland but from some

other geographies in the immediate region. And so the issue of

housing boats is a significant one. And the State of Maryland Clean

Marina Committee has worked very closely with Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources and really works with marina operators to address a variety of issue associated with the active boating population.

In the State of New Jersey, coincidentally, there is a National

Estuarine Research Reserve on the Mullica River. And it has been

one of our most active NERRS sites. They have had workshops to

support local decisionmaking process. They are focused on issues of

local watershed supply, as well as indicators for successful wetlands restoration within the watershed.

In addition, as all of NERRS’ sites do, they have focused very

much on education issues as well. They have a program called the

Marine Awareness Resources Education Program, which has literally trained hundreds of teachers and thousands of students

across nine school districts in the State of New Jersey.

I think these are just really sort of very typical examples of what

is taking place across our state and local governments to address

coastal management issues.

So, what are some of our emerging issues? And what are the

ways to address them?

In the last three decades, since the original passage of CZMA,

the coastal population has grown from 89 million to almost 123

million, which is a gain of 34 million or about 37 percent.

In the Department of Commerce, we also have this agency referred to as the Census Bureau, and recent data out of the Census

Bureau suggests to us that this trend continues relatively

unabated, except for portions of the Southwestern U.S.

As I frequently joke, as soon as they find out that they are out

of water, they will probably be in your district, Mr. Miller.

19

There have been many great strides, but clearly, as these population trends continue unabated, the issues remain in the coast,

and we will continue to have many challenging and vexing conflicts

or concerns at our state and local governments.

So what I would like to turn to now is to talk about three emerging areas that we think that the bills as proposed, with a little discussion, will help us to address those issues even more significantly.

Within NOAA, the agency that provides the national framework,

we really have been thinking about this in three ways, Mr. Chairman. We have been thinking about the challenge of creating prosperous coastal communities; how we do a better job of conserving

and restoring our coastal watersheds; and measuring success of

coastal zone management at all levels.

Coastal communities are directly addressed in the bills. And

clearly, it is particularly at the local level that our coastal communities are dealing with these challenges and frequently don’t have

enough tools to address the challenges that confront them.

I am fond of pointing out to people, many of our challenges are

not DC issues; they are not even statehouse issues. They are increasingly local planning and zoning issues, and permit decisions

that are made on a daily basis.

So what we propose to do, along with you and H.R. 897, is to revise CZMA to help our local communities improve waterfronts, to

address the particular issues related to coastal brownfields, to continue to protect and enhance public access, and to work with our

coastal communities as well as other agencies to address and mitigate damages and costs associated with coastal hazards.

As I have mentioned, H.R. 897 is a good beginning to address

these issues which are national issues, national concerns, but that

are best addressed at state and local levels.

We believe that H.R. 897 provides a good step toward a new approach with a distinctive program that will engage the states, the

territories, and the communities, and the tribal governments, to

undertake needed community vision and community revitalization

efforts.

I think what is really the important part is that we all want to

see us bring together the right resources to help local communities

chart their own futures.

Coastal watershed, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Davidson, are you almost—

Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. We are going to try to keep relatively close to 5

minutes.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Okay. I will do so.

Let me touch on coastal watersheds for a moment: an expanded

approach to working with communities on the creation of watershed conservation and restoration plans, and provide the technical

assistance that is needed, and work more closely with coastal

America.

Finally, we want to, as you proposed, develop a better national

system of performance measures, not look at outcomes but actually

address our successes.

20

We intend to work with the Heinz Center in cooperation with the

Coastal States Organization, as well as propose to produce a new

periodic state-of-the-coast report.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will close. I apologize for taking more

time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davidson follows:]

Statement of Margaret A. Davidson, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Margaret

A. Davidson, the Acting 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 reauthorization of the

Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The CZMA has benefitted the Nation, the

States, and the citizens of our country since its enactment in 1972. The CZMA recognizes a national interest in our coastal and ocean areas, and establishes a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, in which States determine

at the local level how best to balance conservation of the coastal environment with

human uses that depend on coastal resources.

My testimony will focus on three areas: the success of the CZMA to date; emerging coastal management issues that need increased attention by Federal, State,

Local, and Tribal Governments; and alternatives for addressing these needs.

THE SUCCESS OF THE CZMA

In 1972, Congress created the framework and incentives that generated a unique

partnership among States, local governments and the Federal Government to ‘‘preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of

the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.’’ Through their

Federally-approved Coastal Management Programs, States were given the responsibility to balance conservation of the coastal environment with human uses that depend on the coastal zone. Each program must address a wide range of national

goals, including: protecting coastal development and lives from erosion and storms;

maintaining and restoring the natural beach and dune systems; providing for appropriate coastal development; protecting and restoring ecologically important coastal

habitats; furthering the national interest in the siting of energy facilities; controlling

polluted runoff; improving public access and recreational opportunities in coastal

areas; revitalizing local waterfronts; and ensuring that Federal actions are consistent with State Coastal Management Programs.

The best testament to the success of this voluntary Federal–State partnership is

the fact that 33 of 35 eligible coastal States, Commonwealths, and Territories have

received Federal approval of their coastal management plans, and that one more

State, Indiana, is seeking to join the national program. This strong partnership also

includes the 25 Federally-designated National Estuarine Research Reserves (Reserves) in 21 coastal States and Commonwealths, with two additional reserves in

California and New York pursuing designation. Reserves now protect over one million acres of estuarine lands and waters and conduct important research, monitoring, education and stewardship activities.

PRESSURES ON THE COASTS

Our Nation’s coasts are densely populated and getting more crowded every day.

Presently, our coastal areas host 53% of the total U.S. population living on only 17%

of the Nation’s land area. The projected increases in the number of people living

in our coastal areas are dramatic. Between 1994 and 2015, coastal population is projected to increase by 28 million people (20%), compared to a 22 million increase

(18%) in non-coastal areas.

From 1960 to 2015, the population density in all coastal counties (excluding those

in Alaska) will have grown from 187 to 327 persons per square mile - roughly three

times the national average. Counties located directly along a tidal shoreline are popular locations for residential and commercial development. In fact, an average of 360

people live within every square mile of land in these coastal counties.

Our coastal regions are also critical to the economy and the environmental health

of the United States. The 425 coastal counties generate $1.3 trillion of the GNP, and

coastal industries account for more than 28 million jobs, over one-third of the national employment. In 1995, just under a billion tons of cargo worth $620 billion

21

moved through coastal ports and harbors. Coastal estuaries are among the most biologically-productive regions in the Nation, as well as providing recreational opportunities for more than 180 million Americans each year.

The United States is not alone in its efforts to balance coastal conservation and

development. Almost half of the world’s population lives within 100 miles of the

coast, and problems that we find in the U.S. are similar to those in other coastal

nations. About half of the world’s coastal nations have undertaken some activities

to develop coastal management programs. Many of these efforts are patterned after

the CZMA, which remains at the forefront of coastal management planning and implementation.

THE ROLE OF STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

State Coastal Management Programs and Reserves provide the framework necessary to sustain the economic and ecological value of the coastal areas. The balance

is achieved through various State and local programs that allow for the orderly development, conservation, and recreational use of the lands and waters in the coastal

zone.

The incentives given to the States and include funding for developing and implementing coastal management programs and reserves, and a unique type of Federal–

State coordination called ‘‘Federal Consistency.’’ This incentive requires Federal

agencies to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable, and those applying for

Federal approvals and funding to be fully consistent with the approved State Coastal Management Programs. The Federal Consistency provision has worked well, as

States have concurred with more than 95 percent of the projects reviewed under

Federal Consistency. Of the remaining five percent, of all the thousands of Federal

actions reviewed there were only 40 instances where an applicant for a Federal approval appealed a state’s objection to the Secretary of Commerce. Of that total, approximately 14 appeals were associated with proposed Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) oil and gas exploration and/or development activities.

In light of the Administration’s recent National Energy Policy Report and Executive Order 13212 (Actions to Expedite Energy–Related Projects), requiring agencies

to expedite their review of permits and other Federal actions related to energy-related project approvals, we will work closely with the Department of the Interior,

other Departments, and State governments to re-examine the current Federal legal

and policy regime (statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders) to determine if

changes are needed regarding energy-related activities and the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone and the OCS.

BENEFITS OF THE CZMA

The CZMA has provided numerous benefits to the Nation, to the States, Territories and to the citizens living, working and recreating in our coastal communities.

Over the years, the CZMA has received near-unanimous bipartisan support within

Congress, and the wide-spread support of State and local governments, interest

groups and the public. The benefits of the CZMA can be seen in the effectiveness

of the national system of State coastal management programs, the growing network

and use of estuarine research reserves, the vitality of our coastal economies, and

the protection and sustainability of important coastal resources and habitats. I

would like to highlight a few examples:

Reversing Wetlands Loss -- The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a Federally-approved CZMA program, has reversed wetland loss

from 2,300 acres per year to only 4 acres per year.

Reducing Risks from Coastal Hazards -- The South Carolina coastal program used

funding under section 309 and a NOAA Coastal Management Fellow to refine and

implement a procedure for conducting damage assessments following coastal storms.

This computer based program allows State managers to better understand the relationships between damaged habitable structures, natural beach features and erosion

control structures.

Improving Access to Coastal Resources -- Under section 306A of the CZMA, the

Coastal Resource Improvement Program, States have used Federal and State funds

to substantially increase public access to natural and cultural coastal resources. Estimates indicate that States have developed more than 1,000 coastal access and resource protection projects since 1985. The States have spent more than $50 million

in Federal funds, equally matched with State and local funds, on these efforts. The

Maryland CZM Program worked with the Town of Federalsburg on a public access

project to construct a boardwalk that links two greenways—the Marshyhope Creek

Trail and the Federalsburg Riparian Restoration Nature Trail. This project helped

complete a 1.5 mile trail system in a ‘‘river walk park,’’ including a number of recreational features. The park also includes an education component that explains to

22

the public the functions of the river systems and the impacts to the rivers and coast

of the adjacent urban area. In addition, the North Carolina coastal program has improved or developed 57 coastal water accesses and boardwalks since 1996. During

the next year, the Texas coastal program will be working with two local governments to develop coastal accesses. These projects will use $150,000 of Federal funds

and will be matched by nearly $300,000 of local funds.

Supporting Economic Development -- State coastal management programs have

provided support to numerous coastal communities for environmentally-sound waterfront revitalization. The City of Wilmington, North Carolina used CZMA funds

to develop a riverfront plan that served as a catalyst for $4 million in public investment and $100 million in private investment along the Cape Fear River. This

project restored the Wilmington waterfront into a vibrant economic and social center. The State of New Jersey has also expanded its total acreage of waters available

for shellfish harvesting for 11 years in a row. This is attributed to better water quality due to NJDEP’s watershed management approach, designation of No Discharge

Zones in the Manasquan and Shark Rivers, and improved efforts to control nonpoint

pollution. In 1998, the State set the record for the fewest beach closings, according

to an NRDC report. NJDEP is also the lead agency on a new program to site aquaculture development zones within State waters to further facilitate the production

of shellfish.

Controlling Polluted Runoff -- In 1999, Maryland became the first coastal State

to receive full approval of its coastal nonpoint pollution control program by NOAA

and the Environmental Protection Agency. Development of the coastal nonpoint program was accomplished through strengthening the links among existing State and

Federal management programs that protect water quality. The coastal nonpoint program was directly responsible for the Clean Marinas Initiative, a program that recognizes marinas for voluntarily putting into place best management practices that

reduce pollution from boats and marina facilities. Maryland’s program has served

as a national model for other coastal States.

Providing Research and Education -- The National Estuarine Research Reserves

have developed a uniform system-wide water quality monitoring framework at 22

reserves. This information helps scientists, managers, and coastal communities understand natural and human-induced changes in estuaries around the country. The

impacts of farming methods and habitat restoration on water quality is a key issue

studied at numerous sites.

The Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve in New Jersey conducts education programs especially designed to improve science instruction to all

students while improving environmental awareness and academic excellence.

Through the Marine Awareness Resources Education (MARE) Program, the Reserve

trains hundreds of teachers each year, reaching 27 schools, nine school districts, and

thousands of students. In addition, the reserve provides science-based training to

adult coastal decision makers. Workshops such as those on water supply issues in

New Jersey’s coastal watersheds and ecological indicators for salt marsh restoration

help bring sound science to environmental professionals.

Eutrophication, caused by nitrogen loading from human and other activities in the

watershed, is the most challenging management issue for Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Massachusetts. This problem is shared by shallow

coastal bays along the northern Atlantic coast. Research at the reserve has shown

that septic systems contribute a significant percentage of the nitrogen in Waquoit

Bay. Current activities at the reserve focus on educating local decision-makers and

citizens in the Waquoit Bay watershed about alternative on-site disposal systems.

Under section 315 of the CZMA, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, States have used Federal funds to protect more than one million acres of coastal lands and waters for the purposes of long-term research, education, and resource

stewardship. Reserves also have conducted research on the best methods to use for

restoration projects and have restored over 100,000 acres of degraded estuarine

habitat.

The benefits of the reserve system reach far beyond the protection of 25 sites.

Education and training programs provide sound, science-based information to teachers, students, State and local government officials and many other coastal decision

makers, resulting in better stewardship of coastal resources. These outreach activities make the Reserves critical components in the implementation of the State coastal management programs. For example, since 1998, nearly 5,000 people have participated in workshops on coastal issues, and approximately 25,000 school children

participate in reserve educational programs each year.

23

EMERGING COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES

While there have been great strides in managing the Nation’s coastal zones, much

remains to be done. Management of the nation’s coastal zone through State coastal

management programs, estuarine research reserves, and NOAA requires management programs to address increasing pressures on coastal and ocean resources.

Pressures on coastal and ocean resources are increasing dramatically, and so are the

resulting management challenges. For example, the projected increase in coastal

population of 28 million people between 1994 and 2015 will be accompanied by increases in solid waste production, urban runoff, losses of green space and wildlife

habitat, water quality declines, and other stresses on the coastal and marine environment.

We have identified three emerging issue areas that warrant consideration during

this reauthorization: Creating Prosperous Communities, Conserving and Restoring

Coastal Watersheds, and Measuring Success.

Coastal communities are facing increasing challenges. Increasing numbers of people are moving to our coasts, and many communities do not have the ability to plan

for or respond to new pressures on the coastal zone. The CZMA could provide a

focus to help coastal communities respond to this population growth by revitalizing

urban waterfronts and water-dependent economies, restoring and redeveloping

coastal brownfields, providing for increased public access to waterfronts and waterways, and minimizing the threat to lives and property associated with coastal

storms.

Coastal watersheds provide the fresh water and habitat needed to support our

coastal economies, since recreation and tourism depend on healthy natural resources. A new focus on watershed conservation and restoration is needed to identify areas for conservation as well as areas that are suitable for development. Our

experience with estuarine reserves and coastal management programs reveals that

improved information is needed about the status of coastal resources, potential

threats (such as impacts of coastal hazards) and potential compatible uses. This information will enhance our ability to manage these areas to meet national, as well

as local and tribal, interests. The result would be new projects to revitalize the coast

through restoring, conserving and protecting coastal waters and habitats, and encouraging compatible uses in areas with high resource values.

Program reporting and assessment could be substantially increased. While the

CZMA requires periodic evaluations of State programs and reserves, there is a need

to develop a national system of performance measures (indicators) to assess the

health of the natural, cultural and economic resources of the coastal zone. There is

also a need to continue programs to measure the success of a variety of Federal,

State, tribal and local coastal management efforts. A truly successful evaluation system must periodically examine the performance of all of the parties contributing to

coastal management, regardless of their authorizing statute or funding agency.

ADDRESSING EMERGING COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Communities. One alternative is to create a distinct program to encourage States,

communities and tribes to undertake community revitalization and restoration

projects. Project development funding is available only through section 306A of the

Act, which is geared toward direct implementation of the approved State coastal

management plan. A new emphasis could look at developing projects to address

coastal issues in local communities. H.R. 897 provides a good basis for revitalizing

coastal communities by creating a community initiative and authorizing funding to

states and communities that will allow local communities to chart their own futures.

Watersheds. A similar effort could be undertaken to support the creation of coastal watershed conservation and restoration plans. These plans could lead to the development of projects that would improve coastal water quality, ensure adequate

coastal habitat, and promote compatible uses of lands and waters in the coastal

area.

An option for effectively addressing emerging coastal issues at both the local community and watershed scales is to create new technical assistance and education initiatives. Changes to Section 310 of the CZMA could provide for new education, technical assistance, and technology development and transfer programs. It could also

encompass other NOAA programs that provide critical tools and technologies to

coastal zone management programs. Education initiatives under this section could

focus on the general public and the business community as well as on local decisionmakers.

The CZMA could better address watershed needs by developing a greater focus

on the outreach and education capabilities of the National Estuarine Research Reserves. These enhancements could look at expanding the reserve system-wide monitoring program, developing new reserves to include all of the coastal bio-geographic

24

regions, and increasing opportunities for training coastal decision makers in all of

the coastal States and Territories. This would enable the reserve system to build

on the successes already achieved in these areas.

Performance measures and reporting. To ensure that coastal management efforts

are directed to the most pressing and important issues, a national effort has been

initiated to determine the change of conditions over time and to develop a set of performance measures on the effectiveness of management programs on coastal resources. This effort could be based on the experiences of some States, such as

Florida and New Jersey, that have developed performance indicators and measures

under State requirements and initiatives. A study that NOAA commissioned in

1996, The U.S. Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study (1998), concluded

that the monitoring and evaluation of State management measures is possible, yet

has not been done in any systematic fashion. A regular report on the status of coastal resources and the effectiveness of management programs could supplement or replace the current biennial report, which is more directly related to program administration.

CONCLUSION

Our Nation’s coasts are incredible places - that is why so many of us live, work,

and play along the shore. Balancing economic prosperity and environmental conservation continues to be an important challenge. The Coastal Zone Management

Act is an important part of our efforts to achieve that balance in a manner that

benefits all the citizens of the Nation. The Coastal Community Conservation Act of

2001 (H.R. 897) would improve an already effective relationship between the State

coastal management programs, the National Estuarine Research Reserves, and the

Federal government. The CZMA is an effective statute, but there are a number of

improvements that could be made. At the request of Chairman Hansen, the Department is currently working on additional written comments on H.R. 897 for consideration by the Committee. I look forward to working with you and our partners on

this challenge. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is all right, Ms. Davidson. Thank you very

much for your testimony.

I will yield to Mr. Saxton to introduce the next witnesses.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few minutes ago, I mentioned the great progress that we have

made in New Jersey in addressing many of our coastal management and environmental pollution problems. And two people are

with us today that have been really central to that entire effort.

First, deputy commissioner of the Department of Environmental

Protection, Bob Tudor on the right, who will testify next. Bob is director of our coastal management program and, as such, has a very

busy schedule and has a done a great job. I would like to welcome

Bob here today.

And also, someone who is really no stranger to this Subcommittee, Mike DeLuca, who is officially with Rutgers University

but is here to represent today the Coastal States Organization.

I think you are President of the Coastal States Organization?

Mr. DELUCA. NERRA.

Mr. SAXTON. National Estuarine Research Reserve Association. I

am sorry.

[Laughter.]

And he also is the Director of the Institute for Marine and

Coastal Studies at Rutgers University and has had everything to

do with the Jacques Cousteau National Estuary Research Reserve

on the Mullica River, which Margaret Davidson mentioned a few

minutes ago, and is also Director of our Leo XV, which we are very

proud of, and which Mike is, along with a couple of other people,

primarily responsible for.

25

And just by way—not talking too long, but to just let everybody

know that Leo XV is the first, real-time undersea observatory in

the world, connected to shore by fiber optic and gives people all

over the world, via satellite communication, the ability to do realtime studies of ocean currents, sand movement, wave height, salinity, and others.

Mike, welcome to you today as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. If I could interrupt just for a second, I need to

ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from California, George

Miller, to sit on the dais.

Mr. MILLER. No objection.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Welcome, Mr. Tudor.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT TUDOR, VICE CHAIRMAN,

COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION

Mr. TUDOR. Thank you. Good morning.

Chairman Gilchrest, Delegate Underwood and Members of the

Subcommittee, I am Bob Tudor, deputy commissioner of the New

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and vice chair of

the Coastal States Organization.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on behalf

of the CSO on reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management

Act.

The CZMA has long enjoyed widespread bipartisan support in

Congress and public support out in the states. CSO looks forward

to working with you to complete reauthorization this year.

I also would like to acknowledge the leadership of my home state

representatives on the Subcommittee, former chair Jim Saxton and

Frank Pallone, for the strong support of coastal resource management and protection.

The overall objective of coastal management’s collective efforts is

simple: to protect and improve the quality of life for the people who

live near and visit the coast, and to protect and restore the natural

resources upon which that quality of life depends.

In New Jersey, we are seeking to implement coastal management

by working with local communities to integrate state and regional

planning, extensive statewide land acquisition, and watershed

management into local action.

Congress can best assist these efforts by reauthorizing the CZMA

and by amending the Act to do four things.

First, there should be expanded support for existing state coastal

zone management programs so that all states can benefit from increased appropriations.

Second, provide specific authorization in addition to base coastal

programs for states to assist communities to support efficient, wellplanned growth and to protect and restore critical habitats.

Third, continue to support the flexible, collaborative Federalstate CZMA partnership with an increased accountability. This is

where it relates to the performance indicators.

26

Fourth, we support the testimony we just heard on the first

panel to maintain support for consistency review of Federal activities that affect state coastal resources and uses.

CSO strongly supports the intent of both the proposed discussion

draft and H.R. 897 to increase program support, place an expanded emphasis on implementation and support for communitybased projects, and development a cost-effective set of performance

and outcome indicators.

We would like to work with the Subcommittee to revise the proposals to ensure they do not undercut existing program priorities

and commitments. More detailed recommendations are provided in

my written testimony.

Our work to protect the nation’s coast is far from done. Reauthorization and increased support for implementation of the CZMA

can make a significant difference.

As illustrated by charts attached to my testimony, population

density along the coast is already five times the national average.

More people are moving to the coast every day, and coastal recreation and tourism is booming. Development pressures and demands

on coastal resources are increasing at an even faster pace.

For example, in the Delaware estuary, while population is forecast to grow 10 percent over the next 30 years, from 1990 to 2020,

land development is projected to increase by 36 percent. Despite

these trends in increased population density and development pressure, we are making significant progress toward achieving national

objectives.

I would like to direct your attention to just a few New Jersey examples to illustrate this.

The first is a little schematic here talking about the progress in

New Jersey, even though population has increased and there has

been significant growth of development in our coastal area, in

terms of our back-bay waters that are open for shellfish harvesting.

When we go back to 1976, we had about 74 percent of the waterways that were open for shellfish harvesting. Right now, we are at

a level of about 88 percent. We have a clear, overarching umbrella

goal that everybody in our agency works toward: to achieve 90 percent harvestable by the year 2005.

And we think by working upon the successes we have had in controlling point source pollution, focusing more efforts on nonpoint

source pollution, as articulated by Congressman Saxton, that we

will be able to achieve this goal of 90 percent of our shellfish waters open for shellfish harvesting by the year 2005.

We would like to be able to—as the Coastal States Organization,

working with NOAA NOS and this idea of performance indicators—

is to be able to report out to you in future years across a whole

range of issues about how effective the state-Federal partnership is

in affecting these resource-improvement types of outcomes.

Another thing that we are proud of in New Jersey—and Congressman Saxton made reference to this as well: In the early

1990’s, we had problems in terms of our ocean and bay beaches

being swimmable, in part due to floatable issues or discharge of

sludge materials. We no longer have floatable materials in New

Jersey.

27

And our beach closings have a downward trend line, so that, last

year, out of our 179 ocean-front beaches, only 11 beaches experienced closure, and eight of those were in one place. And we have

specific action plans to deal with that, because we have a focused

approach to make sure we have zero beach closures in the next

year or two.

Similarly, we have made significant progress in closing bay

beaches. In that case, we have 139 beaches, and we are now down

to, in the past year, seven beach closures. And we have taken steps

in those areas to reduce specific sources of nonpoint source pollution, so that we don’t have the excess bacteria counts that would

lead to those closures.

Lastly, dealing with a living resources example, again, we were

talking about significant increases in population, significant increases in housing and commercial development in the coastal

area. But we have been able to influence the pattern of development and the kind of performance standards that they adhere to,

so that, in this case, we are able to have a very significant upward

trend in terms of not only viable nests for the bald eagle population

in the State of New Jersey but the habitat that is necessary in

terms of feeding and foraging to ensure the success of those different nesting sites in the State of New Jersey.

CZMA can also provide a mechanism for resolving issues of national significance, such as the exploration of oil and gas in offshore

waters. Issues regarding energy production vary among the states

and can be very emotional. CZMA provides a framework for states

to work through these issues based on their individual needs consistent with national policies.

In Maryland, the coastal program has funded development of

sensitive area inventories, modeling of growth scenarios, GIS mapping, and development of plans to support local governments’ efforts under the state’s economic growth resources protection and

planning act.

In Louisiana, the state coastal program is preparing to examine

pipeline corridors for oil and gas transmissions with the intent of

establishing corridors where such lines can be installed with minimal environmental disturbance through an expedited permitting

process.

The CZMA establishes a unique Federal-state partnership to

achieve the goal of minimizing sustainable economic and environmental objectives. Through voluntary participation, states promote

a national interest based on state and local priorities to protect fish

and wildlife habitat; support compatible coastal development to

mitigate coastal hazards to protect lives and property; coordinate

the siting of energy, commercial, and industry facilities; improve

access to the shore; and restore and develop waterfronts.

CSO recommends the following CZMA changes:

Eliminate the cap and increase state grant support under CZMA

Section 306. Equitable funding increases are needed so that all

states and territories can share equitably in funding increases,

maintain commitments to implement coastal zone management

programs, and grow to meet new challenges.

Funding for the states’ grants to administer and implement their

coastal programs have been capped at the $2 million level for the

28

past 9 years. As a result, many states have received no increases

in 306 since 1991.

Fifteen of the 35 eligible states have reached the cap and—

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Tudor, we have a vote on.

I hate to do this, but I will have to interrupt you.

Mr. TUDOR. Okay.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will come back after the vote.

But Ms. Pelosi is in the room. And if you wouldn’t mind, we will

have Ms. Pelosi testify. And then what we will do is recess, go to

the vote, and then come back.

Mr. TUDOR. Okay.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Welcome, Ms. Pelosi. We will give you about 5 seconds to catch

your breath.

Ms. PELOSI. That is okay. It is the life we lead.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, ma’am.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NANCY PELOSI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the extraordinary courtesy you have extended to me by taking out of turn

here—

Mr. GILCHREST. You are welcome.

Ms. PELOSI. —especially on our way to vote.

And to the distinguished Ranking Member, thank you also, and

Members of the Committee, Mr. Miller.

Thank you to the panel, the inconvenience to them, as well.

I appear before you to discuss a matter of utmost concern: the

need to maintain and enhance the critical role of our coastal states

and the stewardship of our nation’s coastal environment.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to stick to my notes, because then I

will be briefer.

Mr. GILCHREST. All right, fine.

Ms. PELOSI. As J.D. Salinger said, if I had more time, I would

have written you a shorter letter. So this is the shorter letter.

[Laughter.]

First, I would like quickly to paint a picture for you of the marine treasures that lie off the shores of the San Francisco Bay area.

We are fortunate to have three national marine sanctuaries to help

protect these resources.

The Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary contains the largest breeding concentration of sea birds in the continental U.S.; 33 marine

mammal species, including endangered blue and humpback whales;

and breeding grounds for 20 percent of California’s harbor seals.

The sanctuary hosts nurseries and spawning grounds for commercially valuable species such as Dungeness crab, Pacific herring, and

rockfish, and supports many commercial fisheries.

The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary encompasses an

underwater mountain perched near the edge of the continental

shelf, where a unique combination of undersea topography and

ocean currents create an amazingly productive marine environment.

29

Monterey Bay, the largest marine sanctuary, stretches all the

way up to San Francisco and includes a rich array of marine habitats that abound with life.

Although these areas have been designated as sanctuaries, they

are very much affected by human activities on land and sea. To

protect them, we must remain committed to protecting the coastal

environment through the Coastal Zone Management Act and other

policies.

In 1972, as you know very well, Mr. Chairman, Congress enacted

the Coastal Zone Management Act—not because you were here,

Mr. Chairman, but because you have been such a leader on these

issues—which encourages states to adopt a high national standard

in exercising their stewardship of the fertile and fragile zone. Congress provided incentives in the law to induce coastal states to

adopt their own coastal zone management plans and obtain Federal

certification of these plans.

The Act gives the opportunity to participate in a thoughtful decisionmaking process to determine which activities are consistent

with their coastal zone management plans. When a difference of

opinion arises between the coastal states and the Federal Government over specific activities within the coastal zone, the Secretary

of Commerce is the ultimate arbiter.

With energy issues in the stoplight, the CZMA will play an important role in decisions on addressing America’s energy needs.

The administration’s energy plan emphasizes exploration for and

extraction of oil and natural gas, and calls for a reexamination of

policies that restrict energy-related activities in the coastal zone

and the outer continental shelf.

Another report released yesterday by a Subcommittee of the

outer continental shelf advisory board recommends selecting five

locations within the moratorium areas for a pilot project on natural

gas extraction.

Mr. Chairman, as a Member representing a coastal district, I assure you that my constituents strongly oppose any efforts to resume oil and gas leasing in the moratoria areas. In the context of

this new pressure to increase offshore drilling, the protections provided by the CZMA become all the more important to coastal

states.

Representatives of the petroleum industry are promoting a wish

list of amendments to the CZMA that would significantly weaken

the role of states in coastal management. Several proposed amendments would severely limit the scope and authority of coastal

states to review activities that could significantly affect the state’s

coastal uses and resources.

Mr. Chairman, this proposal to weaken CZMA is unacceptable.

The CZMA is not broken; it is working well, providing a balance

between preservation and development decisions, and should not be

weakened in any way.

There is one area in which the CZMA should be strengthened,

and that is in the act’s ability to empower states to address water

pollution from nonpoint sources.

I encourage the Committee to prevent erosion of this important

statute and to address of coastal nonpoint source pollution during

the reauthorization process.

30

I thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

And I make this presentation on a regular basis to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State for the funding for the CZMA. I served on there at one point. It is a priority

for many of us.

And as I look at the makeup of the Committee there, I feel that

we are in our mother’s arms, as Phil Burton would say.

[Laughter.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pelosi follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Chairman Gilchrest, Mr. Underwood, and Members of the committee, thank you

to for the opportunity to testify today.

I appear before you to discuss a matter of utmost concern: the need to maintain

and enhance the critical role of our coastal states in the stewardship of our nation’s

coastal environment.

First I would like quickly to paint a picture for you of the marine treasures that

lie off the shores of San Francisco. We are fortunate to have three National Marine

Sanctuaries to help protect these resources.

The Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary contains the largest breeding concentration

of seabirds in the continental U.S., thirty-three marine mammal species including

endangered blue and humpback whales, and breeding grounds for twenty percent

of California’s harbor seals. The sanctuary hosts nurseries and spawning grounds

for commercially valuable species such as Dungeness crab, Pacific herring, and rockfish, and supports many large commercial fisheries.

The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary encompasses an underwater mountain, perched near the edge of the continental shelf, where a unique combination

of undersea topography and ocean currents create an amazingly productive marine

environment. Monterey Bay, the nation’s largest marine sanctuary, stretches all the

way up to San Francisco and includes a rich array of marine habitats that abound

with life.

Although these areas have been designated as sanctuaries, they are very much

affected by human activities on land and sea. To protect them, we must remain committed to protecting the coastal environment through the Coastal Zone Management

Act (CZMA) and other policies.

In 1972, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act, which encourages

states to adopt a high national standard in exercising their stewardship of the fertile and fragile zone. Congress provided incentives in the law to induce coastal

states to adopt their own Coastal Zone Management Plans and obtain Federal certification of these plans.

The Act gives states the opportunity to participate in a thoughtful decision-making process to determine which activities are consistent with their Coastal Zone

Management Plans. When a difference of opinion arises between coastal states and

the Federal Government over specific activities within the coastal zone, the Secretary of Commerce is the ultimate arbiter.

With energy issues in the spotlight, the CZMA will play an important role in decisions on addressing America’s energy needs. The Administration’s energy plan emphasizes exploration for and extraction of oil and natural gas, and calls for a reexamination of policies that restrict energy-related activities in the coastal zone and

the outer continental shelf.

Another report, released just yesterday by a subcommittee of the Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Board, recommends selecting five locations within the moratorium areas for a pilot project on natural gas extraction.

Mr. Chairman, as a Member representing a coastal district, I assure you that my

constituents strongly oppose any efforts to resume oil and gas leasing in the moratoria areas. In the context of this new pressure to increase offshore drilling, the protections provided by the CZMA become all the more important to coastal states.

Representatives of the petroleum industry are promoting a wish list of amendments to the CZMA that would significantly weaken the role of states in coastal

management. Several proposed amendments would severely limit the scope and authority of coastal states to review activities that could significantly affect the state’s

coastal uses and resources.

31

Mr. Chairman, these proposals to weaken the CZMA are unacceptable. The CZMA

is not broken. It is working well, providing a balance between preservation and development decisions, and should not be weakened in any way.

There is one area in which the CZMA should be strengthened, and that is in the

Act’s ability to empower states to address water pollution from non-point sources.

I encourage the committee to prevent erosion of this important statute, and to address the issue of coastal non-point pollution during the reauthorization process.

Thank you again for this opportunity to present my views.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

testify.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Pelosi. You have nailed down

this testimony.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

The Subcommittee will stand in recess for about 15 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come back to order.

I was about to apologize when I came back here, rushing back

here, to all the witnesses and the people in the hearing room, for

the fragmented congressional time schedule and making you all

wait. But when I got back here, it looked like everybody was having a great time.

[Laughter.]

This is the number two highly visited area in Washington for

tourists, the Resources Committee hearing room.

[Laughter.]

I ask unanimous consent that a statement of Dr. William

Merrell, from the John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and

the Environment, be entered in to the record; and a statement of

the American Farm Bureau be entered into the record; and also for

Members that had statements, for their statements to be submitted

to the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrell follows:]

Statement of Dr. William J. Merrell, President and Senior Fellow, The H.

John Heinz Iii Center for Science, Economics and the Environment

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am William

Merrell, President of The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the

Environment. While serving as president of The Heinz Center, I am on leave of absence from the Texas A&M University, where I am professor of oceanography and

marine sciences. I am pleased to testify on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone

Management Act (CZMA). My testimony will include brief comments on the CZMA

and will focus specifically on a Heinz Center study on coastal management performance indicators and measures that would complement the implementation of the

proposed performance evaluation system in H.R. 897.

We all recognize the importance of our coastal areas to the economic vitality and

biological diversity of the United States. Marine-related economic activities in the

coastal zone and coastal ocean account for some 2 percent of the U.S. Gross National

Product and are comparable in scope to other important sectors of our economy. At

the same time, our coastal areas are under considerable pressures. Population

growth and its associated impacts may be the most critical issue. About half the nation’s population now lives in the narrow fringe of coastal counties, and by 2015,

projections suggest that the coastal population will number 155 million. Coastal

communities need support to plan for and manage growth and development in their

coastal areas, and the Coastal Zone Management Act enhances and encourages

proactive coastal zone management.

Since 1972, when Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Act

has provided a national framework for improved management of the coastal lands

32

and waters of the nation’s coastal zone. The Act’s origins can be traced to the recommendations of the Stratton Commission in its final report, Our Nation and the

Sea, that explicitly urged the passage of Federal coastal zone management legislation to assist the states in managing coastal resources and to require Federal programs and activities to conform to state coastal policies. The major features of the

1972 Act are still in effect: The states have the lead in developing plans; the program is voluntary, with no sanctions imposed on states choosing not to prepare CZM

programs; Federal grants aid state governments in developing and implementing

plans; and Federal agencies must assist states in the CZM process. Coastal zone

management programs and activities involve all levels of government Federal, state

and local and that three-tier system is a stable element of this voluntary program.

The CZM program has been very effective in diffusing coastal zone management

practices to practically all the U.S. coastal zone in the coastal states and territories.

After 30 years, 33 of 35 eligible coastal states, commonwealths, and territories participate in this voluntary program (only Indiana, which is presently developing a

program and Illinois do not participate). The network these 33 states have established for implementing coastal programs is extensive, spreading coastal zone management considerations widely within the state and local governance structure.

More than 97 percent of the U.S. shoreline is now subject to CZM programs, and

no state or territory has dropped out of the program in its three decades of operation. CZMA stimulated coastal management actions in the states and territories,

where, in most cases, none had existed before.

Even after 30 years of success, CZMA must be seen in a larger context. Are the

nation’s environmental programs working? Are we getting the benefits from them

that our time and effort should bring? These questions are being asked by program

managers, legislatures, and the public, and the answers are not clear.

Quantitative evaluation of the impacts of the CZM program is difficult at best,

and relatively little information of this kind now exists. Most assessments to date

have involved the use of process indicators (number of new state laws and regulations, strength of enforcement, better mapping, and so on), and not indicators of program performance. Developing a set of on-the-ground measures and indicators is a

high priority at all levels of government.

To effectively and efficiently protect and improve the management of coastal resources, coastal managers must be able to assess the performance of their programs.

Such performance measures will enable managers to monitor the success of implemented management strategies. To meet this need, The Heinz Center, working collaboratively with NOAA’s National Ocean Service, will convene a panel of experts

from the four sectors government (all levels), industry, academia, and environmental

organizations ’to develop a common framework and a consistent set of measures, or

performance indicators, to evaluate the effectiveness of state coastal zone management programs in achieving the objectives specified in the Coastal Zone Management Act. This framework will provide information on regional and national trends

or issues affecting the coast, will assist coastal managers to improve internal management of their programs, and will showcase accomplishments and potential needs

of specific state programs. In addition, such a framework and suite of indicators will

provide a mechanism for coastal decision makers to assess program effectiveness in

achieving desired goals, to make policy adjustments, and to allocate or reallocate resources. The panel will also consider the role of the National Estuarine Research

Reserves, as specified in Section 315 of the 1972 Act, in developing performance

measures and indicators.

The Heinz Center will review the issues being addressed by state coastal programs and the current use of performance indicators and measures. Regional multisector roundtables will be held in California, Texas, and the Great Lakes area (possibly Michigan), to gather public input on the need and value of such an evaluation

strategy.

The Heinz Center study will identify common goals and threads among the state

coastal programs that can serve as a framework of performance measures and indicators to measure the health of the natural, cultural and economic resources of our

nation’s coast. This framework must be flexible enough to allow the states to continue to develop measures and indicators that are specific to their individual programs. This framework will enhance the effective partnership between the states

and the Federal Government that exists through the CZMA and at the same time

will provide a wealth of information on our Nation’s coastal resources and their

management.

I believe that The Heinz Center’s Coastal Management Performance Measures

and Indicators Study will enhance the effectiveness of the Act in protecting and

managing the nation’s coastal resources. Thank you for giving me the opportunity

to contribute to your deliberations on the reauthorization of this important Act.

33

[The prepared statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation follows:]

Statement of The American Farm Bureau Federation

The American Farm Bureau Federation represents more than five million member

families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Farm Bureau is looking for, and will be

supportive of, the right mix of public policy tools that will enable farmers and ranchers to improve net farm income, enhance their economic opportunity, preserve their

property rights and enhance the nation’s environment. The Coastal Zone Management Act needs to be supportive of agriculture’s needs and goals for water quality

protection.

America depends on a strong and sound agricultural policy. American agriculture

provides food security for this nation and much of the rest of the world. We contribute to our national economic security by running a positive balance of trade and

generating off-farm employment. We also contribute to the world’s environmental

security. In this specific area we can, with the proper incentives, do much more.

Increased regulatory costs on all levels—Federal, state and local—are placing a

heavy burden on individual farmers and ranchers as well as distorting the traditional structure of our industry. Farmers and ranchers understand the importance

of protecting the environment. Their livelihood depends on it. However, the expenses that are incurred to meet compliance are taking a heavy toll on farm incomes and forcing farmers and ranchers to spread the cost of increased regulation

over more units of production. The unintended consequence is the inability of smalland medium-sized family farms to compete in a highly charged regulatory environment.

Farm Bureau believes there is a need for a new environmental policy framework.

We need to move beyond the current debate over whether the public has the right

to mandate features and/or farming practices in the rural landscape. We are at that

proverbial fork in the road and have concluded that mandates are not only counterproductive but more important, inefficient. Our members understand that there is

need for a different set of tools and farm policy options. We believe market forces

and government programs can work together to enhance the nation’s productivity

and environmental objectives.

The existing environmental policy framework is not equipped to function in a way

that is most efficient in achieving the policy objectives we are faced with in the future. Command and control mechanisms do not provide an attractive incentive for

farmers and ranchers to produce the things that the public wants. A new, more efficient and effective approach should be developed to assist farmers and ranchers in

providing the public with what it wants. It should be voluntary, provide sufficient

economic incentives and clearly define the benefits that society at large derives from

agriculture.

We believe that the reauthorization of the CZMA should affirmatively support a

preference for voluntary, incentive-based programs for water quality protection for

agriculture. The costs of planning and regulatory water quality actions for nonpoint

sources will impact agriculture in the coastal zone. The costs of permits, plans and

potential production restrictions will be a burden that will put the affected farmers

at a competitive disadvantage within their industry. The coastal zone program

should be looking to enhance and support agriculture for its contributions to open

space, wildlife habitat, and the local economy. Ultimately, increased resources must

be made available to landowners if we are to make continued progress in improving

water quality.

Existing programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),

the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), the Wetlands Reserve

Program (WRP) of USDA and the Section 319 nonpoint grants program of EPA provide resources for landowners to improve water quality. In the next farm bill we

support efforts to continue and expand the opportunities for farmers to increase

their environmental protection with cost and technical assistance through voluntary,

incentive-based approaches.

Farm Bureau policy states that the next farm bill should:

• Continue to improve the environment through expanded incentives to encourage

voluntary soil conservation, water and air quality programs, and advance technological and biotechnological procedures that are based on sound science and

are economically feasible;

• Improve the quality of rural life and increase rural economic development;

• Provide willing producers with additional voluntary incentives for adopting and

continuing conservation practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion

and wildlife habitat.

34

Bridging the gap between where we are now and where we want to be in the future requires an expanded public investment in agriculture. Increases in conservation incentives are needed to lay the base today for responsible growth in our industry.

Our vision is to capture the opportunity and efficiencies of providing producers

with additional conservation incentives for adopting and continuing conservation

practices to address air and water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat. The

Coastal Zone Management Act should support this approach for agriculture.

[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Jeb

Bush, Governor, State of Florida, follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor, State of Florida

Chairman Gilchrest, Representative Underwood and Members of the Committee,

thank you for allowing the State of Florida to submit written testimony to the Committee as you consider re-authorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA). This legislation has proven critical in assisting Florida in developing and

implementing a coastal management program that comprehensively manages and

balances the competing uses of, and impacts to, the nation’s coastal resources.

The entire state of Florida is designated a coastal zone as part of the Florida

coastal management program. There are over 8,460 miles of coastline and no inland

location more than 60 miles from either the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico.

Of Florida’s 16 million residents, 75 percent live in the state’s 35 coastal counties.

Our environmental, economic, and cultural coastal resources are as diverse as our

population—sandy beaches, coral reefs, mangrove thickets, maritime-related industries and port facilities, military and space exploration complexes, historic lighthouses and shipwrecks. Coastal resource management is essential for Florida’s

present and future.

Florida utilizes two key components of the legislation to implement its coastal

management program—Federal funding to assist in implementation of our state

program and the requirement that various activities carried out by Federal agencies

be consistent with Federally approved coastal management programs.

Florida provides Federal coastal management funding directly to local governments for a variety of activities. These range from water quality monitoring in sensitive estuaries and bays, master plan development for unique local resource areas,

and hazard mitigation planning by local governments to sea turtle monitoring, dune

walkovers with handicap access, and public education materials. Federal funding

has been used to partner on a variety of remarkable activities such as creation of

a statewide ‘‘virtual’’ Florida Maritime Heritage Trail on the Internet to make

Florida’s coastal cultural resources accessible to those planning a visit and to those

for whom visiting these special places is impossible. The program has provided

funds to implement a beach water quality pilot project, to support planning and protection efforts in the Everglades, and to develop a performance indicator system

unique among the coastal states to assess our coastal management efforts.

The Federal consistency provisions allow coastal states to review Federal actions

affecting any land or water use or natural resource of their coastal zone for consistency with the enforceable policies of the state’s coastal management program. Specifically, coastal states review: 1) activities conducted by or on behalf of a Federal

Government agency; 2) activities which require a Federal license or permit; 3) activities conducted pursuant to an Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act lease; and 4)

Federally funded activities.

In Florida, these activities are reviewed in conjunction with notices received under

Presidential Executive Order 12372, the National Environmental Policy Act, the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and certain Federal permit applications. To

avoid duplication, consistency reviews are integrated with reviews under the above

laws.

Because the Coastal Zone Management Act requires Federal agencies to consider

state laws and policies when implementing Federal projects and programs, it is an

important means to resolve potential conflicts and to gain state and public support

for proposed Federal actions. Early consultation and cooperation between parties

maximizes the probability of a smooth and expeditious permit review. Early resolution of issues helps to avoid costly last-minute changes to projects in order to comply

with state regulatory requirements. The larger net result is that nationwide, Federal agencies are supporting better management of coastal resources through effective state-Federal partnerships.

35

The Coastal Zone Management Act has allowed Florida to review thousands of

Federal projects under the Federal consistency provision since the state’s program

was approved in 1981. The consistency process has enabled Florida to work with

its Federal partners at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) and other Federal agencies to review projects

expeditiously, identify potential problem areas and, most importantly, to reduce impacts and/or improve the environmental benefits of Federal activities and decisions

affecting Florida’s environment, economy and quality of life.

The overwhelming majority of projects reviewed under this provision have received the state’s approval, deeming them consistent with Florida’s Coastal Management Program (FCMP), although there have been notable exceptions. For example,

the state reviews Outer Continental Shelf lease sales, exploration plans and development and production plans that affect Florida’s coastal resources for consistency

with the FCMP. The consistency process has enabled the state to ensure that

Florida’s marine and coastal resources are adequately protected from the adverse

effects of offshore oil and gas activities. In one case, Florida found Chevron, U.S.A.,

Inc.’s plan to produce natural gas south of Pensacola inconsistent with the state’s

coastal management program. This finding was based on the potential for substantial harm to important marine coastal resources which support the state’s primary

industries such as recreation, tourism and commercial and recreational fishing.

Chevron’s appeal of the state’s objection is currently under consideration by the Secretary of Commerce.

The following further exemplify how Florida has used its consistency concurrence

to protect our unique natural resources:

Federal consistency is the basis of the state’s coordination with the EPA and the

Corps on the siting and management of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites.

Through consistency coordination, the state has redirected this program toward marine resource protection and cooperative state-Federal management of activities at

the numerous sites off of Florida, both in state and Federal waters.

Working through the consistency process in conjunction with Gulfstream Natural

Gas Systems LLC during the siting of a natural gas pipeline resulted in significant

reductions in impacts to sensitive offshore biological resources and fisheries habitat.

This was achieved through the realignment of the pipeline to avoid approximately

50 acres of fisheries habitat and an agreement to conduct extensive mitigation and

monitoring to offset unavoidable impacts.

Raising concerns to the Corps regarding the proposed disposal of dredged beachquality sand offshore, rather than onto adjacent beaches, the Corps agreed to bring

the project into compliance with state law by depositing the sand on the beach. Consistency is an important coordination mechanism for all Federal navigation, flood

control and beach stabilization projects.

The Florida Gas Transmission company was alerted to a possible conflict with

state sovereignty concerns (encroachment on state-owned and managed lands) during a natural gas pipeline expansion and consulted with the appropriate parties to

determine an acceptable route.

Florida reviewed the Corps nationwide permit program for consistency with state

laws and regulations. By fashioning regional conditions that conform to state regulations, we have been able to concur with the use of the nationwide permits in

Florida.

During the design and siting of artificial reefs in Federal waters adjacent to our

state, consistency ensures that adequate marine resource protection is included.

During the project design phase of proposed bridge replacements, consistency has

ensured there is adequate mitigation for impacts to natural resources (including important commercial oyster habitat). It is also an important coordination mechanism

for all other DOT projects in the state.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the intent of the Coastal Zone

Management Act has always been to foster partnerships between the Federal and

state governments. Nowhere are those partnerships flourishing more than in

Florida, and we look forward to continuing them well into the future.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]

36

Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress from

the State of California

Because of the widespread agreement on this issue within the California delegation, I am submitting this single written testimony with the support of my colleagues Susan Davis, Mike Thompson, and Lois Capps.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I have prepared this

statement to express my adamant opposition to several amendments proposed by

the oil and gas trade associations that would undermine the Coastal Zone Management Act by weakening the right of the states to review Federal activities inside

or outside their coastal zone and ensure that they are consistent with their coastal

management programs.

By enacting the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972, Congress gave the States

unprecedented authority and responsibility to manage their coastal zones. In California, we take this responsibility very seriously. Through the California Coastal

Commission, we have been managing our coastal resources with a comprehensive

statewide plan since 1965, seven years before the Coastal Zone Management Act

was enacted. The success of these endeavors is evident to anyone who has visited

the California coast.

Although California currently implements its coastal management plan with the

lowest per capita Federal funding of any state, our commitment to coastal management has served to protect some of this nation’s most valuable natural assets. Nearly 8% of the entire U.S. Population lives in the coastal counties of California and

have benefitted from this management. California is the most visited state in the

nation hosting 282 million visitors every year. Our beaches contribute $14 billion

dollars of direct revenue to the national economy. In 1999 there were $150 million

worth of fish caught in California fisheries. Our waters also contain four of the nation’s 13 national marine sanctuaries which protect some of the world’s most diverse, and sensitive marine ecosystems.

Considering the success that we have achieved in California in managing our own

coastal zone, it is shocking that anyone would propose to ‘‘fix’’ the Coastal Zone

Management Act by removing the states from the process of deciding what is best

for our nation’s coasts. This, however, is precisely what the oil industry proposes

to do with these amendments.

In their suggestion to amend the definition of ‘‘enforceable policy’’ to apply only

to activities occurring ‘‘within the boundaries of the State’’, the oil industry is clearly

attempting to exempt outer continental shelf exploration from state consistency

review. Because these activities have the obvious potential to significantly impact

the coastal zone, the only rationale for such a change would be that the states are

incapable of making informed decisions about the risks and benefits of offshore exploration. Such an assumption is contrary to the fundamental principles of the

Coastal Zone Management Act and would undermine the foundations upon which

it was created.

In fact, the Coastal Zone Management Act provides a mechanism for the Federal

Government to override decisions by the states to allow an activity that would contribute significantly to the national interest. This appeal process, administered by

the Secretary of Commerce, has been both effective and fair. In the case of oil industry appeals, of which there have only been 14, the Secretary of Commerce has been

sympathetic to 7. The industry amendments, however, would attempt to change this

process and give this authority to the Secretary of Interior. Although the Secretary

of Interior might weigh in favor of their appeals more frequently, implementing this

change would bifurcate the consistency process, and create a clear conflict of interest for the Secretary of Interior. There is simply no reason to confuse and complicate

a process that works effectively.

I am confident that this subcommittee will see the accomplishments of California,

and the Coastal Zone Management Act as compelling evidence that the consistency

provisions within the Act should only be strengthened if they are to be changed at

all. I, along with my colleagues from California, feel very strongly about our coasts

and our state’s right to make the decisions concerning their protection. California

has done an exceptional job of managing and protecting its coastal zone. Clearly the

reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act should move in a direction

that helps us continue to make progress. I look forward to working with this subcommittee throughout the process to ensure that the Act is strengthened and improved.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harman follows:]

37

Statement of The Honorable Jane Harman, A Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Underwood. Our coastal areas are one of our

nation’s most precious resources and must be protected against unnecessary offshore

drilling.

The proposed amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Provisions are an assault on a State’s right to protect and manage its coastal resources.

In California, State and Federal agencies have a long history of working together

to preserve our coastal areas. These amendments jeopardize that relationship.

Part of maintaining a healthy coastal zone is ensuring that the surrounding

areas, be it the Outer Continental Shelf or ‘‘up stream’’ areas, are also managed responsibly. Restricting the State’s ability to review non-Federal activity in these sensitive areas undermines years of preservation efforts at the state level.

Information is an invaluable component of good resource management. Two of the

proposed amendments limit the information available to States performing environmental reviews under CZMA—seriously handicapping thorough examinations of development proposals. In particular, States should not be limited to information requested by the Secretary of the Interior.

Another amendment transfers jurisdiction over Outer Continental Shelf oil and

gas activities from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of the Interior. This

is an unnecessary change that will give the same Federal agency that approves offshore drilling permits, the authority to override States’ permit objections—significantly weakening the appeal process.

The final amendment reduces the period of time the Secretary of Commerce has

to review appeals under CZMA. Requiring the Secretary to decide on appeals before

obtaining all necessary information is reckless and not conducive to sound policy

creation.

Our coastlines are one of our most precious resources and protecting them is a

top priority. The aforementioned amendments do not address this priority and hopefully will not be adopted.

Mr. GILCHREST. I feel bad about making people rush through

their statements. And that is just the way it works to get all this

done, with everything else that we have to do. And I apologize for

the lights and all those things.

But we did sort of jump away from Mr. Tudor’s last 60 seconds

or so.

[Laughter.]

So, Mr. Tudor, if you have any wrapup statement that you would

like to make?

Mr. TUDOR. Just to reinforce the four recommendations of the

Coastal States Organization.

One was to eliminate the cap and increase state grant support

under CZMA Section 306.

Another one was to authorize state grants to assist local communities and decisionmakers, and I had provided a little aerial photograph of a town in Congressman Saxton’s district called Stafford

Township that showed land-use/land-cover change over a 10-year

period that has been very instructive to mayors.

And we have sent that kind of a tool to all municipal officials in

New Jersey to give them a feel for impervious cover linkage to

nonpoint source pollution. So I just wanted you to be aware of that.

Third was that the CSO is very supportive of this concept of indicators, specifically indicators focused on environmental improvement outcomes, those kinds of things. And we are working closely

with NOAA NOS as part of an integration Committee and the

Heinz Center.

38

And lastly that we feel strongly that we should maintain support

for state consistency review, the same kind of testimony you heard

from the California delegation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tudor follows:]

Statement of Robert Tudor, Deputy Commissioner, New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection, and Vice Chair of the Coastal States

Organization

Introduction

Chairman Gilchrest, Delegate Underwood and members of the Subcommittee, I

am Bob Tudor, Deputy Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Vice Chair of the Coastal States Organization (CSO). Thank

you for the opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of CSO and the nation’s

35 coastal states and territories.

Since 1970, CSO has represented the collective interests of the coastal states and

territories along the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes.

CSO is an advocate for states working for sound and balanced management, protection and restoration of our nation’s natural and economic coastal resources.

I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my home State Representatives on

the Subcommittee—former Chair, Representative Jim Saxton, and Representative

Frank Pallone, for their leadership and support of coastal resource management and

protection.

CZMA has long enjoyed widespread bipartisan support in Congress and public

support out in the states. CSO looks forward to working with Congress to complete

reauthorization this year.

Summary of Key Recommendations

CSO’s reauthorization objectives and recommendations can be summarized as follows:

• It is critical that Congress raise the funding for state coastal program grants

and the cap on allocations of Section 306 grants so that all states can share equitably in the funding increases needed to address the increasingly complex

challenges facing our nation’s coastal communities. The cap, which has been in

place for the last 9 years, restricts funding to 15 of the 33 states with approved

programs. Increased program support is needed to enable states and communities to keep pace with increasing development, population growth, expanding

coastal tourism, and land and water use changes in the coastal zone. We recommend that funding for these programs be set at $80 million in fiscal year

2002, consistent with the proposed budget recommendations and be increased

in the out years.

• Additional funding for grants to states to provide assistance for coastal communities initiatives to accommodate growth efficiently and protect and restore critical open space, habitats and coastal resources. Coastal community funding

should be in addition to, and not compete with, funding for implementing existing state coastal program components and commitments. Community assistance

grants should be available for a broad range of uses , including characterization,

assessment and planning and studies, as well as acquisition and specific

projects. We recommend that funding be set at a minimum of $40 million in fiscal year 2002 for assistance and increased substantially in the out years to provide increased emphasis on implementation efforts and sustained support for

communities and conservation.

• While it is essential that states retain the flexibility under the CZMA to establish their own priorities for designing and implementing coastal programs consistent with national objectives, CSO also supports changes to the CZMA that

would improve accountability through the development of appropriate outcome

indicators that can be used track the effectiveness of the CZM programs.

• Finally, the CZMA consistency provisions, which require Federal activities, licenses and permits to be consistent with Federally approved state coastal policies, are the cornerstone of the Federal/state partnership under the CZMA.

Coastal states and territories will oppose any proposals that seek to weaken

states’ rights under CZMA’s consistency provisions to review activities that affect coastal resources and uses.

39

The CZMA: A Cooperative Framework for Improving the Quality of Life Along the

Coast

The overall objective of state coastal management’s collective efforts is simple— to protect and improve the quality of life for the people who live near and visit the

coast and to protect and restore the natural resources upon which that quality of

life depends. It is increasingly clear that to achieve this objective in the face of continuing growth of population and increasing conflicts among people and businesses

dependent on the coast will require an increased commitment shared by all levels

of government in partnership with local communities and the private sector. Past

mistakes need to be remedied and future ones avoided.

Since colonial times, development has been concentrated along our nation’s coasts

and we have depended on the coasts for commerce, transportation, fishing and

recreation. Until passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972, decisions affecting coastal resources were made in piecemeal fashion with little consultation or coordination between the Federal, state and local governments. The

CZMA recognizes that integrated planning and management, and the coordination

of multiple agency efforts and conflicting mandates are important to successful conservation of coastal resources while accommodating economic growth.

In New Jersey, we are seeking to implement this comprehensive management regime by working with local communities to integrate state and regional planning,

state-wide land acquisition and habitat characterization initiatives, and watershed

management into local action. An integrated plan for America’s coasts through

CZMA supported Federal-state-local partnerships can provide an excellent framework for balancing competing interests and uses along our nation’s coast; protecting

coastal ecosystems; redeveloping shorelines and urban waterfronts; and enhancing

the economic vitality of coastal communities and the nation.

A Flexible, State–Based Framework: The CZMA establishes a Federal-state partnership to achieve the goal of maximizing sustainable economic and environmental

objectives. The CZMA provides a flexible framework to develop collaborative, innovative community-based strategies. The CZMA incorporated the essential principles

of the ‘‘sustainability’’ and ‘‘stewardship’’ more than twenty years before the terminology came into vogue. Congress was prescient in 1972 when it adopted CZMA to

provide incentives:

to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of

management programs to achieve the wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural,

historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic

development programs. (16 U.S.C. 1452(2))

In developing their coastal management programs, states in consultation with

local communities, determine the right mix of incentives, cooperation, regulation,

and education needed to address coastal management priorities.

A Federal-State Partnership: Through the CZMA, Congress provides incentives to

states to develop comprehensive programs to balance the many competing uses of

coastal resources. The CZMA provides incentives to the states to identify their own

coastal management priorities consistent with broad national objectives. All Federal

funds are required to be matched by the states dollar for dollar, and leverage significantly more investment from the local partners and the private sector. There is no

greater testament to the success of the state/Federal partnership forged by the

CZMA than the fact that 34 of 35 eligible coastal states have chosen to participate

in the program. Through their voluntary participation, states promote the many national interests cited in the CZMA--protecting fish and wildlife habitats; managing

coastal development in hazardous areas; coordinating the siting of energy, commercial and industrial facilities; improving public access to the shore; restoring and redeveloping waterfronts; streamlining permitting procedures; and involving the public and private sector in decision-making.

Ensuring Consistency with State Programs: In enacting the CZMA, Congress recognizes that unless Federal agency actions and permits were consistent with Federally approved state CZM plans, the national goals of the CZMA would never be

reached. Once state programs are Federally approved, Federal actions impacting

state resources, including licenses and permits, are required to be consistent with

state program policies. The CZMA provisions under section 307 focus on the need

for coordination and consultation, and include adequate review of state actions and

full consideration of the national interest.

NERRS—Living Laboratories and Classrooms: The CZMA also established the

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS.) NERRS currently consists

of a network of 25 state operated coastal and estuarine areas. Two more are under

development. NERRS are set aside as sites to enhance coastal stewardship,

40

monitoring, research and education. These sites provide areas for intensive study of

the estuarine ecosystems that typify the biogeographic regions of the United States,

so that coastal managers and local decision-makers can be provided with a better

understanding of the biological, chemical and geophysical dynamics which must be

taken into account if our efforts at coastal and estuarine restoration and protection

are to succeed.

The Challenges Ahead

In the nearly 30 years since the enactment of the CZMA, the Clean Water Act

and other landmark environmental statutes we have addressed many of the immediate problems along the coast. The challenges that lie ahead are more difficult and

complex. They cut across political and ecological boundaries, the public policy spectrum, and all levels of government, as well as non-governmental and private sector

interests. In order to address these challenges effectively, we need to take advantage

of the inherent strengths of the CZMA to:

(i) coordinate decision-making across programs and levels of governments;

(ii) transcend specific mandates to address multiple resource management objectives; and

(iii) utilize the best available information to develop consensus and support implementation of locally-designed solutions that take into account broad landscape

and ecosystem management goals.

The population density of coastal counties are already five times the national average, and coastal areas are becoming more crowded every day. (See chart attached

as Appendix A) From 1996–2015, coastal population is projected to increase from

141 million to 161 million. Increased development pressures inevitably follows population growth. For example, in the Delaware Estuary, population is projected to increase 10.9 percent, from 4.9 million in 1990 to 5.3 million in 2020; while developed

land forecast to increase 36 percent from slightly over 700 acres in 1990 to almost

1000 in 2020. (See chart attached as Appendix B.)

In addition, coastal tourism is one of the fastest growing segments of the US economy. In 1999, tourism in New Jersey generated an all time high of $127.7 billion

in revenues and supported nearly 500,00 jobs. The nation’s economy is increasingly

dependent upon the international trade that in 1995 moved cargo valued at $620

billion through our nation’s ports. Coastal management programs in California,

Massachusetts, Texas, South Carolina, Delaware and many others are working with

port communities to identify suitable long term disposal and management of

dredged material and to assess the impacts of planned port expansion on local communities and harbor uses.

While we have made significant progress in reducing the loss of coastal habitats

and the pollution of coastal waters, much remains to be done. In 1998, there were

approximately 7,200 beach closings and advisories in coastal and Great Lakes waters, about 30 percent of the nation’s shellfish-growing areas are closed or have harvest restrictions. In New Jersey, between 1986 and 1995 we experienced a net loss

of agricultural lands, forest lands and wetlands. Pressures are particularly acute in

coastal areas in New Jersey and other states. Increasing outbreaks of harmful algal

blooms, the expansion of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and threat of sea and

lake level rise are a few of sobering reminders that many of our most intractable

coastal challenges lie ahead.

CZMA can also provides a mechanism for resolving issues of national significance

such as the exploration of oil and gas in offshore waters. In Louisiana the state

coastal management program is getting preparing to examine pipeline corridors for

oil and gas transmission lines with the intent of establishing corridors where such

lines can be installed with minimal environmental disturbance through an expedited permitting process. While issues regarding energy production vary among the

states and can be very emotional, we must remember that these activities, conducted using environmentally sound technology, are important to our nation and are

important to the economies of several coastal states. CZMA provides a framework

for states to work through these issues based their individual needs but within the

national policies.

CZMA Reauthorization Recommendations

CSO, working with its Delegates and state CZM and NERRS program managers,

has identified the following recommended changes to the CZMA that will support

more effective implementation of the nation’s coastal and NERRS programs to meet

future challenges.

(1) Eliminate the ‘‘cap’’ and increase state grant support under CZMA Section 306.

Equitable funding increases are needed by all states and territories to assure the

maintenance of existing state commitments to implement CZ program activities and

41

administration. Despite increasing population, conflicts in the coastal zone, and

pressures on coastal resources, funding under CZMA section 306 for state grants to

administer and implement their coastal programs under 306 have been capped at

the $2 million for the past nine years by the Appropriations Committee. As a result,

many states with have receive no increases in 306 grants since 1991, and 15 of the

35 eligible states have reached the cap level in fiscal year 2001. (The states currently at the maximum include Alaska, California, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.)

These grants will provide support for critical coastal watershed management,

interagency-coordination, habitat characterization and restoration, hazard mitigation and public access activities. For example: • In Louisiana, where 25–35 miles of wetlands are lost each year, a 50-year plan

for coastal restoration has just been completed. This provides a comprehensive

blueprint for action needed to protect these wetlands which are important to

Louisiana and the nation. The coastal program also recently introduced an innovative a Permit Information Center where permit applicants can meet a permitting expert for assistance in preparing applications.

• The Massachusetts CZM program provided support for the four towns abutting

Pleasant Bay on Cape Cod, a state Area of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC), to develop local consensus around a resources management implementation plan, the state does not have sufficient funds to support plans in the remaining 13 ACEC’s in the coastal area. • Guam’s coastal management program is working in partnership with the University of Guam and Guam EPA to develop a strategy for managing dredge activities associated with contaminated sediments.

• North Carolina has awarded almost $9 million in state and Federal funds since

1982 for public beach and waterfront access projects.

(2) Authorize state grants to assist local communities and decision-makers. These

grants should be in addition to state program administration and implementation

funding and be targeted to assist local communities to understand, plan and undertake actions that will accommodate growth and support conservation and restoration of critical coastal open space, habitats, protective shorelines and other natural

coastal features.

Technological advances, such as the development of computer generated geographic information systems (GIS), have greatly expanded the ability to assess the

impacts of infrastructure placement in relation to existing development, future

growth patterns and natural resources. However, local community officials and planners in many cases do not have the resources to get past the entry-level threshold

to make use of these tools, or do not have the information they need to consider

the impacts of their local decisions on a broad landscape and regional ecosystem

scale.

For example:

• In New Jersey, we are expanding efforts to provide the technical tools and information needed for informed, adaptive coastal management at the state and local

level through development of key environmental data on land use and land

cover change and coastal monitoring, assessment and impact projection tools

that will be available to local communities.

• The Maryland coastal program has funded development sensitive area inventories, modeling of growth scenarios, GIS mapping, and development of plans

to support local governments efforts under the state’s Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act.

• Louisiana is supporting the efforts of its 19 coastal parishes to develop and

adopt local coastal management plans, and is supporting a web-based tracking

system that will allow permit analysts and the public view data on projects and

affected habitats.

• North Carolina has established the Population, Development, Resource Information System, a comprehensive database of information related to population

growth, economic development and natural resources which assists in local watershed management efforts.

(3) Support ongoing review and enhancement of state coastal programs to address

CZMA goals. Under CZMA, between 10–20 percent of the state grants are set aside

under section 309 for states to enhance their coastal management programs. Under

309, states review the coastal management programs every five years to assess how

they can be improved to address the national goals of the CZMA more effectively.

As an incentive, no cost-share is required to match this portion of the state grants.

These enhancement grants are particularly effective in supporting state efforts to

support local community to improve their management efforts.. Congress should

42

consider expanding eligibility for enhancement grants beyond the incorporation of

specific ‘‘program changes’’ to include support for innovative projects or other activities that will significantly improve the management of coastal resources. State enhancement efforts under section 309 should be linked with CZMA program review

provisions under CZMA 312 and the development of coastal programs outcome

based performance indicators (see discussion below.)

(4) Direct NOAA to provide and coordinate management-oriented research supporting state coastal management efforts by states and NERRS. The technical and

scientific issues relating to coastal management are increasingly complex. NOAA

can do a much better job in moving beyond development of research, tools and technology products to assure the availability of information and tools in a form and at

a scale that is usable by coastal decision-makers. Communities and states must look

to new technology and tools that will increase the ability of coastal decision-makers

to assess, monitor cumulative and secondary impacts on coastal resources.

Congress should consider amending CZMA section 310 to direct NOAA to work

with states and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, to identify management-oriented research priories and annual work plans for research that address

state and regional priorities, and to maintain a clearinghouse of research, information and technologies that will assist states and communities to improve the management of the nation’s coastal resources. These efforts should be coordinated with

other Federal agencies and support implementation of the Integrated Coastal Monitoring and Research Strategy, recently published jointly by EPA, NOAA, USGS and

other agencies.

The lack of adequate information is perhaps the greatest impediment to state and

local coastal management. In conducting required assessments under the CZMA section 309 enhancement grants program, two recurrent themes were apparent.

• The methodologies and data for determining cumulative impacts, such as from

recreational boating, need to be further developed.

• Data is lacking to assess trends and the effectiveness of state programs.

NOAA has the capability to fill many of these gaps. Section 310 needs to be

amended to ensure that the expertise, resources, products and services of NOAA are

delivered to state and local decision-makers. These efforts need to go beyond demonstration projects. The results of successful demonstration projects need to be

transferred to other states.

(5) Increase support for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System

(NERRS) through CZMA section 315. CZMA reauthorization should include the specific technical amendments and reauthorization recommendations of the National

Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERR). CZMA reauthorization should retain the current cost-share ratio and, at a minimum, provide the funding necessary

to support the existing system of 25 NERRS sites and future funding to support the

planned growth of the system to fill current state and eco-regional gaps. Language

should be added to provide funding without match specifically to support national

education initiatives, including the Coastal Training Institutes Initiative and the

System–Wide Monitoring Program (SWAMP.)

(6) Support development of cost-effective, outcome and Coastal Program Effectiveness Indicators. CSO supports strengthening the accountability of CZM programs.

The development of indicators that can be used to track the effectiveness of coastal

management programs in supporting state program objectives and national goals of

the CZMA. The provision should require that appropriate outcome indicators for the

program be developed in consultation with and participation with State representatives, be flexible enough to address the variations among state program priorities,

and be cost-effective and not unduly burdensome to implement. Funding should be

provided to the state to support the development of state specific indicators and the

necessary collection and analysis of data to assess program effectiveness.

Additional Specific Comments on the CZMA Reauthorization Discussion Draft and

H.R. 897

Adjustment of the Cap on State Grant Allocations:

CSO Recommendation: CSO supports for the language in the Discussion Draft

clarifying that all states should share equitably in funding increases under CZMA

Section 306.

Comments: This language clarifies the Congressional intent that a cap should not

be imposed that limits states from sharing in programs funding. The current cap

of $2 million on state Section 306 grant allocations has been imposed annually in

the appropriations process for the past nine years. Sixteen of the 33 states with approved coastal programs are currently at the cap and do not share in any appropriations increases for the program.

43

Allocation of 50 Percent of State Grants to Eligible Coastal Community Projects:

CSO Recommendations: CSO supports increased authorization of funding to states

that can be directed to assist local communities to address critical growth management, habitat protection and restoration needs. CSO cannot support the 50 percent

set aside of grants as proposed in the Discussion Draft. The set aside would effectively reduce grants to many states to administer ongoing coastal program commitments. CSO recommends that the Subcommittee consider a separate additional authorization for state grants to assist communities as provided in H.R. 897 and S.

328.

Comments: CSO agrees with the intent of both the Discussion Draft and H.R. 897

to increase support for grants to states to assist coastal communities. However, the

approach proposed in the Discussion Draft has a potential to undermine both state

and local efforts. When combined in a single line item, the allocation of 50 percent

of a state’s grant to local assistance could severely impact the implementation of ongoing state programs. Funding for community grants should be in addition to, not

reduce, the funding currently available to states under Section 306 to implement

and administer CZM programs. Continued support for these state program activities

is important to local efforts to accommodate growth and protect resources even

when the assistance is not provided as funds given directly for the local projects.

CZM Funding Levels

CSO Recommendation: CSO recommends that a minimum of $80 million be authorized in fiscal year 2002 for CZMA program implementation under current Section 306/306A and 309, and an additional $40 million for coastal community grants.

Funding in succeeding years should be increased to provide for additional funds as

needed.

The $80 million authorization of appropriations levels proposed in the Discussion

Draft, falls far short of what would be needed to hold currently program need whole

and provide the additional assistance needed to provide the 50 percent envisioned

for proposed Coastal Community Projects initiative. The $80 million level proposed

by CSO is consistent with the fiscal year 2001 budget recommendation for current

CZM program needs, including coastal nonpoint pollution. An additional authorization $40 (50 percent of the proposed authorization level in the Discussion Draft)

should be included in the to initiate the coastal community projects initiative

Eligibility for Coastal Community Projects

CSO Recommendations:

(1) The Subcommittee should community project eligibility criteria based on the

recommendations of S. 328 and H.R. 897 that includes support for development of

local plans and which focus on accommodating growth and restoring and protecting

critical open space and habitats.

(2) Provisions of the Discussion Draft and H.R. 897 requiring that eligible

projects must be done ‘‘in conjunction’’ with local governments should be clarified.

States should be able to undertake projects in coordination with and for the benefit

of local governments.

(3) Eligibility should include land acquisition, easements and other methods for

land conservation and protection currently eligible under Section 306A. The eligibility requirements should be reviewed to assure they include the project categories

and types currently eligible under Section 306A

(4) The Discussion Draft should be amended to clarify that individual projects do

not need to be submitted to the Secretary but, rather, eligible community projects

should be consistent with implementation of the state coastal management plans

and submitted by the state CZM agency as part of the state’s annual CZM implementation plan.

Consolidation of CZMA Grants and Elimination of Section 309 Enhancement

Assistance

CSO Recommendation:

(1) Maintain CZMA authority to set aside a portion of the state grant, without

match, as an incentive to states to enhance CZM program effectiveness in addressing national coastal program goals and objectives.

(2) Expand eligibility for 309 grants beyond incorporation of technical program

changes to include innovative activities and projects that will significantly improve

state or local coastal management efforts to further national goals.

Comments: The proposed Discussion Draft would consolidate state coastal management grants into a new Section 309, and eliminate grants to states to enhance

their programs to address national objectives and emerging issues. While CSO

44

agrees with the goal of simplifying and consolidating grants and would like to work

with the Subcommittee to develop appropriate language, it should not come at the

expense of current section 309 incentives for states to improve their programs. Continuation of the enhancement program and its link to national goals is also consistent with the recommendation of both the Discussion Draft and H.R. 837 that

outcome indicators be developed to determine the effectiveness of coastal management programs in supporting the national goals of the CZMA.

Section 309, in its current form, was added to the CZMA in 1990 to provide states

with no match Federal assistance to upgrade their programs in areas identified in

the section as national priorities. The section requires states to perform periodic assessments of the adequacy of their programs to meet these national priorities and

develop strategies for improving their programs. Consideration should be given to

expanding eligibility beyond incorporation of specific ‘‘program changes’’ to encourage innovation projects and activities by the states and local communities that will

significantly improve the effectiveness of coastal program management.

The development of enhancement strategies is important both to the states in assuring a regular evaluation of program effectiveness in addressing national goals

and to the Federal Government in providing incentives to states to upgrade their

programs on an ongoing basis to address ever changing coastal challenges. The section 309 enhancement program has ensured that at least some of a state’s share

of the annual grant allocation is dedicated to improving the program where it would

otherwise be devoted to meeting the immediate demands for program implementation and local assistance.

Proposed Elimination of Technical Assistance under Section 310

Recommendation: Retain CZMA Section 310, and amend to require annual coordination with the states and NERRS in identification of results-based coastal management research priorities, and strengthen the accountability of NOAA to provide a

clearinghouse and work with other agencies to expand research and technical support for coastal management.

Comments: CSO believes that one of the centerpieces of this reauthorization

should be the reinvigoration of results-based research and technical assistance by

NOAA consistent with section 310. The need for information and research at a scale

relevant to the states and focused on priority coastal management issues, is also important to the development of coastal effectiveness indicators. NOAA has a vast

array of expertise, services and products which have not been fully utilized in assisting states with the on-the-ground efforts to address coastal issues. The current

NOAA leadership is to be lauded for their efforts to improve NOAA’s technical assistance to states and a revised section 310 should provide the needed directives to

reinforce these efforts..

Federal Consistency Provisions under Section 307

Recommendation: CSO is pleased to see that no changes have been proposed in

neither H.R. 897 nor the discussion draft to the provisions of section 307 of the

CZMA.

Comments: The title of section 307 Coordination and Cooperation ’’ is not a misnomer. The history of the implementation of section 307 by states, NOAA and the

Secretary of Commerce refutes any claims that the provisions of the CZMA which

encourage Federal actions to be consistent with state programs have been exercised

in an arbitrary and impudent manner. Of the thousands of consistency determinations that have been made under the Act, only a handful have generated controversy. Even those subject to state review authority under the CZMA consistency

provisions agree that the process has the effect of serving as an early warning system of potential problems and encourage states and applicants to work out potential

problems before they manifest. The independent review of appeals of state denials

of consistency ensures that the overriding national interest is preserved when necessary for the national interest. CSO would strongly oppose any changes to the

CZMA which would substantially alter section 307.

Eligibility of Non–Profits to Implement Community / 306A Projects

Recommendation: CSO proposes that Section 306A(e) be amended to make it clear

that funds can be allocated to ‘‘not-for-profit organizations.

Comments: Such grants should be available only to undertake the objectives of

section 306A and not directly to benefit such groups. In some cases. states have

identified local non-for-profit groups as the best suited to undertake projects or activities eligible under the Coastal Resource Improvement Program under Section

306A.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir, thank you very much.

I yield to Mr. Saxton to introduce the next witness.

You did that?

Mr. DeLuca, you may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. DE LUCA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. DELUCA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I serve as the President of the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, and my testimony is presented on their behalf

today.

What I would like to do in the interest of time is to forego the

majority of my remarks and kind of get to the chase here.

Mr. GILCHREST. Your full statement will be entered into the

record.

Mr. DELUCA. Thank you very much.

But before I do so, I would like to acknowledge the support of the

membership of this Committee on behalf of CZMA in the past, and

certainly a special acknowledgement to Congressman Saxton, who

has been an ardent supporter of coastal management programs in

New Jersey, including the Cousteau reserve.

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

estuaries and coastal systems, and serves as the primary advocate

for the reserves, a network of 25, soon to be 26, regionally based

programs that represent very diverse coastal estuarine systems.

What I would like to do is just point out a few examples of the

partnership that exists between the reserves and state coastal zone

management programs, identify very briefly two initiatives that are

under way, and then wind up with some comments on the reauthorization.

The NERRS and coastal zone management programs represented

by my colleague from New Jersey, and certainly by Margaret

Davidson here, contribute to informed use of estuarine-dependent

resources through an integrated program of research, education,

stewardship.

For example, at the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, reserve, that

site and the Maryland coastal zone management program

partnered to develop a restoration plan for submerged aquatic

vegetation.

In Massachusetts, the Waquoit Bay reserve partnered with their

state coastal zone management program and a variety of other

agencies to reduce nitrogen loading to the surrounding watershed

through a combination of land acquisition and management strategies.

It is generally recognized that local and regional land-use decisions continue to contribute to degradation of water quality, habitat loss, and wetland losses. Yet, the individuals responsible for

making decisions on these issues—local elected officials, planners,

government agencies, agricultural interests—are often asked to do

so without sufficient information regarding potential consequences

and downstream effects.

To meet these challenges, the reserves have developed several

systemwide programs, including a systemwide monitoring program,

52

a graduate research fellowship program, and an item known as

coastal decisionmaker workshops.

In addition to these core programs, the reserve system over the

past few years has conducted a planning process to identify national initiatives in response to increasing demand in the coastal

management community for expanded reserve products and services. These include a coastal training initiative and an expansion

of the systemwide monitoring program, which is the only one its

kind devoted to estuaries in the nation today.

The coastal training initiative 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 near-shore areas.

With respect to the second item, that of estuarine monitoring capability, we are proposing to expand the monitoring program. This

is aimed at adding to the current system of environmental observations made at NERRS sites. This is primarily a water quality monitoring program, and we are planning to expand it to look at biological indicators and land-use change in estuaries.

Finally, I would like just to mention that we do enjoy a very

strong partnership, the reserves, with NOAA, our parent agency.

This has been recently strengthened by senior NOAA leadership,

including Margaret Davidson, who has instituted or created a

coastal coordinating council to foster integration between reserves

and many coastal program elements of NOAA.

And also, Laurie McGilvray, who is here, the Director of the

Estuarine Reserve Division—through that division, we have been

receiving training materials and assistance to help reserves do

their jobs better.

The Coastal Services Center and also the Cooperative Institute

for Coastal Environmental and Estuarine Technology are also very

helpful here.

With respect to the CZMA, NERRA recommends that amendments to the Act should provide effective mechanisms to assess the

technology and information needs of coastal communities, strengthen the capacity of the state-Federal partnership to support research

and monitoring, and improve the access and delivery of sciencebased information.

I have five specific recommendations with respect H.R. 897.

And that is, we certainly applaud the efforts of the Committee

and Mr. Saxton to recognize the role of reserves in a separate title.

We are very supportive of that. We would suggest that two initiatives be codified in that section as well, the coastal training initiative and the expansion or build-out of the systemwide monitoring

program.

Secondly, there is a provision in there dealing with match requirements. Only recently has Federal funding for the NERRS

begun to increase. We agree that coastal states need to provide

strong support for the reserves, but that the current cost share

works well for the foreseeable future.

Third, we recommend that the current name remain in place.

Much discussion has been held on this issue over the past. We commend the efforts of this Committee with the suggestion to rename

53

the program, but keeping the name and ‘‘research’’ in the name are

well-suited to the program.

And then, of course, we certainly strongly endorse suitable authorization levels, including support for construction acquisition in

the bill.

I will end my remarks there. I would like to thank the Chair and

the Committee for the opportunity to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. De Luca follows:]

Statement of Michael P. De Luca, President, National Estuarine Research

Reserve Association

Summary of Comments on Reauthorization of the CZMA

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 25 (soon to be 26) 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.

Reauthorization of the CZMA provides an opportunity to strengthen the capabilities of coastal communities to address issues of coastal development, protection, and

habitat restoration. Of particular importance to the NERRS, is the framework provided by the CZMA to meet the need for informed decision-making at the Federal,

state, and local levels.

Amendments to the Act should:

• Provide effective mechanisms to assess the technology and information needs of

coastal communities at local and regional scales

• Strengthen the capacity of the state-Federal partnership to support research

and monitoring relevant to local and regional needs, and

• Improve the access and delivery of science-based information to coastal communities, and evaluate the performance of the state-Federal partnership in support

of informed coastal decisions.

Specifically, NERRA offers the following recommendations in support of CZMA

Reauthorization.

• Incorporate the Coastal Training Initiative and expansion of the System–Wide

Monitoring Program as key provisions of a separate title devoted to NERRS.

• Maintain the existing cost-sharing levels for state (30%) and Federal (70%) funding.

• Maintain the name of the program as the National Estuarine Research Reserve

System.

• Authorize the NERRS at an initial level of $17 million, plus $1 million per out

year of the authorization period.

• Authorize a level of $15 million per year for NERRS construction and acquisition.

Introduction

Good morning. My name is Mike De Luca and I am the President of the National

Estuarine Research Reserve Association. I also serve as Manager of the Jacques

Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve and as the Senior Associate Director

of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University. I’d like to

thank the Chair, Mr. Gilchrest, and members of the committee for the opportunity

to provide comments on reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act in

general, and on H.R. 897—the Coastal Community Conservation Act of 2001 introduced by Mr. Saxton.

My testimony today is presented on behalf of the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association or NERRA. 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 25 (soon

to be 26) 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.

54

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), established under

section 315 of the CZMA, is designed to promote informed coastal decisions through

site-based estuarine research, education, and stewardship. This represents a relatively unique collaboration among the scientific, management, and education communities working together on a daily basis on local and regional coastal issues.

NERRS sites have been selected on the basis of biogeographic regions that share

geophysical and biological characteristics. Coastal states are responsible for management of reserve sites, in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Since the enactment of the CZMA in 1972, 25 estuaries have been designated as

part of the reserve system including Alaska and Puerto Rico, with an additional site

(San Francisco) expected to be designated later this year. Reserves serve as regional

centers of excellence where coastal communities can access a broad array of coastal

products and services: • training to promote informed environmental decision-making,

• a national monitoring program for estuaries is maintained, and

• training opportunities for the next generation of coastal researchers, educators,

and managers.

With these key elements, the reserve system is in the unique position of serving

the national interest while responding to local needs.

Estuaries, dynamic regions where rivers meet the sea, constitute an important

interface between land use and coastal resources. Considered to be among the most

biologically productive ecosystems on Earth, healthy estuaries are essential to the

preservation of robust coastal communities. Estuaries support vital nurseries for

economically important fish and shellfish, provide essential habitat for wildlife, create opportunities for ecotourism, and serve as ports for maritime commerce. The

NERRS and Coastal Zone Management Programs contribute to the informed use of

these estuarine dependent resources through an integrated program of research,

education, and stewardship, as well as implementation of state coastal zone management plans. For example, at the Chesapeake Bay–Maryland NERR, the Reserve

and Maryland CZM Program partnered to develop a restoration plan for submerged

aquatic vegetation. In Massachusetts, the Waquoit Bay NERR partnered with the

state CZM Program and other agencies to reduce nitrogen loading to the surrounding watershed through a combination of land acquisition and management

strategies. In Rhode Island, the Narragansett Bay NERR partnered with the state

CZM Program to provide assistance in response to oil spills and conduct damage assessments. In Maine, the Wells NERR has a specific mandate to provide science

support for the state CZM program, a partnership that promotes daily collaboration

between the scientific and management communities.

Local and regional land use decisions continue to contribute to degradation of

water quality and loss of wetland habitat. Land use in watersheds, ranging from

agriculture and development to water resource allocation and flood control, are becoming increasingly important factors coastal and estuarine management. Local

elected officials, land use planners, government agencies, and agricultural interests

are often asked to make land use decisions without sufficient information regarding

the potential consequences to downstream effects.

To meet these challenges, the NERRS have developed several system-wide programs to place reserves in a strong position to detect environmental change, respond

to pressing research needs at the local and regional scale, and to provide technical

training for the coastal stakeholder community: • The NERRS System–Wide Monitoring Program is designed to provide standardized monitoring and assessment capabilities at each Reserve to detect changes

in water quality, biological indicators, and land use change at the watershed

scale.

• The NERRS Graduate Research Fellowship Program supports two graduate research projects at each Reserve annually on coastal management topics of concern to local and regional stakeholders. Research topics range from stormwater

management and restoration ecology to invasive exotic plants and fishery habitat requirements.

• The NERRS Coastal Decision–Maker Workshops target individuals involved in

local planning and management. Workshops provide science-based information

on topics responsive to local needs such as polluted runoff, watershed management, water supply, and restoration science.

In addition to research, monitoring, education, and technical training, Reserves

are developing resource stewardship and coastal restoration programs that address

both site-specific and watershed-scale information needs. For example, the Rookery

Bay NERR partnered with 70 local researchers and 100 coastal managers and local

55

officials to establish restoration science priorities for one of the largest watersheds

in Florida.

Resource stewardship is an essential component of the NERRS mission and ensures that site conditions remain suitable for long-term research and education programs. Stewardship activities include the control of invasive species, restoration of

natural hydrologic processes, and the conduct of prescribed burns in fire-dependent

plant communities. NERRS staff also has built strong partnerships with local agencies, organizations, and landowners to develop watershed management strategies,

and Best Management Practices that mitigate disturbance to water quality and

habitat structure.

NERRS Initiatives

Over the past several years, the NERRS conducted a planning process to identify

national initiatives in response to an increasing demand from the coastal management community for expanded reserve products and services. With the recent increase in appropriations, two of these initiatives are now advancing toward implementation a Coastal Training Initiative and expansion of the System–Wide Monitoring Program.

Coastal Training Initiative

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. 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 science-based 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 sponsored by the Chesapeake Bay–Maryland

NERR or the transfer of management-oriented research by the North Carolina

NERR to coastal decision-makers in many states using an interactive format via the

Internet), the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) has developed

a Coastal Training Initiative to fill this need.

The Coastal Training Initiative (CTI) 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 CTI was designed to increase the current capacity of Reserves to deliver technical training services to under-served constituent groups. Reserve staff continue 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 CTI 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 are implementing the CTI 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 CTI 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. For example, at the Waquoit Bay NERR in Massachusetts, the Reserve has partnered with

the Sea Grant Program at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the state

CZM Program to advance their Coastal Training Initiative.

Expansion of the System–Wide Monitoring Program

Estuaries are highly variable, complex systems where the variability in water

movement, water quality, habitat, and human use vary over a wide variety of spatial and temporal scales. Because of this variability, it is often difficult to separate

natural change from those changes influenced by human use of our coasts and

56

estuaries. Two approaches are necessary to address this issue. First, targeted research is needed to determine the cause and effect relationships of human influence

on estuarine variability, and second, a long-term monitoring program is needed to

characterize the natural variability that governs the structure and function of estuarine systems. The reserve system has begun building the capability to meet this

management need.

As noted above, the NERRS is addressing the first need through a graduate research fellowship program where students across the nation compete to work on priority needs of the coastal management community. Almost 50 graduate students per

year receive support from this program and present results of their research at national, regional, and local meetings where information is transferred to other researchers, coastal managers, and those individuals responsible for making daily decisions with respect to our coastal and estuarine resources. Student projects address

such topics as habitat restoration, invasive species, non-point source pollution and

biodiversity. For example, at the Elkhorn Slough–California NERR, a student is exploring how seagrass can be restored by carbon dioxide enrichment; at the Chesapeake Bay–Maryland NERR, a student is linking anthropogenic nutrient inputs to

microbially mediated nutrient cycling; and at the Padilla Bay NERR, students are

looking at the invasion potential and consequences of a non-indigenous cordgrass.

In addition to the graduate research program, reserve sites are being actively promoted as sites for long-term research by many granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency and, of course, NOAA.

This promotion directs researchers from throughout the country to conduct longterm studies in estuarine research reserves.

With respect to the second need, that of a long-term, estuarine monitoring capability,

The NERRS operates the only national monitoring program for estuaries in the

U.S. The system-wide program is designed to identify short-term variability and

long-term trends in coastal environmental quality and health at national, regional,

and local levels. The program focuses efforts on three critical areas: estuarine water

quality, estuarine biodiversity, and estuarine land use change. Environmental data

collected at NERRS sites are managed and accessed via a central repository and

made available to state and Federal agencies, universities and others via the World

Wide Web.

Expansion of the SWMP effort is aimed at adding to the current system of environmental observations made at NERR sites. This will be addressed through spatial

expansion of the water quality monitoring program, and the addition of new parameters such as nutrients. Periodic syntheses of data are expected to serve as one of

the mechanisms by which coastal managers can inform their decision-making responsibilities.

Partnerships

The NERRS enjoy a strong relationship with its Federal partner, the National

Ocean Service at NOAA. This relationship is being strengthened by senior NOAA

leadership, which recently created a Coastal Coordinating Council to foster integration between reserves and many coastal program elements of NOAA including Sea

Grant. The state-Federal partnership, a hallmark of the NERRS, is strong. Two

years ago, NOAA created a separate Estuarine Reserves Division to support

NERRS. NOAA also has been increasing its service to the NERRS, especially training, materials, and assistance with site profiles from the Coastal Services Center,

GIS capacity building with assistance from the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and

Estuarine Environmental Technology and the Coastal Services Center, and by providing opportunities for the Reserves to play a larger role in coastal science programs at the agency.

Reserves also leverage significant resources on behalf of coastal research, education and management through partnerships with government agencies at local, regional, and Federal levels, private industry, and academia. For example, the Hudson

River NERR received approximately $2 million in funding from the state of New

York, Columbia University, and the Hudson River Foundation to characterize the

benthic habitat of the Hudson River. The Jacques Cousteau NERR received more

than $1 million from Federal, state, and private sources to investigate coastal processes at a Long-term Ecosystem Observatory, and to develop science enrichment

programs for the precollegiate community based on this field program. At the Elkhorn Slough NERR, a partnership with the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, National

Audubon Society and the Monterey County Planning Department is gathering critical resource information for a regional watershed plan. The plan will be used to

guide future land use in the watershed surrounding the Reserve. A partnership between the North Carolina NERR and private industry has developed an innovative

57

educational program known as Estuary Live, an interactive, Internet-based field

trip for students throughout the country. This program received awards from USA

Today and the Governor of North Carolina. The Narragansett Bay NERR partnered

with Sea Grant, EPA, the University of Rhode Island and many others to convene

a Bay Summit that focused attention on a broad range of coastal issues. The summit was attended by representatives of all but two municipalities and resulted in

a formal partnership to protect bay resources.

Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act

Reauthorization of the CZMA provides an opportunity to strengthen the capabilities of coastal communities to address issues of coastal development, protection, and

habitat restoration. Of particular importance to the NERRS, is the framework provided by the CZMA to meet the need for informed decision-making at the Federal,

state, and local levels.

Amendments to the Act should:

• Provide effective mechanisms to assess the technology and information needs of

coastal communities at local and regional scales

• Strengthen the capacity of the state-Federal partnership to support research

and monitoring relevant to local and regional needs, and • Improve the access and delivery of science-based information to coastal communities, and evaluate the performance of the state-Federal partnership in support

of informed coastal decisions.

Specifically, NERRA offers the following recommendations in support of CZMA

Reauthorization.

NERRA applauds the effort to recognize the role of Reserves in coastal research,

education, and stewardship with the addition of a separate title in H.R. 897 devoted

to NERRS. This provides a strong base with which the NERRS can leverage resources through partnerships on behalf of informed coastal management. NERRA

recommends that this recognition be extended to include and codify the primary research and education elements of the NERRS. These are the Coastal Training Initiative and the Buildout of the System–Wide Monitoring Program. These elements

require a long-term commitment to ensure that reliable, accurate, and timely information supports informed coastal management.

NERRA recommends that the existing match funding requirements remain in

place. Only recently has the Federal funding for the NERRS begun to increase. This

has required the coastal states and Reserves to add significant new match funding

to the program. Much needs to be done to support basic operations at each site, as

well as to implement the two initiatives now underway (CTI and SWMP Expansion).

NERRA certainly agrees that the coastal states need to provide strong support for

Reserve programs, but the current cost-share (70% Federal–30% state) works well

for this unique state-Federal partnership and should remain in place at this time.

NERRA recommends that the current name, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, remain in place. Much discussion has been held over the past several

years on the name of this system. The challenge had been to come up with a name

that represented the research roots of the program, but enabled individuals outside

the program to pronounce and understand what an estuarine research reserve is or

what an estuary is. With the recent growth in the Reserve budget and hence Reserve awareness, this has become less of an issue. Further, funds have been used

to construct visitor/interpretive centers at many of the reserves that have resulted

in greater public awareness and recognition of the NERRS. Finally, research is one

element that distinguishes the NERRS from other parks, reserves, and sanctuaries.

NERRA commends the efforts of this committee with the suggestion to rename the

program in H.R. 897, but keeping the name and keeping research in the name are

well suited to the program.

With respect to authorization levels, NERRA recommends that a stable base for

each Reserve site is $500K to support basic operations plus additional funding to

support the two primary initiatives (CTI and SWMP). Thus, NERRA supports a 5-

year reauthorization beginning at $17 million and increasing by $1 million per year

to accommodate new sites, expansion of products and services, and cost of living increases.

NERRA strongly endorses incorporation of funding for construction and land acquisition into the Reauthorization measure as stated in H.R. 897. The NERRS have

established procedures for setting priorities for construction and land acquisition,

and recently assembled long-term plans to meet construction and land acquisition

needs. Incorporation of funds for these purposes ($15 million per year) into the

CZMA will provide a stable, long-term source of funding for the NERRS to maintain

facilities in support of research, education, and stewardship programs, as well as

to acquire key land and water areas for watershed management.

58

Closing

I’d like to thank Chairman Gilchrest and members of the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf the Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone

Management Act. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may

have at this time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. DeLuca.

Our next witness is from Maryland, representing the State

Department of Agriculture. Ms. Lawrence, welcome.

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF LOUISE LAWRENCE, CHIEF, RESOURCE

CONSERVATION, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. LAWRENCE. Good morning. I wanted to thank the Chairman

and Members of this Committee for granting this opportunity for

me to speak today.

My name is Louise Lawrence. I am Chief of the Office of Resource Conservation with the Maryland Department of Agriculture.

My section is responsible for agricultural soil conservation, water

quality, and natural resource protection programs.

My involvement with coastal zone issues is illustrated by my

service on the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, the

Maryland Interagency Nonpoint Source Coordination and Grants

Committee, the Coastal Bays Implementation Committee. And I

have been the liaison for my agency for coastal zone programs since

1985.

The coastal zone program in Maryland is implemented in 16

counties that cover two-thirds of the state. We get about $2.5 million in Federal funds for coastal zones in Maryland every year.

Our program is networked. And what this means is that it is implemented by an array of agencies. My agency is one of them. It

implements many elements of the program.

It also means that we use all sources of funds to implement the

program, not just the Federal money, but there is a lot of state and

local effort and funds and staffing resources to implement it.

We also have a number of programs that supplement or support

coastal zone on the Federal and local and state levels. Some of

these are the Chesapeake Bay Program, the National Estuary Program, the coastal bays program, and the Clean Water Act Section

319 nonpoint source program.

All of these programs have somewhat similar objectives, but all

of them have a little different emphasis in terms of how they want

their money to be spent and what types of measurable results they

expect to see in the end.

And for all these Federal programs, we get about $8 million

worth of funding to implement the requirements.

In state fiscal year 2000, the state put in over $97.5 million, so

you can see that leveraging of Federal funds is pretty significant

in Maryland. We are very committed financially and with our programs to implement objectives and goals that are consistent with

the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Despite its commitment to coastal zone, I did mention the need

to maintain flexibility in how we implement that program. Because

59

we have several agencies who are responsible for implementing at

the state and local level, as well as the Federal level, we tend to

use Federal money to fill in gaps that we have.

One example I would like to use is that in the 1980’s, the State

of Maryland put a lot of emphasis on the Chesapeake Bay Program, and so our department got a lot of staff resources, but they

had to be targeted in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

In the mid-1990’s, we got approval for a national estuaries program, and that part of our state was not part of the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. We were really not allowed by policy to target staff

to that area to do agricultural programs, so we used a CZM grant

to do that.

That cost about $30,000 a year. We had a technical position that

worked at a local soil conservation district office, helped farmers to

develop and implement best-management practices.

We do have a state cost-share program that helps fund these

practices. We provide about 87.5 percent of the cost of them. So between 1995 and 2000 when CZM funded that position, at about

$30,000 a year, the amount of cost-share money the state contributed to actually implement those programs was over $565,000.

So you can see how that one position leveraged state money to

allow farmers in that watershed that wasn’t previously captured by

some of the state technical assistance programs to achieve coastal

zone management goals.

One other comment that I wanted to make that has been made

before relates to the cap that is placed on 306 funds. As that currently stands, despite modest national increases in funding to

coastal zone programs, there are several states, and Maryland is

one them, whose funding has been capped. Our funding has been

capped for 8 years.

And the draft language bill goes a long way toward addressing

this need. What we would like to see is language that allowed all

eligible coastal states to receive increased funding in years when

the appropriation increases.

I guess the final point that I would like to make, that I tried to

illustrate with my example, is the need for flexibility in programs.

I think that when you try to earmark funds to specific things, it

ties the hands of the states from being more creative in the way

that they administer their programs.

In Maryland, that is especially important because of the way

that we have networked it through a number of agencies, and we

try to mix and match results.

So I have included in my written testimony a couple suggestions

about ways that we could assure that local communities have adequate funds to implement goals consistent with their needs as well

as achieve the goals of the Committee in targeting local community

work.

Again, I would like to thank you all for allowing me to speak. I

think several people have made the comment that we are loving

the coastal zone to death as bigger and bigger parts of our population are migrating there. And I encourage you and commend you

for your efforts to protect the fragile and important resources of our

coastal zone areas. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]

60

Statement of Louise Lawrence, Chief, Office of Resource Conservation,

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Introduction

Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest and members of the Committee, for providing me

the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Louise Lawrence and I am the

Chief of the Office of Resource Conservation at the Maryland Department of Agriculture. My section within the Department of Agriculture has responsibilities related to agricultural soil conservation, water quality and natural resource protection

programs. We coordinate program delivery and implementation through a network

of local, state and Federal cooperating agencies. I serve on the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, Maryland Coastal Bays Implementation Committee, Maryland Interagency NPS Coordination and Grants Committees and have been the liaison for Coastal Zone Management programs for my agency since 1985. I am here

to provide comments on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Coastal Zone Management Act in Maryland

The coastal zone in Maryland covers two-thirds of the state, encompassing 16 of

our 23 counties. Although the state’s total physical area is not large compared to

a number of coastal states, Maryland’s extensive shoreline and burgeoning population place it with 15 out of 35 states whose 306 program funding is currently

capped. Federal coastal zone management support to Maryland averages $2.5 million annually.

Maryland’s Coastal Zone Management Program is a networked program. This cooperative approach applies both to program implementation responsibilities and program funding. Maryland Department of Natural Resources acts as the lead agency

coordinating the program. A number of local and state agencies carry out implementation. For example, one of the responsibilities of the Maryland Department of Agriculture is implementation of agricultural soil conservation and water quality programs. Technical assistance for this program element is delivered through local soil

conservation district personal. CZM grants will support four technical positions in

2001 to assist to farmers in targeted watersheds. The Maryland Department of Agriculture will provide up to 87.5% of the cost of installing best management practices

implemented by farmers to control erosion, reduce nutrient movement and manage

animal waste. This is just one example of how CZM programs are coordinated and

Federal funds leveraged to achieve program goals.

Program Coordination and Funding Flexibility

The coastal zone program has been the precursor and, in many cases, the catalyst

for this coordinated approach being applied in a number of programs to expand

water quality protection, habitat enhancement, living resources protection and community partnerships statewide.

• 1983: Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Initiatives emphasized nutrient reduction

and water quality objectives to improve habitat and protect fisheries resources.

The program was applied to Maryland’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed encompassing all or part of every county.

• 1985: The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program created the framework for locally developed land use policies for the fragile area within 1000 feet

of tidal waters. Implementation is through community partnerships within 16

CZM counties and over 60 local jurisdictions. Coastal zone management funding

has provided crucial support to local efforts to implement these requirements.

• 1989: Section 319 of the Clean Water Act required states to address non-point

source pollution in a comprehensive statewide plan. An interagency team continues to coordinate and implement these programs.

• 1992: Implementation of practices to achieve Chesapeake Bay Program goals is

delineated by watershed and community input and ownership through Tributary Strategy Implementation Teams fostered.

• 1996: Maryland received funding under the National Estuary Program and

began a coordinated approach to develop strategies to address water quality,

fish and wildlife, recreation and navigation measures and community and economic development through local, state, Federal and community partnerships

in Maryland’s Coastal Bays watersheds. Program implementation through a

networked approach began in 2000.

• 1997: Section 6217 emphasized the importance of addressing non-point sources

of water quality in the coastal zone and created a number of management measures to be implemented. Maryland’s networked program was the first to be approved nationally.

61

• 2000: Renewal of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, in addition to strengthening

commitments to nutrient reduction and water quality, places new emphasis on

sediment control and habitat protection and enhancement.

For all their similarity of objectives, these programs also have slightly different

emphasis expressed by the strings attached to the Federal funding they provide and

the performance measures they use to assess progress. Maryland receives approximately $8 million in combined Federal funds from the Coastal Zone Management

Program, Non-point Source Protection Program (Section 319 of the Clean Water Act)

and the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Program . In state fiscal year 2000, state

agencies implementing strategies to achieve these programs’ objectives spent $97.5

million in state funds. This budget does not include all staff and funding resources

provided by the network of local, regional and Federal partnerships engaged in

achieving program objectives.

The current financial commitment to coastal and non-point programs is not adequate to meet the challenge posed by these complex natural resource management

issues. Funding is a fraction of what has been dedicated to address the more easily

targeted and measurable point source issues. Estimates of what it will take to

achieve the new and ambitious Chesapeake Bay Program goals are simply expressed by the motto: Big Ideas, Big Policy, Big Money.

Maryland, despite its significant financial commitment to coastal zone management program objectives, depends on the resources brought to the table by Federal

grants and the technology transfer accomplished by collaborations engendered by

these networked programs. We count on Federal funds to help us fill in program

needs or gaps that are not supported with state money. For example, Maryland’s

instituted a policy in the mid–1980’s which prioritized agricultural staff resources

to activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In the mid–1990’s when the state

budget was static, we were able to use Coastal Zone Management funding to provide

a technical position at the local soil conservation district to help farmers implement

best management practices in the Coastal Bays. Adding this essential piece to a

puzzle that already included adequate state cost share for BMP installation, allowed

Maryland to accelerate agricultural BMP implementation in the Coastal Bays by

filling a gap that would have otherwise gone unaddressed.

It is important that the Coastal Zone Management Program maintain the flexibility necessary to allow states to fill in gaps and adapt resources available to their

specific budgetary puzzle.

Recommendations

It is important that the Coastal Zone Management Act be reauthorized to assure

accomplishments and ongoing efforts to protect coastal resources and communities

continue to be promoted by support at the Federal level. The goals, objectives and

strategies of the Coastal Zone Management Program are still appropriate for the

issues we face in 2001. I commend efforts to translate these accomplishments to

measurable results that the public can understand. I urge you to make the process

of developing these measures interactive and flexible so states who implement coastal zone and related programs can maintain consistency among varied program

efforts.

Foremost in terms of need is funding. As previously noted, the resources available

do not begin to match the enormity of the undertaking necessary to achieve program

goals. If strides are to continue in the face of increasing pressure on the resources

in coastal areas, additional financial resources will have to be allocated.

A related concern is the current cap placed on 306 funding. Despite modest national funding increases, Maryland funds have been flat over the past 8 years because of a funding cap place on states with large populations and extensive shoreline. This year, the funding cap will limit available resource support to 15 of the

35 coastal states. The language in the draft bill will help address this issue by ensuring that all eligible coastal states receive increased funding in years where the

appropriation increases.

Finally, I’d like to reiterate the need to maintain the flexibility currently built into

the program so states can continue to coordinate Federal funds and fill in gaps to

achieve program objectives. Earmarking or restricting the use of funds will impact

base program activities and reduce our ability to transition programs and test drive

new ideas. I respectfully suggest the committee consider one of the following ideas

to support local communities within the CZM Program:

1. Support to local communities can be achieved without a direct earmark. This

can be accomplished not limiting the definition of local community support to direct

project implementation. In Maryland we have provided mapping resources, planning

resources and staff support to assist local communities in implementing coastal

62

programs. All of these efforts were targeted to fill an unaddressed need and

achieved program objectives.

2. Include support to local communities as an objective within the performance

evaluation system. This would encourage states to utilize all funding sources to assure objectives supporting local government are implemented.

3. Split out the local government section as the Senate Bill does so that is has

its own dedicated funding source that will not compete with base funding.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate Maryland’s support of reauthorization of

the Coastal Zone Management Act. Coastal states have come a long way in understanding and addressing this moving target of coastal resources issues. We must

build flexibility into our programs and innovation and creativity into our collaborative approaches to resolve the complex issues presented by coastal resource protection. More must be done to protect these fragile resources for the environmental

health and economic well being of coastal communities. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Lawrence.

The cap that a couple of you have mentioned has not been put

in the existing legislation or the authorization, but it is done in the

Appropriations Committee. So we will certainly pass your concerns

along to them.

I wanted to ask each of you, if you care to comment, both drafts

of the reauthorization propose that a certain percentage of the authorization be earmarked or be spent for implementing nonpoint

source pollution programs.

Ms. Lawrence, you just mentioned for the need of flexibility to

deal with a whole host of problems in Maryland based on the

Chesapeake Bay program and the coastal zone management program that is not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Could each of you briefly comment on the proposal to spend a

certain percentage of the dollars that you get through the grant

program on implementing nonpoint source pollution programs or

systems?

Who would like to go first?

Ms. LAWRENCE. Well, I am on a roll.

Mr. GILCHREST. One is about 10 percent required; the other on

is about—I think, Jim, yours is 35 percent?

One is 35 percent; one is 10 percent. That money would have to

be spent on implementing nonpoint source pollution programs on

the ground.

Ms. LAWRENCE. Just to sort of reiterate my remarks, I guess, in

general, I think nonpoint source control is very good because that

is primarily what my agency does in terms of working with the agriculture community. So we would love to have additional money.

But I guess from a more practical standpoint, I do believe that

it is important to keep flexibility. And what we have seen in some

of the 319 funding is they also want to have money spent directly

on in-the-ground projects, and I fully support that concept.

What I would like to suggest is that same objective could be

achieved if you used some of the measurable-results accounting

system that is proposed in the bills to say that states have to show

that they have a certain percent in the ground but not make them

spend just Federal money on that.

In Maryland, we spend a lot of money on in-the-ground projects,

so we sometimes need help with things like planning and mapping

and other things that state money doesn’t provide for us.

63

So if we have the flexibility to mix and match and still meet

whatever your objective is to fund some percent, with all our programs, I think that would be more consistent with how Maryland

could best function.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

Mr. Tudor?

Mr. TUDOR. Yes, I would reinforce that perspective. I think the

general idea is flexibility but with accountability. And we should

have to report back to you how we are making a difference.

In my state, we don’t think of nonpoint source just in the context

of a little box with coastal zone management. I like to leverage all

the resources that are available. So we have millions of dollars that

are available from corporate business tax; we have Clean Water

Act monies; we have Department of Agriculture monies in the form

of what they call the EQIP program; and we have the coastal zone

management monies.

And what we like to do is, on a watershed basis, focus on particular problems. So for me, it is not a particular issue. If 10 percent was allocated to nonpoint source, we could move forward to do

that. But what we would like to be able to do is be able to have

our base programs be kept intact.

There is a big emphasis in the Coastal Zone Management Act on

enforceable policies, so we have a significant permitting and enforcement capability that relates to new development in the state.

And so, if we start getting from 10 percent to 50 percent allocated

to community assistance or nonpoint source, then that would significantly bite into our capability to implement the base program.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you.

Ms. Davidson?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I really think that it is appropriate in some ways to defer to the states, because they are the

people charged with implementation. But I think the lower number

is an appropriate number because of not only the flexibility issues,

but there are a variety of things.

Ms. Lawrence specifically referenced, as did Mr. Tudor, watershed planning and bringing to bear things like geographic information system tools. Increasingly, local and regional governments are

concerned with planning issues, and they also want to bring forward a lot of other data.

We have been pushing with NOAA to collaborate between coastal

programs and the Sea Grant programs on something called

nonpoint education for municipal officials, in which we bring together satellite imagery and GIS kinds of tools and help them to

chart their own future in the ways that they want to best address

these land-based sources of pollution.

And it is not always a regulatory approach. The local government

chooses.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you.

Mr. DeLuca?

Mr. DELUCA. I would also concur with my colleagues on the

panel here and opt for flexibility.

There are many ways that we can begin to address the nonpoint

source issue, certainly through some additional research but also

through training and education. At my site, we have been putting

64

some funds into developing build-out scenarios for watersheds and

enabling planners to envision their communities 20 and 50 years

from now. And it is a very, very powerful tool.

In this process, we have been able to leverage a very modest

amount of reserve dollars into larger dollars for research, training,

and education programs from our partners.

So I would certainly opt for the flexibility to continue to leverage

investment in these programs.

Mr. GILCHREST. It sounds like the panel doesn’t want an earmarked percentage of dollars.

I am not sure who on the panel might know the answer to this,

but based on the—this will be my last question, and the I will yield

to the gentleman from Guam.

Since the Coastal Zone Management Act has been put in place,

does anybody know how many acres of wetlands have been protected, restored, enhanced, or created? And that is a part of the

whole nonpoint source issue. Do we have that data?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that burden falls on me.

And the exact number is a little hard to discern because it is not

just a NOAA-related number. There are other agencies; Department of Agriculture, for instance.

What we do know is that it is on the order of hundreds of thousands. I will have my folks see if we can pull up a more exact number for you, in response to the question.

Mr. GILCHREST. So we are looking at protecting or restoring or

creating—

Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. —hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir. It is on that order. I just don’t know the

exact number at the moment.

Mr. GILCHREST. The suggested USA Today articles, during the

course of the summer, don’t seem to bear that out.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Okay.

Mr. GILCHREST. But we will look forward to that information.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.

{NOAA’s response follows:]

As stated previously, determining the exact number of coastal wetlands protected,

restored, enhanced, or created is a difficult task due to the number of players involved with wetlands protection as well as the lack of accurate and consistent data.

Based on information from the National Wetlands Inventory, in the early 1970’s

there were approximately 5,500,000 acres of marine and estuarine wetlands in the

continental U.S. This number declined to 5,337,000 acres in 1986, a loss of over

150,000 acres. Between 1986 and 1997, there was a net loss of approximately 10,400

acres, bringing the total to 5,326,600 acres. The rate of decline for this period was

82% lower than the rate of decline over the previous decade.

This reduction in the rate of loss is at least partially attributable to additional

protections afforded to most coastal wetlands through the creation and adoption of

state coastal management programs and improvements in federal authorities. Nonetheless, this remains a high priority issue for state coastal programs. In the latest

round of section 309 assessments 16 states identified wetlands as a high priority

issue, and 7 as a medium priority.

While we continue to lose coastal wetland habitat, we are at the same time working to restore and protect this habitat. For example, over the past 25 years, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System has been involved in the restoration of

over 100,000 acres of damaged and polluted land and water, including wetland habitat. These restored wetlands are now protected as part of the NERRS sites.

65

As part of the proposed coastal indicators and state of the coast report, we hope

to work with our local, state, and federal partners to develop a better way to track

some of this information in order to better understand what is happening to the Nation’s coasts, including the trend in coastal wetlands protection and restoration

versus loss through development.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps it is time to pull out that chart about the decrease in

the rate increase.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Right.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. We can go back to that original chart that we

were working with the other folks from NOAA.

Ms. Davidson, how many states does NOAA anticipate having

fully approved by the end of this year for the coastal polluted runoff program?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Mr. Underwood, there will be 10 states with full

approval. There are a number of states in the pipeline, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand that as of today there are only

four or five?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Fully approved, yes, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Fully approved.

Ms. DAVIDSON. But we anticipate a number of states meeting the

rest of their hurdles in the next few months. Several are just a

matter of the paperwork being processed this summer.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So there is no particular cause for concern in

terms of the progress of these approvals?

Ms. DAVIDSON. No, sir, I don’t believe that we do. I think that

most of the states are moving forward.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The Committee later on this morning will hear

from an individual representing the American Petroleum Institute,

recommending some changes to the Section 307 Federal consistency provisions.

Is there an emerging position? Or do you know if the administration will take a position on supporting these changes?

Ms. DAVIDSON. What I do know, Mr. Underwood, is that the Vice

President’s energy task force has asked us to review existing statutes and regulations on CZMA consistency issues. And we are currently doing that in collaboration with the Department of Interior.

The issues that they have are related to timing, what kind of

data needs to be brought forward for the record. And we are working to identify ways to clarify both of those concerns that they

have.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do you know how long this process will take?

So there is an active consideration of reviewing these consistency

provisions?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir. It was in the energy policy recommendations that just came out. And within the Department of Commerce,

we have been holding some discussions on this matter directly.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, thank you for that.

Mr. Tudor, in your testimony, you cite the need for NOAA to provide better assistance to coastal managers, and I think that is a legitimate role for the Federal Government to play. It is my underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
66

standing that NOAA has made a lot of strides in this area for

coastal management.

Could you describe how effective the Coastal Services Center in

Charleston has been for your own work?

Mr. TUDOR. Yes. I could say a couple things.

We are working closely with them right now in terms of something called a coastal fellow program, where they are able to bring

resources and linkage to their coastal center to the states.

In terms of information management, they have done things related to looking at land-use/land-cover change over time in the

coastal area, so that the states can take advantage of that information.

We have talked about the need to maybe work together better so

that we fashion products that are not so much useful from the Federal Government to the state government, but allow the state to

work better with local governments and give them something at

that scale.

And we think, from the perspective of technical assistance—I believe it is Section 315 in the CZMA—that we would want to continue to maintain that but maybe even enhance that capability.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is very important information.

I would like to go back to Ms. Davidson. Are there any plans in

NOAA to—I guess you would know what my next question would

be—to open up such a center for the Pacific?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Why, yes, sir. I believe that National Ocean Services is currently engaged with developing an operating plan for the

Pacific services center to address the particular issues associated

with not only the State of Hawaii but the territories and the islands.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I certainly want to continue to monitor the

progress of that effort. I think it is very necessary, and it is very

critical.

Just lastly, Mr. DeLuca, are the research reserves monitoring

polluted runoff?

Mr. DELUCA. Not at this time. We have been in a position where

there haven’t been a lot of resources directed to the reserves for

many, many years. And it is just within the past year that we have

received an infusion of funding to expand and actually add parameters such as nutrients and parameters related to polluted runoff

to the system.

Right now, the system supports basic water quality monitoring.

And with the monies that Congress provided last year, we are in

the process of expanding that to address polluted runoff issues.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you for that.

And I would just urge my colleagues on the Committee that we

pay particular attention to review of the consistency provisions as

they are occurring.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Saxton?

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I ask several questions, let me just say that the young

lady sitting to my left, a Sea Grant fellow, Jennifer Murphy, has

been with us for better than a year, and today is her last hearing.

67

She served with me while I was Chairman and now, of course,

with Chairman Gilchrest, and we would like to thank her for the

great job that she has done in helping us understand many issues.

She is a graduate of the University of Washington and comes

from Massachusetts.

We look forward to the remaining days. And, incidentally, she is

a sailor.

[Laughter.]

That makes her great in my eyes.

[Laughter.]

Thank you for the wonderful job that you have done, Jennifer.

Let me just pursue this issue of implementing nonpoint source

plans. While we were sitting here listening to your desire to not

have funds earmarked, whether they be 10 or 35 percent of the

funds, to be spent on nonpoint source pollution, staff informed me

that out of the better than 30 states—was it 33 states?—only

Maryland, California, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, Virginia have implemented nonpoint source plans as required by Federal law. The

others have something called conditional approval, which I am also

told is not a term found in the law.

[Laughter.]

So I think it could be accurately said that out of 33 states, 28

are out of compliance, as far as the law is concerned. And that

troubles me.

Ms. Davidson, how do we solve this problem? The states don’t

want to have earmarks. I understand that, from the states’ point

of view. And I am a great states’ rights guy; I believe in all the

flexibility because all states are different.

We don’t handcuff state decisionmakers, but how do we get compliance?

Ms. DAVIDSON. As I mentioned, Mr. Saxton, why it is true that

there are only a handful that have fully approved programs at the

moment, we do expect to have at least 10 if not a dozen to have

removed the nonofficial designation of not fully approved.

In a couple of cases, it is really just a paperwork kind of problem.

I have been spending a lot of time, sir, sitting down with the

states over the last 6 months and talking about this issue and

about the range of concerns that each of them have with the issue

within their jurisdictions and the ways in which they want to approach it.

And it has been very clear to me in talking with them about this,

sir, that they all have an interest in addressing land-based sources

of pollution. But they also want to take a variety of approaches,

one of which I referred to, which is: How do you bring together

some data and some display information to help persuade local

building officials, for instance, planning and zoning boards, to act

on these matters?

We have been also talking with people in the Department of Agriculture and NRCS about how we can build broader, more cooperative programs.

So it is clear to me that states want to use a variety of mechanisms. Some are enforceable. Some are persuasive. Some are educational.

68

And we want to work with the states to provide that framework

and those resources, sir, both financial as well as technical, to help

them address land-based sources in the way that make the most

sense within the context of state and local authorities.

Mr. SAXTON. But the progress that you are making is—the deadline for compliance was 1995. Six years have passed by; five states

are now in compliance. At that rate, it will be 28 more years before

the states are all in compliance.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Well, I would quibble with you a little bit, because if 10 are actually approved by the end of 2001, at that rate,

we might make it by 2010.

[Laughter.]

But it is an issue of concern to us as well. And that is why I

mentioned looking at a broader suite of tools to bring to bear in the

issue.

I think it is outcome issues that you are concerned with, Mr.

Saxton, how do we clean up the water?

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. DAVIDSON. I think there are a variety of ways to approach

that, sir. And even those states that would not wish to undertake

enforceable mechanisms, I think there are strategies that they can

use to address those concerns as well.

So you and I share a similar concern. The question is how to get

the states to do it. But it is not always by insisting only on sticks.

I think you have to provide carrots as well, sir.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Tudor provided this colorful map of Stafford

Township, New Jersey, which is in my district. It says on this side

here:

The yellow outlined area delineates areas that were developed as

of 1986. The solid yellow areas have been developed between 1986

and 1995, a 10-year period.

And then it says ‘‘/1997’’; I guess maybe some others were added.

Maybe it is a 12-year period.

The total area of impervious surface—like buildings, sidewalks,

driveways, parking lots, et cetera—is about 1,425 acres. About 230

of this total were added since 1986. The total area of impervious

surface constitutes 5 percent of the total acres in the municipality.

And when I look at it, and look at the colored-in yellow area, it

looks like, and I am just guessing, it look like maybe we have developed, the last 10 years, the development has proceeded at maybe

at 30, 40 percent additional development during that period of

time.

Is that an accurate characterization, Mr. Tudor?

Mr. TUDOR. I think it might 30 percent of the area that was the

subject of traditional development.

Mr. SAXTON. Right.

Mr. TUDOR. But when you look at the whole community or think

of it in terms of the whole watershed, there are many parts of the

watershed that are being protected and the pattern of development

is being concentrated.

Mr. SAXTON. Sure. Some areas east of the parkway are protected

by the Pinelands.

Mr. TUDOR. Yes. Correct.

69

Mr. SAXTON. And in other parts of the township, we have spent

a lot of Federal money to expand the Forsythe wildlife refuge. And

some of the rest of it is wetlands. So there is undevelopable area

for a variety of reasons.

Mr. TUDOR. Right.

Mr. SAXTON. The developing area is developing very rapidly.

Mr. TUDOR. That is correct.

And really, the purpose of this tool was to make the local officials

aware that this concept of impervious cover is very important, and

that at some level, maybe 15 percent of a watershed, you fundamentally change the hydrology of your local streams. There is increased sedimentation, increased nutrient loading, and then, ultimately, that that would affect the bay system, and that we have

to do the kinds of things contemplated in the 6217 programs, in

terms of the different controls and application of them.

Mr. SAXTON. Are you familiar with Stafford Township’s groundwater recharge program?

Mr. TUDOR. Yes. They are very progressive in terms of having a

good storm-water management ordinance, a good groundwater protection ordinance, a good well-head protection.

They have changed their master plan. They have conservation

zones that allow for development of like one unit per 20 acres.

And they are a good example of what you need to do to get a

handle on this kind of a problem.

Mr. SAXTON. Actually, I am familiar with the local officials, and

I know of their commitment to good environmental stewardship.

And I also know of their groundwater recharge program, which

is in the process of being implemented, which is quite extensive.

Mr. TUDOR. In terms of encouraging infiltration as opposed to

runoff off the land and out in the bay.

Mr. SAXTON. That’s right.

Mr. TUDOR. That’s correct.

Mr. SAXTON. I guess I would say two things about this as an example. One is that it is illustrative the rapid growth that we are

getting in many coastal areas; this is not just Stafford Township.

When I go home this weekend and drive down the road in my

district and look over my shoulder, there will be new houses there

that weren’t there last week. That is how fast development occurs

in coastal areas.

And I am not talking right on the ocean; that has been developed

for years. Right on the bay, that has been developed for years.

I am talking about 20 miles inland, 30 miles inland, 40 miles inland. It is absolutely astounding how fast we are covering up land

and giving water no place to go but down the street and in the

storm drain and in the streams and washing all kinds of things

along with it.

I was frustrated last year when some of our Members were successful in amending out the provisions to provide for some mandated percentage of money to implement and encourage nonpoint

source programs to be implemented.

The states were given 5 years when the law was passed in 1990.

It now has been 11 years, and only 5 states have programs. And

I find that discouraging.

70

Maybe our expectation in 1990 was unrealistic. But we need to

take some measure to help states with this really important program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. SAXTON. I yield back the time that I used beyond my time.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. We will yield you as much time as you need anytime you need it.

I just have a quick follow-up question, so if any of the other

Members want a follow-up question as well.

Ms. Lawrence, can you give us some idea of how, through the

Maryland Department of Agriculture, you have been able to implement on the ground a program for nonpoint source pollution and

what does that involve? CRPs, CREPs, wetlands? And how do you

work with Coastal Zone Management Act people and how do you

work with the local planning and zoning people to implement that

program?

Ms. LAWRENCE. The Maryland agriculture program is also sort of

a networked effort, and we have folks at the local level called local

soil conservation districts. They are independent subdivisions of

the state. We also have our Federal counterparts at USDA.

So we coordinate resources that are brought to bear by the state

as well as the Federal and local level to deliver programs. We have

a state cost-share program, as I mentioned earlier, that helps fund

best management practices. Last year, we spent $6.5 million for just best-management prac- tices. We spend another $2 million for cover crop programs, which

was an identified need in Maryland as an add-on. And we have

some new programs that relate to nutrient management that we

also got some funding for as well. So altogether, we have pretty close to $20 million in cost-share

available in the state to help farmers.

Mr. GILCHREST. So actually on the ground you develop buffers on

the farm?

Ms. LAWRENCE. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Crop rotation, all of those things?

Ms. LAWRENCE. Animal waste management, waterways, erosion

control measures, animal waste storage structures. Things that

would mirror pretty much what 6217 called management measures

that address soil erosion as well as addressing animal operations

and grazing management and all those different issues.

Mr. GILCHREST. They work well on the farm?

Ms. LAWRENCE. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any connection between preserving that

land as agriculture to losing it to development in a discussion with

CZMA or the local planning office or changing the zoning?

Ms. LAWRENCE. We don’t specifically get that involved in zoning

issues. What our department does do, which is something that I am

a little less familiar with, is ag land preservation.

And we have many of our programs delegated to individual counties, and we work with them. They get part of the money that

comes off the transfer taxation to implement programs locally, so

they can set their own goals.

71

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say that ag land, with these nonpoint

source pollution programs, which may not be called that down

there, but the waterways and buffers and crop rotation and the nutrient management and all of that, would you say that is a better

way to deal nonpoint source pollution than a shopping plaza?

Ms. LAWRENCE. I would certainly say so. And I think that you

prove it with science and you could prove it with economics as well,

that for local communities, agriculture benefits a community a lot

more.

And it is probably an old study; it was back in the early 1980’s

with Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act. But they showed for development, for every dollar you get back in taxes for development, the

local community spends $3 for infrastructure costs.

Agriculture has no infrastructure costs.

Mr. GILCHREST. Cecil County just recently updated that about a

year ago, and it is just about the same numbers. For every dollar

you get from a subdivision, it is costing the local government about

$2, and for every dollar you get from ag land, it is only costing the

local government about $.50. So it is economically advantageous to

a community.

I don’t want to take away from shopping plazas, and people need

homes to live in, and things like that, but it is a relentless problem

with us up here.

On what Jim was trying to say, we have implemented some of

these programs, and when you read the USA Today article, you see

rampant development never ceasing within 50 miles of the coast.

You may not be able to answer these questions, and I do want

to yield to my colleagues, but two more quick questions.

One deals with the Heinz Center study, about when will that be

done so we can take a look at it. Is there something that we should

do to put in some criteria or indicators that I guess that the Heinz

Center is trying to evaluate?

These are rapid fire; that was, I guess, to Ms. Davidson.

And, Ms. Davidson, the other one: Do you have any idea about

how many acres or miles of coastal areas are protected from development, how many acres are now developed?

And the last question, to the extent that development requires

Federal permits—oh, this is a note to me. I don’t think I am supposed to read it.

[Laughter.]

But I will read it anyway. It might help everybody in the room

besides myself.

To the extent that development requires Federal permits, the

states can review these permits for consistency with state CZMA

plans. And that is a good part of the bill.

So I am not chastising you, because I know how difficult it is to

preserve land when you get a lot of mix of interest in the local communities.

Ms. Davidson?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Your first question related to a study that we

have undertaken with the Heinz Center.

I would like to point out that also over the course of the last year

that I have been meeting with state and local and other folks to

72

talk about performance indicators. We thought this was a very important subject.

And realizing the scope of it, have undertaken a collaboration

with the Coastal States Organization and Heinz Center to actually

look more closely at performance measures for integrating coastal

management.

Exactly when it is completed, I can’t tell you that date. Although

I understand we will shortly be getting some more assistance, Mr.

Saxton, at the Heinz Center to help work on that study.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Saxton?

Mr. SAXTON. I have something that I have to do at 12 o’clock,

and I wonder if I could just be recognized for a minute, because I

have to leave.

Mr. Tudor indicated, Mr. Chairman, that there are many things

that New Jersey and other states have done. And I would like to

give him the opportunity to talk in particular about New Jersey

open space, the various programs that we have in place, because

I know that we have been working diligently to come into compliance with CZM.

And I just want to give him the opportunity to talk about the

many steps that we have taken in coastal states and particularly

in New Jersey.

Mr. TUDOR. Actually, CZM is one of the tools in the toolbox to

make a difference. Other tools in the toolbox are things like a very

aggressive land acquisition program; a statewide watershed management program where you are looking beyond municipal to all

the land that flows to a particular waterway.

It is to line up the Clean Water Act requirements related to

TMDLs, where you would say, what are the impairments of your

waterways, and how can you make sure to improve them achieve

the water quality standards to protect public health and aquatic

life.

So what we do is we integrate across all of those things to put

in place, in a very customized way—say, something that would

make sense for Ocean County, Stafford Township, relative to in

northwestern part of the state that is more mountainous versus the

coastal Cape May peninsula that has some significant water supply

kinds of issues.

We think some of the things we have been able to do with coastal

zone money is to be able to fund, using sort of information resources, things like a very sophisticated GIS system, to do these

land-use/land-cover kinds of analyses.

We have funded our habitat characterization efforts. Most people

think when protecting endangered and threatened species, you are

talking about protecting a certain species on a certain site. We

have been able to take that in what we call a landscape kind of

analysis, where we are able to look at protecting multiple endangered and threatened species, whether it be plants or wildlife, and

then target our acquisition dollars so that we have a habitat protection outcome or a water quality outcome.

The Chairman just talked about the riparian buffer concept. We

are very aggressively right now trying to buy up the land that is

73

immediately adjacent to our waterways, specifically focusing on

headwaters of streams and things like that.

So I think from our perspective, in terms of the 6217, we are one

of the states that has this conditional approval. I think we are,

right now, just held up based a storm-water management regulation. It is one of those kinds of things that we have yet to adopt.

Mr. SAXTON. Would you take just a minute to describe the acquisition/development right retirement programs that were initiated

under Governor Whitman’s administration, to save—what was it?

A million acres, I believe?

Mr. TUDOR. Like I say, we very much have a results-based management conceptual framework. We want to set quantitative milestones of where we want to be 5 years down the road, 10 years

down the road.

And in the case of land acquisition, open space, we said we wanted to buy a million acres in New Jersey. Well, New Jersey is only

5 million acres total, so we wanted to buy a fifth of state. In order

to do that, there was a set-aside of a portion of the sales tax in

New Jersey, so that we would have $98 million a year to buy land,

which then could be used as a basis for further bonding, so that

you get approximately $200 million a year.

That money is split three different ways. One is to do direct state

acquisition. One is, 40 percent is farmland preservation. And then

there is pass-through money for local governments to buy land.

And Congressman Saxton says that he was very concerned about

the rate of sprawl in our state. And basically, we are in like a little

bit of a race right now to buy those pieces of land that are critical

in some way or another so that we can have the resource values

that we need to protect into the future.

So with that program over the past couple of years, we have acquired, I think we are up to 185,000 acres over a couple of years.

It is focusing a lot of attention on it right now.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that, after

I was fairly strong in my first round of questions, that you had an

opportunity to talk about the great things that you are really

doing.

[Laughter.]

Mr. TUDOR. Okay. All right.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, your second question was about

performance indicators?

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Ms. DAVIDSON. And we would concur with the desire to not only

strengthen but hold us to the accountability of well-designed performance measures for not only the national program but for the

system of state programs that we work with.

I think they need to be outcome-based rather quantity-based.

Originally, we tended to focus on things like how many coastal

zone programs did we have. And I think the bottom-line are the

issues that you and your colleagues are raising:

74

What have we done about wetlands? What have we done about

water quality? What have we done about the rate of growth and

covering the land with impervious surfaces?

I think those are the kinds of performance indicators that both

the national framework and the state programs need to be held to.

And we are looking to the lead of states like New Jersey and

Florida who have already done this at a state level, and hope to

incorporate this at the national level as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this the type of thing that the Heinz Center

is evaluating?

Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir. That is the intent.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you need a legislative fix to incorporate those

indicators into the program? Or can it be done from NOAA?

Ms. DAVIDSON. I believe the bill as proposed does provide a

framework for that, sir. And I think that we can, working with

your staff, fill that out to make it happen. I think it is a very good

concept.

And your last question was about acres that were developed

versus undeveloped, and I will have to get back to you on that specific information, as well as the one you asked earlier with regard

to wetlands.

[NOAA’s response follows:]

Attachment 1 is a table and chart based on 1990 data that compares developed

versus nondeveloped land in coastal counties. The table also provide information

comparing the amount of land developed in coastal counties of each state versus the

amount of land developed in the noncoastal counties in those same states. In 83%

of the states for which we have data, the amount of developed land in coastal counties is greater than that of non-coastal counties. (Please note that those areas classified as nondeveloped areas are not necessarily protected from future development).

Over the last 10 years, the amount of developed land has likely increased substantially, and the trend in greater development along the coast has continued.

Attachment 2 is the amount of Federal land in coastal counties which is protected

from development through a variety of authorities. This information does not include those lands that are protected from development using state, county, or local

authorities and mechanisms. NOAA is presently working with states to obtain this

data in a consistent and comparable manner. Again, through the proposed coastal

indicators and state of the coast report, we hope to work with our local, state, and

federal partners to develop a better way to track some of this information.

75

76

77

78

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Davidson, I know that it is one of the requirements of the

Coastal Zone Management Act state efforts to guarantee public access. As we talk about trying to protect the coastal areas, one of

the things, obviously, is that we want to make sure that the public

indeed has access to the areas. And some of the developments

which are occurring as outlined here in this township may be impeding that, covering up previous access routes.

Can you generally characterize what is the state of the public access to coastal areas?

Ms. DAVIDSON. That concern was one of the reasons for the original enactment of CZMA, that concern, and it continues unabated.

A number of states have done some really innovative things, including identifying areas that have been used historically by folks

and having them dedicated as public access.

In addition, a number of states have actually also experienced

lawsuits associated with this issue as well that have made it a

challenge.

We could put together, if you would like, sir, a complete accounting of what the states have done with regard to this, on a stateby-state basis.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I really would appreciate that, because that is

one those very tough issues as well, trying to balance what some

people perceive to be their private property rights versus public access.

I also just want to take the time to thank you for your own efforts for CZMA. I think they are highly regarded, and they are

well-respected. And I just wanted a chance to note that.

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you.

{NOAA’s response follows:]

Attachment 3 is the report on state enhancement grant assessments and strategies on public access which NOAA worked with the state coastal management programs to put together in 1999. The report provides state specific summaries of

coastal access activities, the strategies states have developed to address coastal access, obstacles and needs of the state programs, and finally tables depicting type

and distribution of state public access projects. In the latest round of section 309

assessments, completed in March 2001, 20 coastal states, including Guam and

Maryland, identify public access as either a high or medium priority issue.

NOTE: The report, ‘‘State Enhancement Grant Assessments and

Strategies-Public Access’’ from NOAA/NOS/Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management/Coastal Programs Division has been

retained in the Committee’s official files.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

This definitely will be the last question. All of you have been

very patient. Of course, we have another panel.

Ms. Lawrence, what I would like to do is just read a part of the

American Farm Bureau Federation’s statement, and ask you to

comment on it.

79

I quote, ‘‘We believe that the reauthorization of CZMA should affirmatively support a preference for voluntary incentive-based programs for water quality protection for agriculture. The cost of planning and regulatory water quality actions for nonpoint sources will

impact agriculture in the coastal zone. The cost of permits, plans,

potential production restrictions will be a burden that will put the

affected farms at a competitive disadvantage within their industry.’’

Now, has Maryland worked through that? We don’t want to burden the farmers anymore, because then they will leave the land

and you get Wal-Mart in there, so we want to keep the land where

it is, unless we can change Wal-Mart into a proponent of agriculture.

Have you seen any of those problems of restrictions and high

costs of permits and all of the rest of that with dealing with your

agriculture friends to put in buffers and deal with the issue of

nonpoint source pollution?

Ms. LAWRENCE. I think it is the point that Ms. Davidson made

a little bit ago about sometimes you don’t get enough bang for your

buck when you say it needs to be regulatory or enforcement-based

programs.

I am working the other side of the issue these days. As you

know, we have a regulatory program for nutrient management.

And sometimes the cost and the check and balancing for regulatory

programs is burdensome.

And I think the farm community is especially reluctant to be put

in that arena with a power plant or somebody else whose business

is scrutinized in that way.

So I think that there are times when you have issues that you

need to address with some sort of regulatory action. But to blanket

a whole industry and say everyone must do these things sometimes

can be a concern because one size does not fit all, and you try to

make everybody fit into a box.

And I think that that is a weakness of our nutrient management

program. It is very hard to make over 14,000 people who have very

individual operations fit through that same box and say you all

must do these things.

So I would say that there is room for both of them and they

should be complementary. But I don’t think to say that regulation

is the only method is good.

One point that I would make about the Farm Bureau comments

is, I think their concern always is too much regulation, but the

other overlying factor is that if you just pull out those farmers in

the coastal zone areas of this country and say, ‘‘You have to meet

this level of management,’’ and everybody else doesn’t have to, then

it does put them at somewhat at a disadvantage in some ways.

That is not to advocate regulating everybody in the country, but

it makes it a division in terms of what measures of performance

you expect from one group versus another group.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you.

Ms. LAWRENCE. So I think that is a bigger issue, really, than regulation or not regulation.

80

Mr. GILCHREST. On a side note, some time I would like to talk

to you about nutrient management plans in Delaware versus Maryland.

Ms. LAWRENCE. Okay.

Mr. GILCHREST. And the issue of co-permitting.

Ms. LAWRENCE. Favorite topics.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

I want to thank all of you for coming. It has been very helpful

to us with this dynamic, sophisticated panel. Thank you very much.

Our third panel will be Dr. Richard Burroughs, Chairman,

Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island; Mr.

Craig Wyman, Liskow and Lewis; Ms. Eileen Claussen, President

and Chair of the Board, Strategies for the Global Environment; and

Ms. Jacqueline Savitz, Executive Director, Coast Alliance.

Thank you all for coming.

Dr. Richard Burroughs, we will begin with you, sir.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BURROUGHS, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes, my name is Rick Burroughs. I am a professor at the University of Rhode Island.

It is a pleasure to be here to support the reauthorization of the

Coastal Zone Management Act. What I would like to do is briefly

explore three areas: first, nutrient pollution control; secondly, evaluation; and third, data.

There has been a substantial increase in our scientific understanding with respect to nutrients since this Act was last authorized. In particular, the Pew Oceans Commission marine pollution

report has summarized nutrient data from a variety of estuaries

around the country.

And I am pleased, I should say, to be joined by Eileen Claussen,

who serves on the commission itself.

The work that I did with Don Boesch of Maryland was related

to the marine pollution report.

In that report, we summarized data that are currently available,

were able to identify nitrogen and phosphorous and limiting nutrients in systems, and were able to identify where these nutrients

come from. If we look specifically at nitrogen, we can see that there

are atmospheric, agricultural, point, and urban sources.

And we know certainly in Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries

that nutrients in excess amounts cause significant environmental

problems.

Now, the question, I think, before the group in terms of this reauthorization is: How do we go about connecting the new science

to coastal protection? And I think the part of the Act that relates

to the coastal community grants offers an opportunity to do so.

Let me explain. Using the scientific data that we now have, we

can pick coastal regions with known nutrient problems. In fact,

there is a chart in the report that does that. We can also, in many

instances, begin to estimate the sources of pollution. And if we can

estimate these sources, then we can look at specific responses and,

in fact, target funds to local coastal communities that are willing

to control important sources of nitrogen.

81

So I would certainly encourage, as you go forward with the legislation, looking at the potential for targeting some of your activity.

I know this doesn’t answer the percentage question that you raised

earlier, but I think there is a possibility of targeting your activities

toward those coastal environments that have nutrient problems

which could be controlled through the initiatives under the act.

My second topic is the question of evaluation. I would second the

discussion that I think Margaret Davidson and others have introduced, that we need to look at evaluation in terms of program

outcomes, not program outputs. So we are not looking just for

process—how many plans, how many permits—but rather, are

there changes in the environment that we can reasonably attribute

to actions taken under the law.

Now, how might we do this? I think one thing that would be

helpful is to identify in the legislation the use of these evaluations.

Who is going to use them? How are they going to use them? When

are they going to use them?

Certainly, that is around the edge of this. It is very clear that

the states could use this information. Certainly this Committee

would use the information. The parent agency, Department of Commerce, could use the information.

I think those uses of information and identifying them early on

in the process will make it easy to focus on exactly what might be

done next.

I would say that focusing on program outcomes is important and

would be very pleased to hear the results of the Heinz study on

particular measures related to that.

And I would say the Coastal States Organization, from the perspective of the coastal states, that the states themselves be allowed

to identify measures that they believe are important for their own

programs. I think that would be very useful.

Finally, in the reporting of results, you have laid out in the legislation a number of program outcomes. It might be useful to report

the results of the evaluation by specific outcomes, listed in the law.

Finally, in the area of data, many have mentioned that data are

a limiting commodity. And some of the questions earlier today indicated that there are gaps that we need to fill. It is pretty clear that

the funding for the projects that might be undertaken under the reauthorized law could have as a contingency the collection of data

that would be used for evaluation. The results of the 24-month report on measures for performance evaluation, might be utilized in

contracting individual projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the protection of our nation’s coasts.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burroughs follows:]

Statement of Richard Burroughs, Professor and Chair, Department of

Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, I am Richard Burroughs, a marine

policy professor from the University of Rhode Island. In the past, I have written

about policy and management related to coastal and marine resources. As you know,

the Coastal Zone Management Act that you are considering reauthorizing today is

one of the central elements of this universe. As a student, I was pleased to participate in a scientific conference on critical problems of the coastal zone that predated

the original passage of this legislation in 1972. A few years ago through the Urban

Institute, I contributed to an evaluation of a companion coastal program, and, most

82

recently, I wrote sections of the Pew Oceans Commission report on Marine Pollution.

Nutrient Pollution of Coastal Waters

The Pew Oceans Commission report on marine pollution devoted considerable attention to nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous which, in excess amounts,

cause problems for coastal waters. The sequence, well known to people in this room,

is that plentiful nutrients trigger bursts in primary production and other shifts in

ecosystem health which result in impacts from harmful algal blooms to low oxygen

in bottom waters. The former can affect human health through Pfiesteria or other

means and the latter disrupts ecosystems and organisms that people depend upon

for recreation or commercial harvest.

A primary contribution of the Pew report was to summarize the literature concerning nutrients and their impacts. Most commonly the culprit is nitrogen. Potential sources of nitrogen to coastal waters include urban runoff, agriculture, and the

atmosphere which are all diffuse nonpoint sources. The final group, the point

sources, consist of sewage treatment plants and other pipe discharges. Identifying

estimated sources of nitrogen for individual estuaries allows government to target

those causes for which the greatest chance for improvement exists. For example,

Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island appears to be dominated by point sources. In contrast, agriculture is the most important source of nitrogen to Chesapeake Bay, and

atmospheric sources dominate in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey.

Knowing the sources of nitrogen being added to coastal waters has a vast and important impact on governmental program design. This reauthorization could use

that information to good effect. Directing nutrient reduction activities to those geographic areas where legislative authorities allow control of a known source would

be most successful. Targeting the largest and most governable sources makes sense,

much in the way that only certain communities may participate in urban development programs. Thus, because point sources and atmospheric sources are covered

by other legislation, the best use of coastal zone management authorities may be

directed to agriculture and diffuse urban runoff that affect coastal areas.

Provisions of this type are compatible with the coastal community conservation

grant sections of Mr. Saxton’s H.R. 897 and your own discussion draft. By matching

a current scientific understanding of cause with additional legislative direction in

the coastal community grants, more environmentally effective management will result.

Evaluation of State Coastal Zone Management Program Outcomes

Now I’ll consider evaluation. You noted that evaluation of the implementation of

coastal zone management plans in the states requires new attention. Both section

111 of the discussion draft and section 108 of H.R. 897 identify the need for measurable outcome indicators for each of the management objectives noted in the law

as it is today.

Those current objectives include expediting the process of governmental decisionmaking, coordinating with Federal agencies and local government as well as the

public, assisting in planning for living marine resources and for land subsidence as

well as sea level rise. These program outputs must, of necessity, precede specific actions. However, they fall into the category of plans as opposed to tangible actions

to affect environmental quality. Evaluation of plans and processes, while desirable,

is not as salient as evaluation of actions.

Thus, focusing on other objectives embodied in the law that are more action oriented will produce greater progress. The latter constitute program outcomes. They

include protection of natural resources and minimization of the loss of life and property in areas vulnerable to hazards. Furthermore, state programs are to give priority to public access and to respect the needs of coastal-dependent uses such as

ports, recreation, and energy developments. Finally, assistance for redevelopment of

urban waterfronts and ports as well as coastal development to protect the quality

of waters and resources (wetlands, beaches, reefs, fish and wildlife) are also specifically identified. These outcome oriented management goals are clearly the most important but complex.

The complexity arises because at times the objectives may be viewed as incompatible. For example harmonizing coastal-dependent industrial facilities with protection

of natural resources and water quality may be difficult because individual interests

demand ever larger shares of a limited coastal zone.

A major analytical opportunity to address this apparent incompatibility would be

to assess the success in reaching these separate objectives as described in detail

below. Next the effect of individual objective achievement in multiple states could

be analyzed in terms of impacts on the coast. Finally, as a part of the next reauthorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
83

ization, the Congress could reflect upon the impact of the program on the nation’s coast and adjust objectives, if needed.

Previous evaluations include state specific section 312 reviews and national CZM

effectiveness studies. Both have struggled with the challenge of establishing appropriate analytical protocols and acquiring data. The structure proposed in the discussion draft and bill significantly advances the strategy to accomplish better assessment. I wish to add some additional details concerning development of measures

and use of results.

First, the Congress through this reauthorization can anticipate who will use the

results of the evaluation and how this will be done. An important context for this

is the Government Performance and Results Act. In specific, performance by outcome management objective will be determined on a state by state basis using the

mutually agreed upon performance measures. Thus, the state agencies will both define and utilize the results of the evaluation.

Second, a detailed process for the derivation of performance measures is necessary. Each state CZM agency will nominate separate performance indicators for

management objectives related to program outputs. A parallel but separate research

exercise will result in the independent development of output indicators. Then the

composite list with explanations will be assembled by NOAA and released for state

and public review. These results are consistent with the 24 month deadline in the

proposed legislation.

Third, the national composite picture will be established from an aggregation of

state performance measures by outcome objective. Each of the output objectives

would have state specific performance reported. NOAA would respond to the Congress at the 48 month deadline with both state performance and a national aggregation of results by objective.

Finally, achievement of the above would lay the groundwork for two important

changes. Once the performance measures by objective are identified, program implementation could go forward with the requirement that funding be contingent upon

collection and reporting of performance data. Another change is that prior to the

next reauthorization and upon completion of the first iteration of the performance

evaluation system, the Congress could conduct a goal/performance review. Informed

program and/or goal adjustments will flow from the new performance information.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on this important legislation

for our coasts and the nation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Burroughs.

Mr. Wyman?

STATEMENT OF CRAIG WYMAN, LISKOW AND LEWIS

Mr. WYMAN. Good afternoon. We appreciate this invitation to appear at today’s hearing. I am here on behalf of the API, NOIA, U.S.

Oil and Gas Association, the IPAA, and the International Association of Drilling Contractors.

Listening to the gentleman just before me and the second panel

today, I was struck by the hundreds of activities that are addressed

by the CZMA and its programs that are not addressed in my testimony today. I have really been asked to address a very narrow section of the act, a very important section of the act.

More specifically, I am here to present industry’s concern regarding certain problems that involve CZMA consistency provisions as

they relate to OCS activity.

We are gravely concerned that these problems will not only continue to harm the oil and gas industry but might actually threaten

the viability of the OCS leasing program.

The OCS Lands Act and the CZMA, in harmony with NEPA and

other national environmental laws, direct the environmentally compatible development of Federal OCS oil and gas.

The oil and gas found on the Federal OCS are the property of

all American citizens. The revenues collected from OCS leasing and

production are deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

84

We ask Congress to reflect carefully on the CZMA’s impact on

our national energy policy since damage to the OCS leasing program would have serious adverse impacts on the nation’s already

strained ability to meet increasing fuel supply needs.

By the end of 2000, Federal OCS accounted for fully 26 percent

of domestic natural gas production and 26 percent of domestic oil

production. At the end of last year, over 83 percent of all oil royalties paid on Federal and Indian leased lands and over 74 percent

of natural gas royalties came from the OCS.

The figures are expected to continue to rise.

We have included in our written testimony certain suggested

amendments to the CZMA consistency review provisions for OCS

activities that we believe would eliminate uncertainties and delays

under the current CZMA requirements.

These revisions have four aims. And I believe, from what I heard

earlier, some of these aims may have been misunderstood. To clarify, these aims include a limitation on the territorial scope of a

state’s consistency review of private permits; a provision to allow

an OCS plan to contain a single consistency certification and determination for oil-related activities; a provision to specify that the

Secretary of the Interior would determine information requirements for consistency certifications and would be the decisionmaker for override disputes involving OCS activities; and fourth, a

provision to ensure timely decisions in override appeals by imposing a specific decision deadline.

In our written testimony, we provide a fuller background of the

CZMA’s relationship with the OCS leasing program and the problems that have prompted our suggested amendments. We will briefly do so here.

Under both the OCS Lands Act and the CZMA, no Federal agency may issue a permit to conduct any proposed OCS activity unless

an affected coastal state concurs with the lessee’s consistency certification or unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides the state’s

objection.

In recent years, a number of states have used their consistency

determination authority to attempt to stifle offshore development.

Moreover, certain CZMA objections have been upheld by the Secretary of Commerce on dubious grounds.

Even in those instances where the Secretary has overridden the

state’s objection, the appellate process has been hampered by inordinate delays. For example, during the 1990’s, appeals involving

OCS activities took from 16 months to 4 years from the state’s initial objection to the final override decision.

If the direction of the CZMA consistency process has taken with

regard to OCS activities is allowed to stand, we believe that OCS

lessees, as well as bidders at future OCS lease sales, will continue

to face stark uncertainties regarding their planning efforts. The

OCS leasing program must ensure that lessees that comply with

their lease terms’ operational requirements and the nation’s environmental laws have a fair chance at a return on the investments.

The current CZMA consistency process has worked to thwart

that end.

We again thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to appear.

85

Congress made an explicit finding in the OCS Lands Act amendments enacted over 22 years ago that the development of OCS resources is vital to the nation’s energy future. The CZMA also provides for priority consideration to be given to the siting of major

energy facilities in coastal areas.

I have attempted to focus on several problems in the CZMA’s

consistency process that have hindered these national objectives.

The suggested amendments included in our written testimony

would work to distinctly improve the efficiency, the certainty, and

the fundamental fairness of the consistency process.

Thank you again.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wyman follows:]

Statement of Craig Wyman, Representing The American Petroleum Institute; The National Ocean Industries Association; The Independent Petroleum Association of America; The United States Oil and Gas Association;

and the International Association of Drilling Contractors

We appreciate the opportunity to appear at today’s hearing on the proposed reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (‘‘CZMA’’). I am here to represent

several oil and gas trade associations including the American Petroleum Institute

(‘‘API’’), the National Ocean Industries Association (‘‘NOIA’’), the U.S. Oil and Gas

Association (‘‘USOGA’’), the Independent Petroleum Association of America

(‘‘IPAA’’), and the International Association of Drilling Contractors (‘‘IADC’’). These

five national trade associations represent hundreds of companies, both majors and

independents, engaged in all sectors of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, including exploration, production, refining, distribution, marketing, equipment manufacture and supply, and other diverse offshore support services. We believe that a critical section of the CZMA regulatory program has run adrift of Congress’s legislative

intentions and, if left unchecked, could permanently harm this nation’s offshore

leasing program under the integrally-related Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

(‘‘OCSLA’’). The member companies ask Congress to reflect carefully on the CZMA

reauthorization’s impact on our national energy policy.

In the OCSLA, Congress has declared that the OCS is a ‘‘vital national resource

reserve . . . which should be made available for expeditious and orderly development

. . . .’’ 43 U.S.C. § 1332(3) (emphasis added). The CZMA in turn at 16 U.S.C.

§ 1455(d)(8) clearly provides that each approved state CZMA program must contain

‘‘adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and managing the coastal zone, including the siting of [energy] facilities . . .’’ (emphasis

added). In an effort to regain and restore these congressional directives, we respectfully submit today’s testimony in support of much-needed revisions to the CZMA’s

consistency review process.

These associations’ member companies hold the vast majority of the oil and gas

leases on the OCS, and their members have bid tens of billions of dollars at OCS

lease sales. In our view, the CZMA consistency certification program as applied to

OCS activity over recent years has seriously undermined the ongoing viability of

OCS lease operations. The import of the program’s flawed administration is the alteration of the economic risk structure of the OCSLA crafted by Congress after decades of experience and study. Potential bidders in OCS lease sales have valid, serious questions whether their lease investments will be rendered worthless as a result

of subsequent CZMA consistency certification disputes. We are gravely concerned

that these problems will not only continue to harm the oil and gas exploration and

producing industry, but might actually threaten the viability of the entire OCS leasing program. The damage to the OCS leasing program—the source of 26% of both

domestic natural gas production and domestic oil production—could be severe and

could have serious adverse impacts on the nation’s already strained ability to meet

increasing energy and fuel supply needs.

The revisions that we suggest to the CZMA consistency review provisions for OCS

activities would improve the effectiveness of the consistency process and eliminate

uncertainty and delays under the current CZMA requirements. These revisions

would:

• Clarify the territorial scope of a state’s consistency review of private permits;

• Allow a single consistency certification determination for all activities;

• Specify that only the Secretary of the Interior would determine information requirements for consistency certification and legal criterion for overrides;

86

1 As described in a leading treatise on Federal oil and gas law, the POE will include: a description of the type and sequence of exploratory activities; a description of drilling vessels, platforms, and other structures to be used; the types of geophysical equipment that will be used;

the location of each exploratory well planned; an oil spill contingency plan; an air-quality analysis; and other relevant geological and geophysical information. . . . If drilling affects a state

with a Federally-approved coastal zone management program, an Environmental Report (Exploration) must also be submitted. . . . Patrick H. Martin, Outer Continental Shelf Leases and Operating Regulations, in 2 Law of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, 25–1, 25–36 (Rocky Mountain

Mineral Law Foundation 1999). 2The POD ‘‘includes information similar to that in the exploration plan: the specific work to

be performed; a description of drilling vessels, platforms, and pipelines together with safety and

pollution control features and labor, material, and energy requirements; well locations; current

interpretations of all relevant geological and geophysical data; environmental safeguards and

safety standards; and a time schedule of the activities to be undertaken.’’ See Martin, supra at

25–38.

• Ensure timely decisions in override appeals by imposing a specific deadline.

The CZMA Consistency Process

The CZMA broadly covers both coordination of permitting activity among Federal

and state agencies and the Federal funding of state programs for the management

of coastal areas. The CZMA’s ‘‘consistency’’ provisions, which are intended to accomplish this Federal/state coordination, are the focus of the present inquiry. The consistency process, in turn, is broadly divided into two types of consistency ‘‘determinations,’’ i.e., those made directly by Federal agencies when considering the effects of their own actions on a state’s coastal zone, and those required for applicants

for Federal licenses and permits having effects on a state’s coastal zone. Today’s testimony is directed mainly on the impacts of the proposed regulations on the private

permitting processes. However, increased difficulties by Federal agencies in conducting their consistency procedures can generate adverse impacts on the private

sector as well.

CZMA’s Relationship with the OCS Leasing Program

OCS mineral leases are issued by the MMS under the authority of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. OCSLA leases require lessees to

pay up-front cash bonuses, followed by periodic lease rental payments, for the tracts

they acquire. 43 U.S.C. § 1337. Under the OCSLA statutory scheme, an OCS lessee

may thereafter prepare a Plan of Exploration (‘‘POE’’) as part of the ‘‘exploration’’

stage of lease activity. 1 If recoverable resources are found, the lessee may then submit to the MMS a Plan of Development and Production, or ‘‘POD,’’ to continue on

to the ‘‘production’’ stage. 2 In the course of filing either plan, the OCSLA further

stipulates that the OCS lessee will certify that its activities will be consistent with

the coastal zone management plan of any affected state that has an approved CZMA

program. See 43 U.S.C. § 1340(c)(2) (applying CZMA certification requirement to exploration plans); 43 U.S.C. § 1351(h) (applying the requirement to production plans).

Under the CZMA consistency requirements, a Federal agency is prohibited from

granting any further permits to conduct activities under a POE or DOP unless the

state has concurred that such activities are consistent with its approved CZMA program, or unless the Secretary of Commerce ‘‘overrides’’ the state’s objection. In recent years a number of states, including North Carolina, California and Florida

have used their consistency determination authority to attempt to stifle oil and gas

leasing, exploration and development. Moreover, certain state CZMA objections have

been upheld by the Secretary of Commerce on dubious grounds, meaning that further OCS development was thwarted. Even in those instances where the Secretary

has overridden the state’s objection, the appellate process has been hampered by inordinate delays. For example, during the 1990s, appeals involving OCS activity have

taken from 16 months to 4 years from the state’s initial objection to the final override decision.

This testimony focuses on two themes. First, the testimony underscores the importance of the OCS leasing program to this nation. Next, it discusses those areas of

the CZMA consistency process which could be improved through amendments to the

CZMA as part of the pending reauthorization legislation.

The OCSLA Leasing Program is Vital to This Nation

The integrity of the leasing program established by the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1331

et seq., is vital to this nation. The OCS program supplies an essential share of domestic energy production in addition to billions of dollars of non-tax governmental

revenues.

87

3Statistical Highlights Fiscal Year 1997, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (1998); MMS Offshore Stats, Year-end 1999, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 4http://www.mms.gov/stats.ocsproduction.htm.

5MMS Offshore Stats, Year-end 1999, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management

Service. 6 U.S. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000 (120th Edition); Washington, D.C. (2000); MMS Revenue Collections, January–December 1998, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Minerals Management Service; MMS Revenue Collections, January–December 1999,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 7Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, supra n. 6. Bonuses totaled $440 million in 1999 and $249 million in 2000. Mineral Revenue Collections, January–December 1999, 2000. 8Mineral Revenue Collections, supra n.7.

9 Conoco Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 309, 324 (Fed. Cl. 1996).

10 In that case, the Supreme Court determined that restitution of the bonus monies was justified after the state’s CZMA authorities, as well as later Federal legislation, had imposed additional information requirements for a POE that had otherwise been described by MMS officials

as ‘‘the most comprehensive body of environmental information ever assembled on a proposed

well in the history of the U.S. offshore drilling program.

By the end of 1999, nearly twelve billion barrels of oil and over 130 trillion cubic

feet of natural gas have been produced under the OCS leasing program. 3 By the

end of 2000, the OCS accounted for fully 26% of domestic natural gas production

and 26% of domestic oil production. 4 At the end of 1999, over 8,100 oil and gas

leases issued under the OCSLA existed on the nation’s Outer Continental Shelf. 5

Additional leases have been issued by the MMS, and lease sales will continue into

the foreseeable future. Over the last eleven and one-half years alone, OCS lessees

have paid the Federal Government over $6 billion in lease bonuses. 6 Indeed, the

MMS collected over $1.4 billion in lease bonuses in 1997, $1.3 billion in 1998, and

$.3 billion in 1999. 7 As of the end of 2000, over 83% of all oil royalties paid on Federal and Indian leased lands, and over 74% of gas royalties, came from the OCS. 8

If the direction the CZMA consistency process has taken with regard to OCS activity is allowed to stand, all OCS lessees, as well as bidders at future OCS lease

sales, will face stark uncertainties regarding the OCSLA statutory scheme. The

OCS leasing program should work to ensure that OCS lessees that comply with

their lease terms and operational requirements have a fair chance at a return on

their lease investment. Instead, the CZMA consistency program has allowed states

to unilaterally use the process as a tool in their philosophical opposition to offshore

drilling. As observed by the Court of Federal Claims in the context of an analogous

CZMA consistency dispute involving the North Carolina Manteo project, ‘‘common sense suggests that no sophisticated oil and gas company with many years of experience in drilling for oil in offshore leased tracts would knowingly agree to pay the

huge, up-front considerations . . . for such tenuous and unilaterally interruptible

drilling rights. 9

We are also concerned that the Department of Commerce’s implicit endorsement,

in recent override decisions, of certain state CZMA objections based on a purported

‘‘inadequacy of information,’’ will only embolden other coastal states that categorically oppose offshore development to misuse the CZMA and OCSLA processes. Accordingly, the industry’s incentive to bid for OCS leases, especially in new, frontier

OCS areas, will be drastically undercut.

Possible CZMA Legislative Proposals to Address Industry Concerns

This section of today’s testimony addresses possible legislative changes to the

CZMA to address concerns regarding the impact of the CZMA consistency review

process on the future orderly exploration and development of the Federal OCS. As

discussed above, certain coastal states in recent years have become increasingly aggressive in using the consistency review process to obstruct offshore energy development. A combination of such state action and Congressional intervention led to the

June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marathon Oil et al v. United States, 530

U.S. 604, 120 U.S. 2423, in which the court ordered the Federal Government to return over $158 million in bonus monies paid for leases in the Manteo area offshore

the state of North Carolina. 10 The Manteo experience, along with others, shows the

need to improve CZMA consistency review procedure to avoid such process breakdowns in the future. Towards this end, our member companies have identified a focused and limited collection of critical CZMA provisions that could be amended to

promote a more rationally based national program.

A. Amendment of the definition of ‘‘enforceable policy’’ in 16 U.S.C. § 1453(6a)

In order to effectuate congressional intent, we recommend that the definition of

‘‘enforceable policy’’ be changed to limit the expansion of a state’s CZMA consistency

review over activities outside of its own geographic boundaries. The legislative hisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
88

11 Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–508 (the ‘‘1990 Amendments’’). For OCS Plans, however, we acknowledge OCS lessees are potentially subject to consistency certifications for coastal zone impacts occurring in one or more ‘‘affected states.’’ The

member companies do not intend the proposed amendment to the definition of ‘‘enforceable policy’’ to rescind the special Congressional consent to affected states’ consistency review of OCS

Plans under 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B). 12 65 Fed. Reg. 77124 (December 8, 2000) (the ‘‘CZMA rulemaking’’).

tory of the 1990 CZMA amendments 11 is clear that Congress did not intend to allow

the expansion of the territorial scope of state consistency review of Federal licenses

and permits. Nevertheless, a number of states, as well as Commerce in its recent

December 8, 2000 CZMA consistency procedure rulemaking, 12 have taken the position that states may review activities and block permits issued for activities taking

place in other states.

In the 1990 CZMA amendments, Congress removed the word ‘‘directly’’ before ‘‘affecting the coastal zone’’ in the statute’s provisions for Federal agency consistency

certification for Federal agency activities. The intent of this change was to ensure

that Federal agency activities both within or outside the coastal zone were subject

to CZMA consistency review, not to expand a state’s authority for consistency review

to another state. In essence, the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Secretary of

the Interior v. California found that MMS lease sales did not ‘‘directly’’ affect the

coastal zone, and thus were not subject to CZMA consistency review. To overturn

the Supreme Court decision Congress removed the words ‘‘directly affecting’’ from

CZMA Section 307(c)(1)’s requirement for Federal agency action and provided that

consistency would now be required for ‘‘Each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the

coastal zone . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)

At the same time, in what were termed technical changes, the entirely separate

provisions in CZMA Section 307(c)(3)(A) and (B)—applying Federal consistency review to private permit applicants and to OCS Plans—were amended to refer to

those consistency activities ‘‘in or outside’’ of the coastal zone affecting ‘‘any land

or water use or natural resource’’ of the coastal zone. (Emphasis added.) Unlike

CZMA Section 307(c)(1), these latter sections had not previously been written to

place the adverb ‘‘directly’’ before the verb ‘‘affecting.’’ Again, this change was not

intended to expand a state’s authority for consistency review.

The Conference Report plainly states Congress’ actual intention regarding the future construction of CZMA Section 307(c)(3):

The conferees want to make it clear that the changes made . . . [to Section

307(c)(3) governing private permit applicants] are technical modifications.

None of the amendments made by this section are intended to change the

existing implementation of these consistency provisions. For example, none

of the changes made to Section 307(c)(3)(A) and (B), and (d) change existing

law to allow a state to expand the scope of its consistency review authority.

Specifically, these changes do not affect or modify existing law or enlarge

the scope of consistency review authority under Section (c)(3)(A) and (B),

and (d) with respect to the proposed project to divert water from Lake Gaston to the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, for municipal water supply purposes. These technical changes are necessary to, and are made solely for the

purpose of, conforming these existing provisions with the changes to Section

307(c)(1) of the CZMA which are needed to overturn the Watt v. California

Supreme Court decision. (Emphasis added). H.R. Conf. Rep. 101–964, at

968 et seq., reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2673, et seq.

Prior to the 1990 amendments to CZMA, the public record shows that both DOJ

and the Corps of Engineers had issued legal opinions and filed briefs in Federal

courts which disputed a state’s authority under the CZMA to conduct consistency

review outside of its own boundaries. During the most recent Department of Commerce CZMA rulemaking, exhaustive comments submitted by the City of Virginia

Beach with regard to the ‘‘Lake Gaston dispute’’ (mentioned specifically in the Conference Report quoted above and involving North Carolina’s attempted CZMA veto

of a Virginia-based project), highlighted the specific legislative history regarding the

1990 amendments, as well as other fundamental rules of statutory construction,

that establish that one state’s coastal policies cannot be legally enforced to block a

Federal permit applicant’s activities taking place entirely in different state.

The ‘‘Lake Gaston dispute’’ ultimately led to a December 3, 1992 Secretarial override decision in which the first Bush administration’s Secretary Franklin ruled that

North Carolina lacked legal authority to block an activity located entirely in another

state. It was not until 1993 that a political policy reversal by Clinton-appointee SecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
89

retary Brown acquiesced to the NOAA legal staff’s position that promoted such state

extra-territorial review authority.

The record is thus quite clear that, both before and immediately after the time

the 1990 Amendments were passed, the predominant Federal Government position

rejected a state’s authority to conduct consistency review for private permit applicants’ activities outside of its boundaries. When passing the 1990 Amendments,

Congress made clear that no change to the scope of existing state review authority

over private permits would occur. Accordingly, an amendment to the CZMA to

change the definition of ‘‘enforceable policy’’ is necessary to overturn the Department of Commerce’s newly minted and untenable position that expands a state’s consistency authority outside its boundaries.

B. Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B) to allow a single consistency certification for

an OCS Plan to cover all activities, including air and water permits

The oil and gas industry has experienced inordinate delays regarding the lack of

coordination between Federal agencies in processing permits for OCS activities, especially including delays involving separate state consistency reviews for those permits. There are also serious concerns raised by the recent CZMA rulemaking indicating that new ‘‘licenses or permits’’ involving heretofore-routine approvals of OCS

activities will be subject to separate consistency review.

This amendment is intended to increase the efficiency of state consistency review

for OCS Plans by achieving a single consistency certification for all related

permitted activities, including air and water discharges, conducted pursuant to either an exploration plan, or a plan of development and production. Contrary to any

suggestion that such a change would unacceptably limit state consistency review information, DOI regulations require an exacting explanation of the Federal applicant’s plans, including air and water discharges.

Attached to this testimony for this Subcommittee’s ready reference are the requirements for OCS exploration and development plans set forth at 30 C.F.R.

§§ 250.203 and 250.204. These MMS regulations state in detail information requirements for both water and air emissions and include specific discussion of

‘‘[e]nvironmentally sensitive areas (onshore as well as offshore) . . . and areas of particular concern identified by an affected State pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act . . . which may be affected by the proposed activities.’’ There is also

specific direction for consultation by the MMS with CZMA agencies of affected

states regarding any limitation on the amount of information necessary to be included.

Moreover, language requiring activities to be described ‘‘in detail’’ is already built

into the OCS information exchange process by the language of the OCSLA. Most

pertinently, for development and production plans, the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C.

§ 1351(d) specifically says that ‘‘the Secretary shall not grant any license or permit

for any activity described in detail in a plan and affecting any land use or water

use in the coastal zone of a State . . . unless the State concurs or [if an override

decision is issued].’’ (Emphasis added). Substantially similar language is found

under the provisions for exploration plans at 43 U.S.C. § 1340(c)(3), which directs

that ‘‘an exploration plan submitted under this subsection shall include [information] in the degree of detail which the Secretary may by regulation require.’’ (Emphasis added). The attached MMS regulations implementing these provisions abundantly satisfy concerns regarding detailed information being provided to support

consistency certifications.

C. Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B) to recognize that the Secretary of the Interior

will determine information requirements for consistency certifications

This proposed amendment is closely related to the preceding amendment regarding a single consistency certification determination. To further promote the efficiency of the consistency process, not only should a permit applicant be permitted

to file a single consistency determination for its OCS plans, but the information supplied in support of that consistency determination should be allowed to conform to

a known set of information requirements identified by the Department of the Interior. In the past, the consistency process has broken down all too often based on

unreasonable and unceasing unilateral state information requests. Moreover, certain

states have lodged such consistency objections even while refusing to respond to the

OCS permit applicant’s request for a simple itemization of the information that the

state may find lacking.

While existing regulations provide that state information requirements are subject

to a public approval oversight process, state expansions of consistency review information requirements have on more than one occasion been treated as merely ‘‘routine’’ amendments to state programs requiring minimum public notice and comment. In addition, Commerce’s past uncritical endorsement of state demands for

‘‘adequate information’’ ignores the realpolitik of state consistency review informaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
90

tion requests. The CZMA experience has shown to any disinterested observer that

certain coastal states have used purported findings of ‘‘lack of information’’ to deny

consistency certifications and to obstruct OCS activity on very questionable grounds,

especially considering the abundance of information on OCS oil and gas exploration

and development that has been accumulated over the last 50 years.

Finally, any question whether the Secretary of the Interior is qualified to determine what information is needed for a state to make an informed consistency decision should be convincingly answered by the detailed MMS information requirements for OCS Plans attached to this memorandum, as well as the specific OCSLA

requirements for DOI consultation with state coastal zone authorities regarding

areas of particular state concern.

D. Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B)(iii) to provide that the Secretary of Interior

would decide override appeals concerning OCS activities

The Manteo consistency review process led to the Secretary of Commerce making

unprecedented rulings declining to override North Carolina’s objections and putting

into question the Secretary’s very recognition of the importance of future exploration

of frontier OCS areas in environmentally sound ways. Commerce’s recent CZMA

rulemaking has now further put into question the application of the legal criterion

for Secretarial overrides in a way that would work presumptively against frontier

OCS exploration. These experiences, as well as consideration of the greater expertise possessed by the Secretary of the Interior with regard to OCS plans and their

environmental effects, support an amendment of 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B) (iii) to

allow the Secretary of the Interior to handle appeals of state objections to OCS

Plans.

First, we are concerned that a superficially minor change made to the Secretarial

override criteria in recent rulemaking could now authorize arbitrary and capricious

agency action. Commerce’s CZMA rulemaking has changed the Secretarial override

criteria. 15 C.F.R. § 930.121 previously included the specific finding that ‘‘[t]he challenged activity furthers one of the national objectives or purposes of the [CZMA],’’ but the new CZMA rules have added the requirement that the activity must ‘‘significantly or substantially’’ further the national interest requirements. While this

change to the ‘‘national interest’’ criterion may appear innocuous, it could have substantial detrimental impacts. For example, while Commerce in its December 8, 2000

preamble makes a point of noting that ‘‘[a]n example of an activity that significantly

or substantially furthers the national interest is the siting of energy facilities or

OCS oil and gas development,’’ 65 Fed. Reg. 77150 (bottom middle column), this observation gives OCS lessees a degree of comfort as to the new criterion’s application

to OCS development, but not necessarily to exploration. This distinction is significant because the Secretary of Commerce’s Manteo POE and NPDES permit override

decisions specifically found, contrary to longstanding Secretarial precedent, that the

drilling of an exploration well in an important frontier OCS area would only provide

a ‘‘minimal contribution’’ to the national interest. Particularly emphasizing that the

Manteo POE had indicated that there was a 10 percent chance of actually finding

mineral reserves (which in the industry is a quite solid chance for even conservative

decision making), the Secretary found that the supposedly small chance of exploratory success diminished the Manteo project’s contribution to the national interest.

Therefore, the new override criterion could now be used by the Secretary of Commerce to reject the importance of OCS exploratory activity in frontier areas.

Any possible suggestion that the Secretary of the Interior lacks experience with

CZMA issues, or that the CZMA’s override decisionmaking procedures would be ‘‘inappropriately bifurcated,’’ is unfounded. First, such concern pointedly ignores the

educational process that all Federal agencies have undergone over the last 25 years

in administering CZMA consistency review requirements regarding their actions.

Federal agencies in general—and DOI with its myriad agencies with coastal responsibilities in particular—have become quite sophisticated in determining project impacts on a state’s coastal zone. Indeed, this educational process is embedded in the

very framework of Commerce’s consistency regulations.

A related concern that the DOI Secretary would lack ‘‘responsibility for the implementation of the statute upon which the decision is based’’ ignores the long existing,

parallel process under which the Secretary of Commerce has exercised authority, as

part of the CZMA override process itself, to determine a private permit applicant’s

satisfaction of the requirements of both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

Neither statute is directly administered by Commerce, but this analogous circumstance evidently has not hampered past Secretarial override decisionmaking.

Finally, the bifurcation of the processing of override appeals achieved by this

amendment would be entirely consistent with the already existing statutory division

between OCS Plans’ consistency review and all other private permit review, as established in the separate CZMA sections of 16 U.S.C. § 1656(c)(3)(A) and (B). The

91

pre-existing statutory recognition of a unique OCS planning process would only be

strengthened by Congressional recognition of the Secretary of the Interior, in charge

of administering OCS activity, as the appropriate decision-maker to weigh the beneficial vs. adverse impacts of such planning.

E. Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1465 to ensure timely decisions by Secretary in override appeals

Despite Congress’s 1996 amendment to the CZMA to add 16 U.S.C. § 1465, which

was specifically intended to expedite the override decisionmaking process, these appeals continue to be drawn out by overlong agency commenting, and by Commerce’s

implementation of the present requirement that the deadline for decisionmaking

does not begin to run until after the administrative record is ‘‘closed.’’ A new amendment is needed to institute a definite deadline that is only governed by the time

an appeal is filed.

The member companies note that in practice the materials that comprise the administrative record for the Secretarial override decision are fully developed by the

time a state’s consistency objection is lodged. The override criteria can be readily

applied to the already-assembled information. If unusual situations arise where legitimate reasons exist for an extension of the decisionmaking deadline, the 1996

amendment already allows a 45-day ‘‘safety valve’’ extension.

There is no foundation to any suggestion that the change could result in

Secretarial decisions based on ‘‘incomplete information’’ regarding possible coastal

impacts. Indeed, speculation regarding such vague and lingering information concerns essentially makes the case for the need for this new amendment. There will

always be a Federal regulatory mindset, shared by certain of the coastal states, that

tilts towards preferring ‘‘one more study to be completed’’ before ever reaching a

final decision. The need for predictability in these override decisions mandates a

preordained time for review; otherwise, continuing abuse will be endemic to the

decisional process.

Conclusion

We believe that the foregoing discussion has amply demonstrated that the continuing development of OCS resources is vital to the nation’s energy future, an observation which Congress included as an explicit finding in the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act Amendments enacted over 22 years ago this year. This testimony

has also identified several areas of concern with regard to the future effectiveness

of this process as it relates specifically to states’ consistency reviews over OCS activity. The testimony’s suggested amendments to the CZMA as part of the reauthorization legislation would work to distinctly improve the efficiency, as well as the fundamental fairness, of that process.

ATTACHMENT

TITLE 30—MINERAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER

CONTINENTAL SHELF

Subpart B—Exploration and Development and Production Plans

Sec. 250. 203 Exploration Plan.

(a) The leasee shall submit for approval an Exploration Plan which includes the

following:

(1) The proposed type and sequence of exploration activities to be undertaken together with a timetable for their performance from commencement to completion.

(2) A description of the type of mobile drilling unit, platform, or artificial island

to be used including a discussion of the drilling program and important safety and

pollution-prevention features. In the Alaska OCS Region, lessees shall include provisions for——

(i) Drilling a relief well should a blowout occur,

(ii) Loss or disablement of a drilling unit, and

(iii) Loss or damage to support craft.

(3) A table indicating the approximate location of each proposed exploratory well,

including surface locations, proposed well depths, and water depth at well sites.

(b) The lessee shall submit the following supporting information to accompany the

Exploration Plan:

(1) Data and information described below which the Regional Supervisor deems

necessary to evaluate geologic conditions:

92

(i) Current structure contour maps drawn to the top of each prospective hydrocarbon accumulation showing the approximate surface and bottomhole location of

each proposed well.

(ii) Full-scale interpreted, and if appropriate, migrated Common Depth Point seismic lines intersecting at or near the primary well locations.

(iii) A time versus depth chart based on the appropriate velocity analysis in the

area of interpretation.

(iv) Interpreted structure sections corresponding to each seismic line submitted in

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section showing the location and proposed depth of each

well.

(v) A generalized stratigraphic column from the surface to total depth.

(vi) A description of the geology of the prospect.

(vii) A plat showing exploration seismic coverage of the lease.

(viii) A bathymetry map showing surface locations of proposed wells.

(ix) An analysis of seafloor and subsurface geologic and manmade hazards. Unless

the lessee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor that data

sufficient to determine the presence or absence of such conditions are available, the

lessee shall conduct a shallow hazards survey in accordance with the Regional Supervisor’s specifications. The Regional Supervisor may require the submission of a

shallow hazards report and the data upon which the analysis is based.

(2) An oil-spill response plan as described in part 254 or reference to an approved

Regional Response Plan.

(3) A discussion of the measures that have been or will be taken to satisfy the

conditions of lease stipulations.

(4) A list of the proposed drilling fluids, including components and their chemical

compositions, information on the projected amounts and rates of drilling fluid and

cuttings discharges, and method of disposal.

(5) Information concerning the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and the following proposed precautionary measures:

(i) A classification of the lease area as to whether it is within an area known to

contain H2S, an area where the presence of H2S is unknown, or an area where the

absence of H2S has been confirmed as described in Sec. 250.417 of this part and the

documentation supporting the classification; and

(ii) If the classification is an area known to contain H2S or an area where the

presence of H2S is unknown, an H2S Contingency Plan as required in Sec. 250.417

of this part.

(6) A detailed discussion of new or unusual technology to be employed. The lessee

shall indicate which portions of the supporting information the lessee believes are

exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552)

and the implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2). The lessee shall include a written discussion of the general subject matter of the deleted portions for transmittal

to the recipients of plan copies.

(7) A brief description of the onshore facilities to be used to support the exploration activities including information as to whether the facilities are existing, proposed, or are to be expanded; a brief description of support vessels to be used and

information concerning their frequency of travel; and a map showing the lease relative to the shoreline and depicting proposed transportation routes.

(8) For onshore support facilities, except in the western GOM, indicate the following:

(i) The location, size, number, and land requirements (including rights-of-way and

easements) of the onshore support and storage facilities and, where possible, a timetable for the acquisition of lands and the construction or expansion of any facilities.

(ii) The estimated number of persons expected to be employed in support of offshore, onshore, and transportation activities and, where possible, the approximate

number of new employees. and families likely to move into the affected area.

(iii) Major supplies, services, energy, water, or other resources within affected

States necessary for carrying out the related plan.

(iv) The source, composition, frequency, and duration of emissions of air pollutants.

(9) The quantity, composition, and method of disposal of solid and liquid wastes

and pollutants likely to be generated by offshore, onshore, and transportation operations.

(10) Historic weather patterns and other meteorological conditions of offshore

areas including temperature, sky cover and visibility, precipitation, storm frequency

and magnitude, wind direction and velocity, and freezing and icing conditions listing, where possible, the means and extremes of each.

93

(11) Physical oceanography including onsite direction and velocity of currents and

tides, sea states, temperature, and salinity, water quality, and icing conditions,

where appropriate.

(12) Onsite flora and fauna including both pelagic and benthic communities, transitory birds and mammals that may breed or migrate through the area when proposed activities are being conducted, identification of endangered and threatened

species and their critical habitats that could be affected by proposed activities, and

typical fishing seasons and locations of fishing activities. The results of any biological surveys required by the Regional Supervisor (including a copy of survey reports

or references to previously submitted reports) should be incorporated into this discussion.

(13) Environmentally sensitive areas (onshore as well as offshore), e.g., refuges,

preserves, sanctuaries, rookeries, calving grounds, and areas of particular concern

identified by an affected State pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA) which may be affected by the proposed activities.

(14) Onsite uses of the area based on information available, e.g., shipping, military use, recreation, boating, commercial fishing, subsistence hunting and fishing,

and other mineral exploration in the area.

(15) If the Regional Director believes that an archaeological resource may exist

in the lease area, the Regional Director will notify the lessee in writing. Prior to

commencing any operations, the lessee shall prepare a report, as specified by the

Regional Director, to determine the potential existence of any archaeological resource that may be affected by operations. The report shall be prepared by an archaeologist and geophysicist and shall be based on an assessment of data from remote-sensing surveys and of other pertinent archaeological and environmental information.

(16) Existing and planned monitoring systems that are measuring or will measure

environmental conditions and provide data and information on the impacts of activities in the geographic areas.

(17) An assessment of the direct and cumulative effects on the offshore and onshore environments expected to occur as a result of implementation of the Exploration Plan, expressed in terms of magnitude and duration, with special emphasis

upon the identification and evaluation of unavoidable and irreversible impacts on

the environment. Measures to minimize or mitigate impacts should be identified

and discussed.

(18) Certificate(s) of coastal zone consistency as provided in 15 CFR part 930.

(19) For each OCS facility, the lessee shall submit the information described

below when it is needed to make the findings under Sec. 250.303 or Sec. 250.304

of this part:

(i)(A) Projected emissions from each proposed or modified facility for each year of

operation and the basis for all calculations to include (if the drilling unit has not

yet been determined, the lessee shall use worst-case estimates for the type of unit

proposed):

(1) For each source, the amount of the emission by air pollutant expressed in tons

per year and the frequency and duration of emissions.

(2) For each facility, the total amount of emissions by air pollutant expressed in

tons per year and, in addition for a modified facility only, the incremental amount

of total emissions by air pollutant resulting from the new or modified source(s).

(3) A detailed description of all processes, processing equipment, and storage

units, including information on fuels to be burned.

(4) A schematic drawing which identifies the location and elevation of each source.

(5) If projected emissions are based on the use of emission-reduction control technology, a description of the controls providing the information required by paragraph (b)(19)(iv) of this section.

(B) The distance of each proposed facility from the mean high water mark (mean

higher high water mark on the Pacific coast) of any State.

(ii)(A) The model(s) used to determine the effect on the onshore air quality of

emissions from each facility, or from other facilities when required by the Regional

Supervisor, and the results obtained through the use of the model(s). Only model(s)

that has been approved by the Director may be used.

(B) The best available meteorological information and data consistent with the

model(s) used stating the basis for the data and information selected.

(iii) The air quality status of any onshore area where the air quality is significantly affected (within the meaning of Sec. 250.303 of this part) by projected emissions from each facility proposed in the plan. The area should be classified as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable to include the status of each area by air

pollutant, the class of attainment area, and the air-pollution control agency whose

jurisdiction covers the area identified.

94

(iv) The emission-reduction controls available to reduce emissions, including the

source, the emission-reduction control technology, reductions to be achieved, and

monitoring system the lessee proposes to use to measure emissions. The lessee shall

indicate which emission-reduction control technology the lessee believes constitutes

the best available control technology and the basis for that opinion.

(20) The name, address, and telephone number of an individual employee of the

lessee to whom inquiries by the Regional Supervisor and the affected State(s) may

be made.

(21) Such other information and data as the Regional Supervisor may require.

(c) Information and data discussed in other documents previously submitted to

MMS or otherwise readily available to reviewers may be referenced. The material

being referenced shall be cited, described briefly, and include a statement of where

the material is available for inspection. Any material based on proprietary data

which is not itself available for inspection shall not be so referenced.

(d) The Regional Director, after consultation with the Governor of the affected

State(s) or the Governor’s designated representative, the CZM agency of affected

State(s), and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may limit the amount of information required to be included to that necessary to assure conformance with the Act,

other laws, applicable regulations, and lease provisions.

(e) The Regional Supervisor shall determine within 10 working days after receipt

of the Exploration Plan whether additional information is needed. If no deficiencies

are identified and the required number of copies have been received, the plan will

be deemed submitted.

(f) Within 2 working days after we deem the Exploration Plan submitted, the Regional Supervisor will send by receipted mail a copy of the plan (except those portions exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and 43 CFR

part 2) to the Governor or the Governor’s designated representative and the CZM

agency of each affected State. Consistency review begins when the State’s CZM

agency receives a copy of the deemed submitted plan, consistency certification, and

required necessary data and information as directed by 15 CFR 930.78.

(g) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regional Supervisor shall evaluate the environmental impacts of the activities described in the Exploration Plan.

(h) In the evaluation of an Exploration Plan, the Regional Supervisor shall consider written comments from the Governor of an affected State or the Governor’s

designated representative which are received prior to the deadline specified by the

Regional Supervisor. The Regional Supervisor may consult directly with affected

States regarding matters contained in the comments.

(i) Within 30 days of submission of a proposed Exploration Plan, the Regional Supervisor shall accomplish one of the following:

(1) Approve the plan;

(2) Require the lessee to modify any plan which is inconsistent with the provisions

of the lease, the Act, or the regulations prescribed under the Act including air quality, environmental, safety, and health requirements; or

(3) Disapprove the plan if the Regional Supervisor determines that a proposed activity would probably cause serious harm or damage to life (including fish and other

aquatic life), property, natural resources offshore including any mineral deposits (in

areas leased or not leased), the national security or defense, or the marine, coastal,

or human environment, and that the proposed activity cannot be modified to avoid

the condition(s).

(j) The Regional Supervisor shall notify the lessee in writing of the reason(s) for

disapproving an Exploration Plan or for requiring modification of a plan. For plans

requiring modification, the Regional Supervisor shall also notify the lessee in writing of the conditions that must be met for plan approval.

(k)(1) The lessee may resubmit an Exploration Plan, as modified, to the Regional

Supervisor in the same manner as for a new plan. Only information related to the

proposed modifications need be submitted. The Regional Supervisor shall approve,

disapprove, or require modification of the resubmitted plan based upon the criteria

in paragraph (i) of this section within 30 days of the resubmission date.

(2) An Exploration Plan which has been disapproved pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)

of this section may be resubmitted if there is a change in the conditions which

caused it to be disapproved. The Regional Supervisor shall approve, require modification, or disapprove such a plan within 30 days of the resubmission date.

(l) When a State objects to a lessee’s coastal zone consistency certification, the lessee shall modify the plan to accommodate the State’s objection(s) and resubmit the

plan to——

95

(1) The Regional Supervisor for review pursuant to the criteria in paragraphs (h),

(i), and (j) of this section; and

(2) Through the Regional Supervisor to the State for review pursuant to the

CZMA and the implementing regulations (15 CFR 930.83 and 930.84). Alternatively,

the lessee may appeal the State’s objection to the Secretary of Commerce pursuant

to the procedures described in section 307 of the CZMA and the implementing regulations (subpart H of 15 CFR part 930). The Regional Supervisor shall approve or

disapprove a plan as resubmitted within 30 days of the resubmission date.

(m) If the Regional Supervisor disapproves an Exploration Plan, the Secretary

may, subject to the provisions of section 5(a)(2)(B) of the Act and the implementing

regulations in Sec. 250.182 and 256.77 of this chapter II, cancel the lease(s), and

the lessee shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with section 5(a)(2)(c) of

the Act.

(n)(1) The Regional Supervisor shall periodically review the activities being conducted under an approved Exploration Plan and may request updated information

on schedules and procedures. The frequency and extent of the Regional Supervisor’s review shall be based upon the significance of any changes in available information

and in other onshore or offshore conditions affecting or affected by exploration activities being conducted pursuant to the plan. If the review indicates that the plan

should be revised to meet the requirements of this part, the Regional Supervisor

shall require the needed revision.

(2) Revisions to an approved or pending Exploration Plan, whether initiated by

the lessee or ordered by the Regional Supervisor, shall be submitted to the Regional

Supervisor for approval. Only information related to the proposed revisions need be

submitted. When the Regional Supervisor determines that a proposed revision could

result in a significant change in the impacts previously identified and evaluated or

requires additional permits, the revisions shall be subject to all of the procedures

in this section.

(o) To ensure safety and protection of the environment and archaeological resources, the Regional Director may authorize or direct the lessee to conduct geological, geophysical, biological, archaeological, or other surveys or monitoring programs.

The lessee shall provide the Regional Director, upon request, with copies of any data

obtained as a result of those surveys and monitoring programs.

(p) The lessee may not drill any well until the District Supervisor’s approval of

an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), submitted in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 250.414 of this part, has been received. The District Supervisor shall

not approve any APD until all affected States with approved CZM programs have

concurred or have been conclusively presumed to concur with the applicant’s coastal

zone consistency certification accompanying a plan, or the Secretary of Commerce

has made the finding authorized by section 307(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CZMA. The APD’s

must conform to the activities described in detail in the approved Exploration Plan

and shall not be subject to a separate State coastal zone consistency review.

(q) Nothing in this section or in an approved plan shall limit the lessee’s responsibility to take appropriate measures to meet emergency situations. In such situations, the Regional Supervisor may approve or require departures from an approved

Exploration Plan.

TITLE 30—MINERAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER

CONTINENTAL SHELF

Subpart B—Exploration and Development and Production Plans

Sec. 250. 204 Development and Production Plan.

(a) The lessee shall submit for approval a Development and Production Plan

which includes the following:

(1) A description of and schedule for the development and production activities to

be performed including plan commencement date, date of first production, total time

to complete all development and production activities, and dates and sequences for

drilling wells and installing facilities and equipment.

(2) A description of any drilling vessels, platforms, pipelines, or other facilities

and operations located offshore which are proposed or known by the lessee (whether

or not owned or operated by the lessee) to be directly related to the proposed development, including the location, size, design, and important safety, pollution prevention, and environmental monitoring features of the facilities and operations.

(b) The lessee shall submit the following supporting information to accompany the

Development and Production Plan:

96

(1) Geological and geophysical (G&G) data and information, including the following:

(i) A plat showing the surface location of any proposed fixed structure or well.

(ii) A plat showing the surface and bottomhole locations and giving the measured

and true vertical depths for each proposed well.

(iii) Current interpretations of relevant G&G data.

(iv) Current structure map(s) showing the surface and bottomhole location of each

proposed well and the depths of expected productive formations.

(v) Interpreted structure sections showing the depths of expected productive formations.

(vi) A bathymetric map showing surface locations of fixed structures and wells or

a table of water depths at each proposed site.

(vii) A discussion of seafloor conditions including a shallow hazards analysis for

proposed drilling and platform sites and pipeline routes. This information shall be

derived from the shallow hazards report required by Sec. 250.909 of this part.

(2) Information concerning the presence of H2S and proposed precautionary measures, including the following:

(i) A classification of the lease area as to whether it is within an area known to

contain H2S, an area where the presence of H2S is unknown, or an area where the

absence of H2S has been confirmed as described in Sec. 250.417 of this part and the

documentation supporting the classification; or

(ii) If the classification is an area known to contain H2S or an area where the

presence of H2S is unknown, an H2S Contingency Plan as required in Sec. 250.417

of this part.

(3) A description of the environmental safeguards to be implemented, including

an updated oil-spill response plan as described in part 254 of this chapter or reference to an approved plan.

(4) A discussion of the steps that have been or will be taken to satisfy the conditions of lease stipulations.

(5)(i) A description of technology and reservoir engineering practices intended to

increase the ultimate recovery of oil and gas, i.e., secondary, tertiary, or other enhanced recovery practices;

(ii) A description of technology and recovery practices and procedures intended to

assure optimum recovery of sulphur; or

(iii) A description of technology and recovery practices and procedures intended

to assure optimum recovery of oil and gas and sulphur.

(6) A discussion of the proposed drilling and completion programs.

(7) A detailed description of new or unusual technology to be employed. The lessee

shall indicate which portions of the information the lessee believes are exempt from

disclosure under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552) and the implementing regulations (43

CFR part 2). The lessee shall include a written discussion of the general subject

matter of the deleted portions for transmittal to recipients of plan copies.

(8) A brief description of the following:

(i) The location, description, and size of any offshore, and to the maximum extent

practicable, land-based operations to be conducted or contracted for as a result of

the proposed activity, including the following:

(A) The acreage required within a State for facilities, rights-of-way, and easements.

(B) The means proposed for transportation of oil, gas, and sulphur to shore; the

routes to be followed by each mode of transportation; and the estimated quantities

of oil, gas, and sulphur to be moved along such routes.

(C) An estimate of the frequency of boat and aircraft departures and arrivals, the

onshore location of terminals, and the normal routes for each mode of transportation.

(ii) A list of the proposed drilling fluids including components and their chemical

compositions, information on the projected amounts and rates of drilling fluid and

cuttings discharges, and method of disposal. If the information is provided in an approved Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System permit, or a pending permit application, the lessee may reference these documents.

(iii) The quantities, types, and plans for disposal of other solid and liquid wastes

and pollutants likely to be generated by offshore, onshore, and transport operations

and, regarding any wastes which may require onshore disposal, the means of transportation to be used to bring the wastes to shore, disposal methods to be utilized,

and location of onshore waste disposal or treatment facilities.

(iv) The following information on onshore support facilities, except in the western

GOM:

97

(A) The approximate number, timing, and duration of employment of persons who

will be engaged in onshore development and production activities, an approximate

number of local personnel who will be employed for or in support of the development

activities (classified by the major skills or crafts that will be required from local

sources and estimated number of each such skill needed), and the approximate total

number of persons who will be employed during the onshore construction activity

and during all activities related to offshore development and production.

(B) The approximate number of people and families to be added to the population

of local nearshore areas as a result of the planned development.

(C) An estimate of significant quantities of energy and resources to be used or

consumed including electricity, water, oil and gas, diesel fuel, aggregate, or other

supplies which may be purchased within an affected State.

(D) The types of contractors or vendors which will be needed, although not specifically identified, and which may place a demand on local goods and services.

(E) The source, composition, frequency, and duration of emissions of air pollutants.

(v) A narrative description of the existing environment with an emphasis placed

on those environmental values that may be affected by the proposed action. This

section shall contain a description of the physical environment of the area covered

by the related plan. This portion of the plan shall include data and information obtained or developed by the lessee together with other pertinent information and

data available to the lessee from other sources. The environmental information and

data shall include the following, where appropriate:

(A) If the Regional Director believes that an archaeological resource may exist in

the lease area, the Regional Director will notify the lessee in writing. Prior to commencing any operations, the lessee shall prepare a report, as specified by the

Regional Director, to determine the potential existence of any archaeological resource that may be affected by operations. The report shall be prepared by an archaeologist and geophysicist and shall be based on an assessment of data from remote-sensing surveys and of other pertinent archaeological and environmental information.

(B) The aquatic biota, including a description of fishery and marine mammal use

of the lease and the significance of the lease, and a description of any threatened

and endangered species and their critical habitat. The results of any biological surveys required by the Regional Supervisor (including a copy of survey reports or references to previously submitted reports) should be incorporated into these discussions.

(C) Environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., refuges, preserves, sanctuaries, rookeries, calving grounds, coastal habitat, beaches, and areas of particular environmental concern) which may be affected by the proposed activities.

(D) The predevelopment, ambient water-column quality and temperature data for

incremental depths for the areas encompassed by the plan.

(E) The physical oceanography, including ocean currents described as to prevailing direction, seasonal variations, and variations at different water depths in the

lease.

(F) Historic weather patterns and other meteorological conditions, including storm

frequency and magnitude, wave height and direction, wind direction and velocity,

air temperature, visibility, freezing and icing conditions, and ambient air quality

listing, where possible, the means and extremes of each.

(G) The other uses of the area known to the lessee, including military use for national security or defense, subsistence hunting and fishing, commercial fishing,

recreation, shipping, and other mineral exploration or development.

(H) The existing or planned monitoring systems that are measuring or will measure impacts of activities on the environment in the planning area.

(9) For sulphur operations, the degree of subsidence that is expected at various

stages of production, and measures that will be taken to assure safety of operations

and protection of the environment. Special attention shall be given to the effects of

subsidence on existing or potential oil and gas production, fixed bottom-founded

structures, and pipelines.

(10) For sulphur operations, a discussion of the potential toxic or thermal effects

on the environment caused by the discharge of bleedwater, including a description

of the measures that will be taken into account to mitigate these impacts.

(11) An assessment of the effects on the environment expected to occur as a result

of implementation of the plan, identifying specific and cumulative impacts that may

occur both onshore and offshore, and the measures proposed to mitigate these impacts. Such impacts shall be quantified to the fullest extent possible including magnitude and duration and shall be accumulated for all activities for each of the major

elements of the environment (e.g., water or biota).

98

(12) A discussion of alternatives to the activities proposed that were considered

during the development of the plan including a comparison of the environmental effects.

(13) Certificate(s) of coastal zone consistency as provided in 15 CFR part 930.

(14) For each OCS facility, such information described below needed to make the

findings under Sec. 250.303 or Sec. 250.304 of this part:

(i)(A) Projected emissions from each proposed or modified facility for each year of

operation and basis for all calculations to include the following:

(1) For each source, the amount of the emission by air pollutant expressed in tons

per year and frequency and duration of emissions;

(2) For each proposed facility, the total amount of emissions by air pollutant expressed in tons per year, the frequency distribution of total emissions by air pollutant expressed in pounds per day and, in addition for a modified facility only, the

incremental amount of total emissions by air pollutant resulting from the new or

modified source(s);

(3) A detailed description of all processes, processing equipment, and storage

units, including information on fuels to be burned;

(4) A schematic drawing which identifies the location and elevation of each source;

and

(5) If projected emissions are based on the use of emission-reduction control technology, a description of the controls providing the information required by paragraph (b)(12)(iv)(A) of this section.

(B) The distance of each proposed facility from the mean high water mark (mean

higher high water mark on the Pacific coast) of any State.

(ii)(A) The model(s) used to determine the effect on the onshore air quality of

emissions from each facility, or from other facilities when required by the Regional

Supervisor, and the result obtained through the use of the model(s). Only model(s)

that has been approved by the Director may be used.

(B) The best available meteorological information and data consistent with the

model(s) used stating the basis for the information and data selected.

(iii) The air quality status of any onshore area where the air quality is significantly affected (within the meaning of Sec. 250.303 of this part) by projected emissions from each facility proposed in the plan. The area should be classified as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable listing the status of each area by air pollutant, the class of attainment areas, and the air pollution control agency whose jurisdiction covers the area identified.

(iv)(A) The emission-reduction controls available to reduce emissions including the

source, emission-reduction control technology, reductions to be achieved, and monitoring system the lessee proposes to use to measure emissions. The lessee shall indicate which emission-reduction control technology the lessee believes constitutes the

best available control technology and the basis for that opinion.

(B) The ownership of the offshore and onshore offsetting source(s) and the reduction obtainable from each offsetting source.

(15) A brief discussion of any approved or anticipated suspensions of production

necessary to hold the lease(s) in an active status.

(16) The name, address, and telephone number of an individual employee of the

lessee to whom inquiries by the Regional Supervisor and the affected State(s) may

be directed.

(17) Such other data and information as the Regional Supervisor may require.

(c) Data and information discussed in other documents previously submitted to

MMS or otherwise readily available to reviewers may be incorporated by reference.

The material being incorporated shall be cited and described briefly and include a

statement of where the material is available for inspection. Any material based on

proprietary data which is not itself available for inspection shall not be incorporated

by reference.

(d)(1) Development and Production Plans are not required for leases in the western GOM. For these leases, the lessee shall submit to the Regional Supervisor for

approval a Development Operations Coordination Document with all information

necessary to assure conformance with the Act, other laws, applicable regulations,

lease provisions, or as otherwise needed to carry out the functions and responsibilities of the Regional Supervisor.

(2) Any information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be considered a Development and Production Plan for the purpose of references in any law,

regulation, lease provision, agreement, or other document referring to the preparation or submission of a plan.

(e) The Regional Director, after consultation with the Governor(s) of the affected

State(s) or the Governor’s designated representative, the CZM agency of the affected

State(s), and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of NOAA may

99

limit the amount of information required to be included in a Development and Production Plan to that necessary to assure conformance with the Act, other laws, applicable regulations, and lease provisions. In determining the information to be included in a plan, the Regional Director shall consider current and expected operating conditions together with experience gained during past operations of a similar

nature in the area of proposed activities.

(f) The Regional Supervisor shall determine within 20 working days after receipt

whether additional material is needed. If no deficiencies are identified and the requested number of copies have been received, the plan shall be deemed submitted.

(g) Within 5 working days after a Development and Production Plan has been

deemed submitted, the Regional Supervisor shall transmit a copy of the plan, except

for those portions of the plan determined to be exempt from disclosure under the

FOIA and the implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), to the Governor or the

Governor’s designated representative and the CZM agency of each affected State

and to the executive of each affected local government that requests a copy. The Regional Supervisor shall make copies available to appropriate Federal Agencies,

interstate entities, and the public. The plan will be available for review at the appropriate MMS Regional Public Information Office.

(h) The Governor or the Governor’s designated representative and the CZM agency of each affected State and the executive of each affected local government shall

have 60 days from the date of receipt of the Development and Production Plan to

submit comments and recommendations to the Regional Supervisor. The executive

of any affected local government must forward all recommendations to the Governor

of the State prior to submitting them to the Regional Supervisor. The Regional Supervisor shall accept those recommendations from the Governor that provide for a

reasonable balance between the national interest and the well-being of the citizens

of the affected State. The Regional Supervisor shall explain in writing the reasons

for accepting or rejecting any recommendations. In addition, any interested Federal

Agency or person may submit comments and recommendations to the Regional Supervisor. All comments and recommendations shall be made available to the public.

(i) We will process the plan according to this section and 15 CFR part 930. Accordingly, consistency review begins when the State’s CZM agency receives a copy of the

deemed submitted plan, consistency certification, and required necessary data and

information as directed by 15 CFR 930.78.

(j) The Regional Supervisor will evaluate the environmental impact of the activities described in the Development and Production Plan (DPP) and prepare the appropriate environmental documentation required by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. At least once in each planning area (other than the western and

central Gulf of Mexico planning areas), we will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) and send copies of the draft EIS to the Governor of each affected

State and the executive of each affected local government that requests a copy. Additionally, when we prepare a DPP EIS and when the State’s Federally approved

coastal management program requires a DPP NEPA document for use in determining consistency, we will forward a copy of the draft EIS to the State’s CZM

Agency. We will also make copies of the draft EIS available to any appropriate Federal Agency, interstate entity, and the public.

(k) Prior to or immediately after a determination by the Director that approval

of a Development and Production Plan requires that the procedures under NEPA

shall commence, the Regional Supervisor may require lessees of tracts in the vicinity, for which Development and Production Plans have not been approved, to submit

preliminary or final plans for their leases.

(l) No later than 60 days after the last day of the comment period provided in

paragraph (h) of this section or within 60 days of the release of the final EIS describing the proposed activities, the Regional Supervisor shall accomplish the following:

(1) Approve the plan;

(2) Require modification of the plan if it is determined that the lessee has failed

to make adequate provisions for safety, environmental protection, or conservation of

resources including compliance with the regulations prescribed under the Act; or

(3) Disapprove the plan if one or more of the following occurs:

(i) The lessee fails to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements of the

Act, provisions of the regulations prescribed under the Act, or other applicable Federal laws is possible;

(ii) State concurrence with the applicant’s coastal zone consistency certification

has not been received, the State’s concurrence has not been conclusively presumed,

or the State objects to the consistency certification, and the Secretary of Commerce

does not make the determination authorized by section 307(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CZMA;

(iii) Operations threaten national security or defense; or

100

(iv) Exceptional geological conditions in the lease area, exceptional resource value

in the marine or coastal environment, or other exceptional circumstances exist, and

all of the following:

(A) Implementation of the plan would probably cause serious harm or damage to

life (including fish and other aquatic life), property, any mineral deposits (in areas

leased or not leased), the national security or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or

human environments.

(B) The threat of harm or damage will not disappear or decrease to an acceptable

extent within a reasonable period of time.

(C) The advantages of disapproving the plan outweigh the advantages of development and production.

(m) The Regional Supervisor shall notify the lessee in writing of the reason(s) for

disapproving a Development and Production Plan or for requiring modification of a

plan and the conditions which must be met for plan approval.

(n) The lessee may resubmit a Development and Production Plan, as modified, to

the Regional Supervisor. Only information related to the proposed modifications

need be submitted. Within 60 days following the 60-day comment period provided

for in paragraph (h) of this section, the Regional Supervisor shall approve, disapprove, or require modification of the modified plan.

(o)(1) If a Development and Production Plan is disapproved for the sole reason

that a State consistency certification has not been obtained, the Regional Supervisor

shall approve the plan upon receipt of the concurrence, at the time when concurrence is conclusively presumed, or when the Secretary of Commerce makes a finding

authorized by section 307(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CZMA.

(2) If a Development and Production Plan is disapproved because a State objects

to the lessee’s coastal zone consistency certification, the lessee shall modify the plan

to accommodate the State’s objection(s) and resubmit the plan to (i) the Regional

Supervisor for review pursuant to the criteria in paragraph (l) of this section; and

(ii) through the Regional Supervisor, to the State for review pursuant to the CZMA

and the implementing regulations (15 CFR 930.83 and 930.84). Alternatively, the

lessee may appeal the State’s objection to the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to

the procedures described in section 307 of the CZMA and the implementing regulations (subpart H of 15 CFR part 930). The Regional Supervisor shall approve, disapprove, or require modification of a plan as revised within 60 days following the

60-day comment period provided for in paragraph (h) of this section.

(p) Development and Production Plans disapproved pursuant to paragraph (l)(3)

of this section are subject to the provisions of section 25(h)(2) of the Act and the

implementing regulations in Secs. 250.183 and 256.77 of this chapter.

(q)(1) The Regional Supervisor shall periodically review the activities being conducted under an approved Development and Production Plan. The frequency and extent of the Regional Supervisor’s review shall be based upon the significance of any

changes in available information and onshore or offshore conditions affecting or impacted by development or production activities being conducted pursuant to the

plan. If the review indicates that the plan should be revised to meet the requirements of this part, the Regional Supervisor shall require the needed revisions.

(2) Revisions to an approved or pending Development and Production Plan,

whether initiated by the lessee or ordered by the Regional Supervisor, shall be submitted to the Regional Supervisor for approval. Only information related to the proposed revisions need be submitted. When the Regional Supervisor determines that

a proposed revision could result in a significant change in the impacts previously

identified and evaluated, requires additional permits, or proposes activities not previously identified and evaluated, the revision shall be subject to all of the procedures in this section.

(3) When any revision to an approved Development and Production Plan is proposed by the lessee, the Regional Supervisor may approve the revision if it is determined that the revision is consistent with the protection of the marine, coastal, and

human environments and will lead to greater recovery of oil and natural gas; will

improve the efficiency, safety, and environmental protection of the recovery operation; is the only means available to avoid substantial economic hardship to the lessee; or is otherwise not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

(r) Whenever the lessee fails to submit a Development and Production Plan in accordance with provisions of this section or fails to comply with an approved plan,

the lease may be cancelled in accordance with sections 5 (c) and (d) of the Act and

the implementing regulations in Secs. 250.183 and 256.77 of this chapter.

(s) To ensure safety and protection of the environment and archaeological resources, the Regional Director may authorize or direct the lessee to conduct geological, geophysical, biological, archaeological, or other surveys or monitoring programs.

101

The lessee shall provide the Regional Director, upon request, copies of any data obtained as a result of those surveys and monitoring programs.

(t) The lessee may not drill any well until the District Supervisor’s approval of

an APD, filed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 250.414 of this part, has

been received. All APD’s and applications to install platforms and structures, pipelines, and production equipment must conform to the activities described in detail

in the approved Development and Production Plan and shall not be subject to a separate State coastal zone consistency review.

(u) Nothing in this section or approved plans shall limit the lessee’s responsibility

to take appropriate measures to meet emergency situations. In such situations, the

Regional Supervisor may approve or require departures from an approved Development and Production Plan.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Wyman.

Ms. Claussen?

STATEMENT OF EILEEN CLAUSSEN, PRESIDENT AND

CHAIR OF THE BOARD, STRATEGIES FOR THE GLOBAL

ENVIRONMENT

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Good afternoon. My name is Eileen Claussen and

I am the president and chairman of the board of Strategies of the

Global Environment. I am also the president of the Pew Center on

Global Climate Change.

I serve on the Pew Oceans Commission as well, an independent

group conducting a national dialogue on the policies—

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Claussen, can pull the mike a little closer

to you?

Thank you.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. To promote a national dialogue, the commission

has been conducting meetings and hearings in coastal communities

in every region of the nation.

Senator Carlotta Leon Guerrero from Guam, another member of

the Pew Oceans Commission, is also here today.

As you resume work on reauthorization the Coastal Zone Management Act, it is important that everyone appreciates how valuable this program is. Although its funding level is modest, the

Coastal Zone Management Act supports the activities of over 1,000

Federal and state marine experts who work every day to reduce

conflicts in the use of coastal resources and to protect the quality

of life that draws an even greater portion of our population to reside in coastal communities.

The Resources Committee is to be commended for its careful attention to this program over its long history, reauthorizing the law

five times and updating its provisions to anticipate new uses and

issues as they come along.

Let me also emphasize the importance of the National Estuarine

Research Reserves system. As the commission has traveled across

the country, we have had the opportunity to visit some of the reserves that have been organized under this program. They are national treasures.

The Elkhorn Slough north of Monterey, California, is a wetland

teeming with vitality in a state where over 90 percent of the original wetlands have been lost.

Commission members counted more than 30 threatened southern

sea otters, 1.5 percent of the total population, on a morning kayak

trip through Elkhorn Slough. We worked as well.

102

[Laughter.]

And we testify based on experience to the value of this program

and would fully support efforts to expand and enhance the system

as proposed in your bills.

In addition to our hearings and focus groups, the Pew Oceans

Commission has also arranged for the publication of a series of papers, setting forth the best-available science on the most serious

threats to our marine environment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity you

gave us to present the first of these reports, a paper on marine pollution done by a group of scientists led by Dr. Don Boesch from the

University of Maryland and Dr. Richard Burroughs here on my

right from the University of Rhode Island, when you met with our

Chair, Leon Panetta, earlier this year.

Our next paper, due in late June, will be on the subject of aquaculture and will be followed by papers on invasive species, the ecological effects of fishing, and the impacts of coastal development.

What does the best science say about marine pollution? The principal threat comes from nutrient pollution that over-enriches coastal waters, causing explosive growth in microscopic organisms that,

in some places, literally choke the life out of marine ecosystems.

The adverse effects are delivered by three mechanisms.

First, increased amounts of plankton block sunlight, causing a

loss of seagrasses that had provided habitat for many larger life

forms.

Second, when the plankton dies and drifts to the bottom of our

marine environment, processes of decomposition may use up available oxygen, causing the death or flight of bottom-dwelling organisms.

And finally, nutrient pollution may promote toxic algal blooms

that kill fish and other marine animals outright, and by the millions, and threaten human uses, including recreation and fishing in

affected areas.

The principal nutrient of concern in coastal waters is nitrogen.

Our use of commercial fertilizer and the combustion of fossil fuels

has had a dramatic effect on the global nitrogen cycle.

U.S. coastal ecosystems are receiving 100 to 400 percent more nitrogen than natural systems would experience. That is a huge

change in a fundamental part of the life cycles in these environments. And as a result, more than one-third of our estuaries are

highly stressed.

Nitrogen pollution can travel very long distances in the atmosphere and in watersheds. One-third of the nitrogen impacting the

Chesapeake Bay is air pollution from power plant and vehicle exhaust.

Nitrogen oxides emitted to the air may travel 500 to 1,000 miles

from the source before they are deposited. Ninety percent of the nitrogen pollution that contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of

Mexico is discharged to tributaries in the Mississippi and Ohio

River watersheds from farms and cities located north of St. Louis,

Missouri.

Everyone understands that our nation has failed to make a dent

in the nonpoint pollution problem over the past 30 years. Our

103

marine pollution report provides guidance for a new focus and a

new sense of urgency.

Although the Pew Oceans Commission has yet to adopt recommendations on this subject, the science points in a clear direction: Over-enrichment resulting from huge increases in nitrogen

loadings threaten life in more than one-third of the nation’s estuaries. This nitrogen is released from farm fields, animal feed lots,

sewage treatment plants, power plant stacks, and vehicle tailpipes.

It travels long distances.

It is time we had a national strategy with a real Federal commitment to address this threat.

In addition to reauthorizing the CZMA, you will also be working

on a national energy policy and a farm bill in the coming months.

We urge the Congress to use these and other opportunities to focus

on nitrogen pollution and to address it as the truly national problem it is.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to commend the provisions

in your draft legislation that promote the use of measurable goals

and evaluation tools in the national coastal zone management program. One thing that we have learned as we have studied innovative local and regional efforts to manage coastal resources is that

clear goals adopted in an open process and with stakeholders

involved, and with a commitment to measured progress and to

make midcourse corrections as needed, has been a key ingredient

in successful watershed protection programs across the nation.

We commend you for bringing these tools to the Coastal Zone

Management Act in your bill.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the work

of the Pew Oceans Commission and reauthorization of the Coastal

Zone Management Act.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Claussen follows:]

Statement of Eileen Claussen, President and Chair of the Board, Strategies

for the Global Environment, and Member, Pew Oceans Commission

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Eileen Claussen. I am President and Chair of the Board of Strategies for the Global

Environment, and President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. I am also

a member of the Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group of American leaders conducting a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living marine resources in U.S. waters.

The ultimate goal of the Pew Oceans Commission is to make recommendations

to Congress and the public on whatever changes to U.S. ocean law and policy are

needed to conserve marine biodiversity and to maintain the health and integrity of

marine ecosystems. We plan to have a final report to you in the fall of 2002.

To promote a national dialogue, the Commission has been conducting meetings

and hearings in coastal communities in every region of the nation. We’ve heard from

local fishermen and business people; local, state, and Federal Government officials;

marine scientists; conservationists; and concerned citizens. Members of the Coastal

States Organization who administer coastal zone programs in their workday lives

have been valuable partners in making each of our meetings a success.

As you resume work on reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, it

is important that everyone appreciates how valuable this program is. Although its

funding level is modest, the Coastal Zone Management Act supports the activities

of over 1000 Federal and state marine experts who work everyday to reduce conflicts in the use of our coastal resources and to protect the quality of life that draws

an ever greater portion of our population to reside in coastal communities.

Hundreds of projects planned and leveraged by CZMA funds have made state,

local and private dollars available to assure public access to beaches and the water,

to protect our infrastructure investment from natural hazards, to conserve the physVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
104

ical and biological character of marine ecosystems, and to promote sustainable economic use of coastal resources. These are essential governmental functions, Mr.

Chairman, needed more now than 30 years ago when CZMA was first enacted. The

Resources Committee is to be commended for its careful attention to this program

over its long history, reauthorizing the law five times and updating its provisions

to anticipate new uses and issues as they came along.

Let me also emphasize the importance of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. As the Commission has traveled across the country, we have had the

opportunity to visit some of the reserves that have been organized under this program. They are national treasures. The Elkhorn Slough, north of Monterey, California is a wetland teeming with vitality in a state where over 90 percent of the

original wetlands have been lost. Commission members counted more than 30

threatened southern sea otters, 1.5 percent of the total population, on a morning

kayak trip through Elkhorn Slough.

When the Commission visited Charleston, South Carolina, members visited the

ACE Basin, another project involving a diverse set of participants who rightfully

take great pride in their wonderful wildlife reserve that provides nesting grounds

for endangered turtles. With adequate funding and expanded authority, this system

can do even more to protect pristine coastal ecosystems and the endangered marine

animals that depend on these habitats. We can testify based on experience to the

value of this program and would fully support efforts to expand and enhance this

system as proposed in your bills.

In addition to our hearings and focus groups, the Pew Oceans Commission has

also arranged for the publication of a series of papers setting forth the best available

science on the most serious threats to our marine environment. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to thank you for the opportunity you gave us to present the first of these

reports, a paper on marine pollution done by a group of scientists led by Dr. Donald

Boesch from the University of Maryland and Dr. Richard Burroughs from the University of Rhode Island, when you met with our Chair, Leon Panetta, earlier this

year. Our next paper due in late June will be on the subject of aquaculture and will

be followed by papers on invasive species, the ecological effects of fishing, and the

impacts of coastal development.

What does the best available science say about marine pollution? The principal

threat comes from nutrient pollution that over enriches coastal waters causing explosive growth in microscopic organisms that in some places literally chokes the life

out of marine ecosystems. The adverse effects are delivered by three mechanisms.

First, increased amounts of plankton block sunlight causing a loss of seagrasses that

had provided habitat for many larger life forms. Second, when the plankton dies and

drifts to the bottom of a marine environment, processes of decomposition may use

up available oxygen causing the death or flight of bottom dwelling organisms. And

finally, nutrient pollution may promote toxic algal blooms that kill fish and other

marine animals outright and by the millions and threaten human uses including

recreation and fishing in affected areas.

The principal nutrient of concern in coastal waters is nitrogen. Our use of commercial fertilizer and combustion of fossil fuels has had a dramatic effect on the

global nitrogen cycle. U.S. coastal ecosystems are receiving one hundred to four hundred percent more nitrogen than natural systems would experience. That is a huge

change in a fundamental part of life cycles in these environments. As a result, more

than one-third of our estuaries are highly stressed--stressed from eutrophication in

ways that inhibit recovery from other human disturbances such as overfishing,

physical development, invasive species and climate change.

Nitrogen pollution can travel very long distances in the atmosphere and in watersheds. One-third of the nitrogen impacting the Chesapeake Bay is air pollution from

powerplant and vehicle exhaust. Nitrogen oxides emitted to the air may travel 500

to 1000 miles from the source before they are deposited. Ninety percent of the nitrogen pollution that contributes to the ‘‘dead zone’’ in the Gulf of Mexico is discharged

to tributaries in the Mississippi and Ohio River watersheds from farms and cities

located north of St. Louis, Missouri.

I bring these science facts to your attention because they have an important message for the Coastal Zone Management Act. By any accounting we must admit that

the section 6217 program to control nonpoint pollution in coastal states has been

slow to develop. After 10 years, only four state programs have been fully approved

and it is clear that many coastal states will continue to resist the adoption of enforceable measures over large areas applying to all sources, because the law asks

them to do too much with too little assistance from the Federal Government. The

6217 program as currently administered by EPA and NOAA is simply not an adequate response to threat of nutrient pollution in our coastal waters.

105

Everyone understands that our nation has failed to make a dent in the nonpoint

pollution problem over the past thirty years. Our marine pollution report provides

guidance for a new focus and new sense of urgency. Although the Pew Oceans Commission has yet to adopt recommendations on this subject, the science points in a

clear direction. Overenrichment resulting from huge increases in nitrogen loadings

threatens life in more than one-third of the nation’s estuaries. This nitrogen is released from farm fields, animal feedlots, sewage treatment plants, powerplant

stacks, and vehicle tailpipes. It travels long distances. It is time we had a national

strategy with a real Federal commitment to address this threat. In addition to reauthorizing CZMA, you will also be working on a national energy policy and a farm

bill in the coming months. We urge the Congress to use these and other opportunities to focus on nitrogen pollution and to address it as the truly national problem

it is.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to commend the provisions in your draft

legislation that promote the use of measurable goals and evaluation tools in the national Coastal Zone Management program. There is little doubt that the Coastal

Zone Management Act has provided substantial protection to coastal resources in

its nearly 30 years of existence. But the CZMA is a product of its time a process

oriented law in which state coastal zone plans were approved on a showing of certain authorities, processes, and mechanisms, with little requirement to show performance.

One thing we have learned as we have studied innovative local and regional efforts to manage coastal resources around the country is that it is imperative to set

measurable performance goals. The establishment of clear goals provides a yardstick

against which to measure the performance of management measures. It promotes

accountability by government managers and allows them to determine which approaches are most effective, and therefore most deserving of scarce resources.

A 1998 study by Oregon Sea Grant assessed the effectiveness of state CZM programs at protecting estuaries and coastal wetlands, two critical types of coastal

habitat. This study found that state programs for which adequate outcome data was

available were moderately to highly successful at protecting these habitats. However, many programs lacked sufficient data to assess program performance. The

study also found that many state programs did not adequately protect nontidal

freshwater wetlands. Given the importance of wetlands in protecting water quality,

a priority-setting process targeting water quality probably would have acknowledged

the need to protect freshwater wetlands and provided additional protection earlier.

Clear goals adopted in an open process with stakeholder involvement and with

a commitment to measure progress and make mid-course corrections as needed has

been a key ingredient in successful watershed protection programs across the nation. We commend you for bringing these tools to the Coastal Zone Management Act

in your bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the work of the Pew

Oceans Commission and reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Claussen.

Ms. Savitz?

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE SAVITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COAST ALLIANCE

Ms. SAVITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Underwood. It is a

pleasure to be here today on behalf of Coast Alliance. I am the executive director of the Coast Alliance, which leads a network of

over 600 organizations, both local and national organizations, on

all four coasts of this country.

We are happy to be here to offer testimony on the reauthorization of Coastal Zone Management Act on behalf of 26 of those organizations, which is the number I was able to contact in the short

period of time I had. These organizations also contributed to our

testimony.

Coast Alliance has a long track record with the Coastal Zone

Management Act. We have consistently and resolutely supported

its reauthorization, and we have worked closely with EPA and

106

NOAA to maintain the consistency aspects of the Coastal Zone

Management Act. We also have worked hard to educate the public,

as you heard from Congressman Saxton, about the importance of

the Act and about the importance of the coastal nonpoint source

pollution control program.

In spite of nearly 30 years of environmental management in this

country, our coasts continue to be inundated with pollution, causing severe impacts on critical habitats as well coastal economies.

As you know, things like closed beached, closed shellfish beds,

harmful algae blooms, clogged shipping channels, even contaminated drinking water, are all too common on our coasts and are all

tied to pollution runoff.

The coastal nonpoint program places runoff control in the hands

of the states and provides guidance, including management measures designed to actually reduce or even stop pollution. That is why

the coastal nonpoint program is widely recognized as being our best

chance to finally address this last and greatest source of pollution

on our coasts.

With the growing human impact on the coasts, our greatest hope

lies in a carefully and well-designed Coastal Zone Management Act.

Coast Alliance believes strongly that the Act has provided much

needed attention to coastal issues and promoted intergovernmental

coordination and comprehensive solutions.

However, it has not sufficiently addressed coastal pollution.

As Congress embarks on this important task, we believe that any

reauthorization should reflect four principles, just like CSO.

First, since polluted runoff is the number one cause of water

quality impairment, the coastal nonpoint program must be integrated into the Act and sufficient funding must be authorized for

its support.

In particular, we believe that program requires about $25 million

in order to work effectively, per year.

Second, the program’s requirements for state level enforcement

must be maintained.

Third, as you heard many other people today, the act’s consistency provisions, which provide an important tool for states to protect coastal habitats, must not be weakened.

We have heard discussions about weakening these provisions,

and we hope the Subcommittee will work to stop any such changes.

Last, any new projects or grant programs funded under this Act

must be environmentally protective. That means maintaining the

natural integrity of coastal environments.

The impacts of projects, as you know, like dredging and shoreline

stabilization, may be a matter of debate; however, there are ample

sources for those kinds of controversial projects. The limited resources available through the Coastal Zone Management Act

should be focused on projects that have agreed upon benefits to

coastal resources and not those with definite or potential ecological

impact.

Our coasts are constantly barraged by an increasing population

bringing additional pollution and robbing coastal habitats of their

resilience. Such impacts have to be minimized, not facilitated, by

a new CZMA.

107

A reauthorization of the Act that is not designed to uphold these

principles will exacerbate existing challenges and plainly would not

pass the straight-face test. Therefore, Coast Alliance would oppose

any reauthorization of CZMA that failed to uphold the four principles I just outlined.

As you know, Coast Alliance strongly supported H.R. 2669 in the

last Congress, and that support continues for H.R. 897, which

achieves the same goals. In particular, the bill authorizes funding

to implement the coastal nonpoint program while maintaining existing objectives and guidelines for funding projects through the

act.

We are pleased that the proposed discussion draft also authorizes

funding for the coastal nonpoint program. In particular, we appreciate that the discussion draft sets aside a minimum amount of

funding rather than limiting the funding that could be used by

states for this purpose.

We do have some concerns with the discussion draft that we

hope can be worked out. These include the lack of explicit eligibility

for expenditures under Section 309 for the coastal nonpoint program; the amount of funding authorized; the absence of land acquisition as an authorized use of funding; and the lack of clear objectives to ensure that projects funded through Section 309 have a net

environmental benefit and do not create environmental harm.

And I will be very happy to articulate these points further today,

if you wish.

In summary, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee

to craft a bill that explicitly provides funding for environmentally

sound projects and authorizes funding for nonpoint pollution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Underwood, for the opportunity

to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Savitz follows:]

Statement of Jacqueline Savitz, Executive Director, Coast Alliance, on

Behalf of the Following Organizations: Natural Resources Defense

Council, New York, New York; Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Audubon

Society, Washington, D.C.; World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.; Center

for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C.; American Oceans Campaign,

Washington, D.C.; Cook Inlet Keeper, Homer, Alaska; Florida Keys Environmental Fund, Islamorada, Florida; Cape Arago Audubon Society,

North Bend, Oregon; The Chester River Association, Chestertown,

Maryland; Waterkeeper Alliance, White Plains, New York; Massachusetts

Audubon Society, Lincoln, Massachusetts; Northwest Environmental Advocates, Portland, Oregon; Mobile Bay Watch, Inc./Mobile BayKeeper,

Mobile, Alabama; New York–New Jersey Baykeeper, Sandy Hook, Highlands, New Jersey; Americal Littoral Society, Sandy Hook, Highlands,

New Jersey; New River Foundation, Midway Park, North Carolina; Save

the Sound, Stamford, Connecticut; North Carolina Coastal Federation,

Newport, North Carolina; Apalachicola Bay and Riverkeeper, Florida;

Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, Louisiana; Conservation Law

Foundation, Rockland, Maine; Save the Bay, Providence, Rhode Island;

Friends of Casco Bay, South Portland, Maine; and Pacific Whale Foundation, Maui, Hawaii

Introduction

The Coast Alliance welcomes the opportunity to submit testimony to this Subcommittee on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Alliance leads a network of over 600 organizations along all four United States coasts,

including the Great Lakes. Together we work to protect this nation’s priceless coastal resources. This testimony is endorsed by the twenty-five organizations listed on

the cover page.

108

Coast Alliance has a long history of work to support the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and has been very active in its reauthorizations. We look forward

to working with this Subcommittee to reauthorize the Act again. Since the Act was

originally passed in 1972, there has been little respite from human impacts in coastal areas. The latest population estimates suggest that by 2015, the coasts will be

home to nearly 25 million more people. Where will our already crowded coasts put

these 25 million people? What impact will these new residents have? What will be

left of our precious marshes, beaches and woodlands? How will our coastal bays,

lakes and estuaries fare?

The answers, and our greatest hope for the coasts, lie in a carefully crafted and

well-defined Coastal Zone Management Act. Coast Alliance believes strongly that

the Coastal Zone Management Act has been a very important program, providing

much needed attention to coastal issues, and ensuring interagency coordination and

comprehensive solutions. Through reauthorization we can give it a chance to be effectively implemented.

As Congress embarks on this important task, the Coast Alliance and its affiliated

organizations believe that in order to achieve its goals, the Act must reflect the following principles:

(1) The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program in its current form must be

integrated into the Act, and sufficient funds must be authorized for its support because polluted runoff is the number one cause of water quality impairment, threatening coastal economies, and aquatic resources and habitats.

(2) The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program’s requirements for enforceable mechanisms must be retained if the Act is to achieve its goals.

(3) The Act’s consistency provisions, which provide an important tool for states to

protect their coastal ecosystems must not be weakened.

(4) The financial resources made available through CZMA should focus on projects

that provide agreed-upon benefits to coastal resources, and not those with definite

or potential ecological risks. Any new projects or grant programs supported through

appropriations under CZMA must be environmentally protective, maintaining the

natural integrity of coastal ecosystems. While the impacts of some projects such as

beach filling, dredging and shoreline stabilization may be a subject of debate, there

are certainly many sources of funding available for such programs and they should

not take precedence over coastal protection programs.

Background

Population growth on the coasts simultaneously barrages the area with additional

sources of pollution and robs the coast of its resilience or its ability to withstand

stress. Marshes, forests, and grasslands, for example, are replaced with impervious

surfaces that cause polluted water to speedily rush to near-shore habitats. The result is not just a degraded habitat, but in many cases the loss of fisheries and other

coastal resources worth billions to the economy. Such impacts should be minimized,

not facilitated, by a new Coastal Zone Management Act.

The extensive benefits of these ecosystems have consistently been under-appreciated since today’s cost-benefit studies are not equipped to measure the intrinsic

values of wetlands, rivers or the ocean. Where they are considered, generally only

those goods that can actually be bought or sold are included in the equation. Besides

the obvious market-based values such as fisheries and transportation, coastal ecosystems quietly provide us with more varied life-supporting services. These ecological services, such as the roles a forest plays in producing oxygen, or preventing runoff, are almost never considered in cost-benefit analysis. Careful consideration of the

values of these ecological services provided by coastal resources can help understand

and demonstrate the need for conservation.

Economists estimate that the global ecosystem provides $33 trillion each year in

services to humankind. The coasts, which include oceans, estuaries, the continental

shelf, lakes, rivers, seagrass beds, wetlands, and coral reefs were valued around $27

trillion, making up 80 percent of the total value of the earth’s ecosystem services.

Coastal ecosystems prevent runoff, support fisheries, and regulate the gases in the

atmosphere that maintain global temperature, shield us from harmful solar radiation, and allow us to breathe. Ecosystem services also include purification of water,

mitigation of floods and drought, pollination, pest control and generation of fertile

soils (Nature 1998). There are also the obvious benefits: recreation, cultural opportunities, and the provision of resources like lumber, fuel and food (Costanza et al.

1997). All we need to do to realize these immense benefits is to protect the coasts,

and the $27 trillion figure provides a clear indication of the importance of doing so.

Development and pollution, the two greatest threats to the coasts, need to be addressed by the Coastal Zone Management Act. Whether the source is agricultural

109

runoff, sloppy forestry practices or uncontrolled urban runoff, control over the continued onslaught from polluted runoff is long overdue.

The most common source of pollution, runoff comes from thousands of diffuse

sources, such as farms, logging areas, new and existing developments, natural waters, marinas, septic systems, dams and other sources. Together they create a serious and ubiquitous water pollution problem. However, compared to factories and

sewage treatment plants, runoff pollution remains essentially unregulated.

In spite of the prevailing myth that the sources are too diffuse to address, the

truth is that there are proven methods of controlling polluted runoff. Like point

source pollution, polluted runoff can be managed and the time has come to level the

playing field.

The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program can help us begin to solve these

problems. This policy tool that Congress created can stop runoff from taking its toll

on local waterways. Coast Alliance has been working closely with state and Federal

Government agencies to ensure that the Federal investment in this program is well

spent. We also have worked hard to help ensure adequate funding for the program;

however, to date the funding level does not reflect the need, or the degree to which

runoff harms ecosystems.

As Congress embarks on its reauthorization process, we would like to draw your

attention to this important problem. Coast Alliance has produced a number of reports including Pointless Pollution: Preventing Polluted Runoff and Protecting

America’s Coasts and Mission Possible: State Progress Controlling Runoff Under the

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. These reports compile information on

the state of the coasts with respect to polluted runoff problems and summarize

coastal states’ efforts to address the problem through the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. A summary of our findings follows.

The Need to Prevent and Control Polluted Runoff

America’s coastal waters are a critical resource providing food, drinking water and

recreational opportunities to all of its citizens. However, those are not all of the benefits. According to a recent economic analysis, coastal ecosystems such as wetlands,

estuaries, and coral reefs provide us with billions of dollars worth of services such

as air and water purification, flood prevention, and provision of habitat. When these

ecosystems are destroyed by pollution or unmanaged development, we lose more

than a pretty place. It costs us our air filtering system, flood control, natural water

filters—losses we may never recoup ‘‘this goes beyond marketable resources we extract from the coasts. Recognizing the need to ensure sustainable use of our fisheries and other coastal resources, Congress created the Coastal Zone Management

Act.

Studies show that the Act holds promise (Hershman et al. 1999). Yet our coasts

are increasingly subject to diverse sources of stress. As a result of the ever increasing population and pollution pressure, the coasts endure constant challenges such

as harvesting forests and draining wetlands, which would otherwise contribute to

coastal resilience. As our population grows, the coasts’ allure may also be their detriment, and already the impacts are becoming clear.

Polluted runoff continues to rob coastal economies of billions of dollars that might

otherwise be generated by tourism, fishing, and wildlife-watching. Coastal resources

such as wetlands, oceans, and estuaries, are significant income generators and have

tremendous ecological values. These coastal resources offer us many services that

are lost as the resources diminish. Increasing populations will cost the coasts dearly

unless runoff is prevented.

Coastal program managers agree. A recent evaluative study (Hershman 1999)

found that one failure of the program according to its senior managers was that it

has not adequately addressed water quality protection, watershed management, or

nonpoint source pollution. Coast Alliance’s report, Mission Possible, corroborated

this finding.

State of the Coasts

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most, if not all of the

estuaries in the National Estuary Program identify nutrient enrichment as a primary environmental problem (Wayland 1996). Nationally, only about six percent of

the nitrogen comes from point sources (Wayland 1996). The remainder results from

runoff, and other nonpoint sources. In many areas such as Chesapeake Bay, nearly

two thirds of the load originates as traditional nonpoint sources: agriculture, forestry and development (Boesch 1996).

Runoff Closes Shellfish Beds, Destroying a Livelihood

In 1995, 3.5 billion acres, or nearly one in every seven acres of classified shellfish

beds were not approved for harvest due to poor water quality. The causes—failing

110

1 Acreage affected by nonpoint sources were calculated by the Coast Alliance based on data

provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. These values represent only areas where waters were closed due to water quality concerns as documented in the database. To estimate percentage closed, Coast Alliance included areas where shellfishing is prohibited, restricted, or conditionally restricted, but not areas where shellfishing is conditionally approved or approved.

Areas were considered impacted by nonpoint sources if nonpoint sources were documented in

the NMFS database as an ‘‘actual’’ or ‘‘probable’’ cause of closures. Nonpoint sources are listed

as probable causes where it is the best professional judgment of the agency that they are a contributor, but where no corroborating data are available.

septic systems, pollution by marinas and boating, agricultural runoff and feedlots— are precisely the sources that can and should be reduced by the Coastal Nonpoint

Pollution Control Program.

According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), nonpoint source pollution was a cause of 85 percent of these shellfish bed

closures overall 1. In 14 of the 21 coastal states included in the National Shellfish

Register, more than 95 percent of the area closed to shellfishing was impaired by

nonpoint sources. This includes eight states where 100 percent of the acres closed

were attributed, at least in part, to polluted runoff.

Runoff Leads to Low Oxygen Conditions, Threatening Fisheries

Scientists have shown that hypoxia caused by nutrients carried in runoff may affect fisheries resources by killing fish, reducing the habitat or food that is available,

or by making them more susceptible to their predators, including humans (Rabalais

et al. 1996).

While hypoxia is generally a temporary condition, long-term low oxygen trends

have been observed in lakes and estuaries around the country. In places like the

Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay there is little respite from continuous loads of

nutrients fed into the water from agriculture, urban runoff, wastewater treatment,

air deposition, and otherwise.

The most vivid example is the Dead Zone, an area in the Gulf of Mexico, near

the mouth of the Mississippi River. Roughly 40 percent of the continental United

States drains its fertilizers, pesticides, and other runoff into the Mississippi, contributing to the Dead Zone. The size of the Dead Zone varies from year to year depending on weather conditions and runoff volume among other factors.

Scientists have studied this area over a series of years and found that below certain critical oxygen levels shrimp fishermen rarely catch shrimp in their trawl nets.

Mobile organisms such as fish disappear as the oxygen levels drop (Harper and

Rabalais 1996); they have likely left these areas in search of more oxygen-rich waters. Animals such as crabs and anemones, that are incapable of escaping, have

been observed to die on the bottom. Since the natural scavengers have died or fled,

the corpses are not consumed as they normally would be (Harper and Rabalais

1996). They simply lie on the bottom as a testament to the lifelessness of the Dead

Zone.

Estuaries and lakes on all four coasts suffer from low oxygen due to nutrient enrichment. Management measures in the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program guidance (EPA 1993), if applied in watersheds like the Mississippi River and

its tributaries, could begin to shrink ‘‘dead zones’’ and bring back the fisheries.

Runoff Stimulates Harmful Algae Blooms

Pollution problems begin to really hit home when they threaten public health. The

summer of 1997 saw an extremely frightening environmental disaster: fish kills that

could sicken humans. A toxic micro-organism called Pfiesteria came onto the scene.

That year alone, Pfiesteria killed more than a million fish, and caused human

health problems including memory loss, reduced ability to solve simple math problems, and skin lesions resembling those found on dead and dying fish. Other algae

species that can cause similar effects on fish communities and humans have caused

blooms in other coastal areas as well.

Since Pfiesteria was first found in nature in 1991, it has caused major fish kills

in North Carolina’s Neuse and Pamlico Rivers and in Maryland’s Pocomoke River.

In the summer of 1997, besides the million fish killed in North Carolina, an additional kill (10,000 fish) followed in the Pocomoke River in Maryland (Burkholder

and Glasgow 1997). An outbreak of Pfiesteria also was documented in the Indian

River in Delaware (EPA 1998). According to Dr. JoAnn Burkholder (1996), these

outbreaks coincide with increases in pollution and wetland loss.

The excessive non-point source loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in coastal North

Carolina and Maryland are undeniable. While the poultry and swine industries have

been quick to deny that their wastes could be contributing to this problem, scientists

have acknowledged that reducing nutrients would likely reduce the Pfiesteria probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:11 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72578.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
111

2The primary source of this information was the United States Department of Agriculture,

Soil Conservation Service 1993 report: Erosion and Sediment Dynamics of the Maumee River

Basin and their Impact on Toledo Harbor.

lem (WRRI 1998, Boesch 1997, Boesch et al. 1997). In spite of industry’s claims, according to a scientific consensus, the benefits of reducing nutrient pollution are

clear:

‘‘There can be little question that decreases in nutrient loading (both organic and

inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus) will reduce eutrophication and thereby,

lower the risk of toxic outbreaks of Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates, hypoxia and fish

kills.’’ Findings of the Raleigh Report, 1998 (WRRI 1998).

There is no time to waste in addressing harmful algae blooms like Pfiesteria. The

facts are in, and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is poised to fulfill

this immediate water quality need.

Runoff Clogs Harbors, Costing Taxpayers Millions

The mouth of the Maumee River in Ohio demonstrates yet another costly problem

resulting from insufficient environmental controls. The tremendous plume of sediments that washes into Toledo Harbor clogs channels and challenges the Lake Erie

ecosystem. In total, about 6.4 million tons of soil are eroded from cropland during

rainstorms. While much of this soil remains on land, 1.3 million tons of sediment

flows into the Harbor 2 (Sohngen 1998).

Toxic metals in Toledo Harbor and Lake Erie contaminate these new sediments

after they enter the river. As a result, most sediments dredged from the area are

contaminated and must be confined in a facility designed to prevent toxics from escaping into the environment.

Reducing sediment runoff from farms could significantly reduce dredging and disposal costs. By slowing the flow of sediments into the river, and reducing the

amount of material to be dredged by about two million cubic yards, the Army could

prolong the life of the disposal facility and postpone its construction by about two

years. These outcomes would save taxpayers as much as $1.3 million each year

(Sohngen 1998). In addition, spawning habitat for fish and other aquatic life would

be improved, costs would be saved in treating drinking water, and recreational opportunities in the area would improve.

Preventing runoff can also save money for farmers. Besides topsoil, runoff carries

valuable nutrients away from farm fields and into nearby waterways. By minimizing nutrient losses, farmers can save money on nutrient inputs, such as fertilizer

and feed.

The measures needed to achieve these significant benefits for taxpayers, ports,

farmers and the environment are precisely the type that would be provided by the

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. EPA’s guidance contains management

measures that could prevent sedimentation in rivers and harbors everywhere.

Runoff Contaminates Beaches, Making Swimmers Sick

A study conducted by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) identified health threats at prime swimming and surfing spots on the Southern California

coast that were not previously under a swimming advisory (SMBRP 1996).

Santa Monica is a popular swimming and surfing area near Los Angeles in Southern California. On a typical day, storm drains carry runoff from more than 400

square miles, releasing from 10 to 25 million gallons of stormwater into the bay.

When it rains, more than 10 billion gallons of runoff may wash into the ocean

(Knudson and Vogel 1996). With the runoff come waste products of millions of residents in one of the most densely developed areas of the country. Besides toxic

chemicals from anti-freeze, brake pads, leaking oil, urban lawn chemicals and the

like, bacteria and viruses creep in, from leaking sewage systems, animal waste, and

fertilizers. These viruses can cause illness and render waters unsuitable for swimming.

The study found that people who swam near storm drains had increased incidence

of fever, chills, vomiting, coughing with phlegm, ear discharge, respiratory disease,

and gastrointestinal illness among other ailments. These problems were especially

pronounced in swimmers who swam closest to the drains. When the total coliform

counts were high, swimmers encountered the same problems more frequently, even

when they swam further away from the storm drains (SMBRP 1996).

Certainly the severe problems experienced in Santa Monica Bay and elsewhere

should be considered by those charged with planning new development in coastal

areas. This calls for strong management measures for new and existing development

in states’ coastal runoff plans.

112

The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program

By 1990, Congress recognized that earlier efforts to control the polluted runoff

problem had not been successful and that coastal areas were especially vulnerable

to this type of pollution. To ensure that states and Federal agencies worked together

to deal with this increasingly serious problem, Congress created the Coastal

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

This program focuses exclusively on efforts to prevent and control polluted runoff

in coastal watersheds. As more and more people move to the coasts, disproportionate impacts, including runoff-related water quality degradation, make the focused attention to these areas not only appropriate, but essential.

The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is the only Federal program designed to address runoff in an accountable, targeted and enforceable manner, stressing coordination among agencies as well as local solutions. Run jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Program requires coastal states to develop and implement

plans to prevent polluted runoff. Its requirements initially allow the use of voluntary measures, but require back-up enforceable means to insure implementation

where voluntary measures fail. This is the first time that a Federal runoff control

program has moved beyond voluntary efforts that have proven insufficient to solve

the problem.

By issuing technology-based guidance, EPA and NOAA have provided states with

measures that are known to be effective in preventing or controlling each major

source of runoff (EPA 1993). These management measures address the most prevalent sources of runoff. Most of the measures recommended by EPA are cost-effective,

and some will even save money for those who put them in place. As a result, the

coastal program could serve an excellent model for the rest of the country.

As a result of the purely voluntary nature of other runoff control programs, little

significant progress has been made in cleaning up polluted runoff into America’s

coastal waters over the past decade. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program requires that plans, which may include voluntary programs, also must have

back-up measures that are mandatory and enforceable to be used if and when the

voluntary programs fail.

As a result, the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program offers a ray of hope

in controlling and preventing polluted runoff. Failure to fund implementation of the

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program will result in the continued costly degradation of America’s most valuable ecosystems.

Authorizing Funding to Carry Out the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program

In September, 2000, Coast Alliance released a report entitled Mission Possible,

analyzing state progress in carrying out the Coastal Nonopoint Pollution Control

Program. The analysis consisted of surveys of state and Federal officials as well as

citizens. We found unanimous agreement among all those we talked to that the Program is effective but needs additional funding to achieve its goals. Coast Alliance

specifically surveyed 5 states facing very diverse coastal pollution to identify innovative approaches to solving runoff problems, as well as barriers to doing so. Four

common themes emerged from this analysis:

1. Runoff is recognized as a major pollution problem in every state surveyed.

Major sources vary but are clearly identified in most states.

2. Funding to control polluted runoff is a pressing need in each state. However,

many states that receive Federal funding for coastal programs do not necessarily

allocate funds specifically for the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. This

demonstrates the need for a specific earmark for this program.

3. Overwhelmingly, the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program has promoted increased administrative coordination in the participating states. This is one

of the objectives of the CZMA.

4. While some state programs have been finalized, others are still being developed. Each of these programs needs continued financial support to ensure it is implemented and that the anticipated benefits are achieved.

It is clear from this analysis that funding is critically needed by states, and

should be provided through the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management

Act.

Maintaining the Enforceable Nature of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program

Enforceable measures have been the cornerstone of successful environmental programs. For example, the Clean Water Act has enforceable regulations for controlling

the discharge of pollution from point sources into waterways that are used by everyone. As a result, a factory or wastewater treatment plant would require a permit

113

to discharge the amount of pollution that runs unregulated off of farms and developments every day.

The costs of polluted runoff to fisheries and tourism economies, not to mention

the impacts on the ecological services otherwise provided by coastal areas, certainly

justify the use of enforceable measures when voluntary measures fail. In the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, for the sake of the coastal resources that the Act is to protect, the enforceability of the program should not be

lost or weakened. Since the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is the only

program with enforceable provisions, if anything, these provisions should be

strengthened and used as a model for other programs.

Consistency of Federal Projects with State Coastal Management Plans

The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is strengthened by a provision

of the Coastal Zone Management Act that requires Federal actions in states’ coastal

zones to be consistent with state coastal zone programs. Since this includes the

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, the consistency provision will ensure

that Federal projects adhere to states’ pollution control requirements, preventing

such projects from undermining the states’ efforts to protect their coastal zones.

Considered by many to be one of the most critical aspects of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the consistency provisions serve an important purpose and must not

be weakened.

We are concerned about references in the Bush Administration’s energy policy

that suggest a need facilitate energy development activities on the coasts. There appears to be some interest in the repeal of state authority, provided through the

Coastal Zone Management Act, to ensure that Federal actions in the coastal zone

are consistent with state Coastal Zone Management Plans. It is critical that the consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act remain strong, and we

hope that this Subcommittee will be prepared to prevent any efforts to roll-back this

important state authority.

Proposed Legislation

There are two pieces of legislation currently under consideration by this Subcommittee that would reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. Those are

H.R. 897, introduced by Congressman Saxton and the Discussion Draft entitled

Coastal Communities Conservation Act of 2001. In addition, a bill was introduced

in the Senate by Senators Snowe, Kerry, McCain, Hollings and Breaux (S. 328).

Each bill has a number of components that we support and hope to see enacted as

part of a reauthorization bill this year.

H.R. 897

H.R. 897 is similar to a bill we supported last year introduced by Congressman

Saxton that passed the subcommittee (H.R. 2669). Unfortunately, it was amended

and significantly weakened during full Committee markup. H.R. 897 would reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act, creating a program for ‘‘Coastal Community Conservation Grants’’ that would assist local communities in carrying out conservation projects. Importantly, this bill would establish the coordination and implementation of coastal nonpoint pollution control program components as well as activities that reduce the causes and impacts of polluted runoff on coastal waters and

habitats as objectives and approved uses of its grants. This objective and this use

for CZMA grants does a good job of carrying out the principles we have outlined

above.

Specifically, this bill sets aside funding for the implementation of this program

as part of the Section 306A Coastal Resource Improvement Program. This funding

is of great importance to the environmental community and is a key aspect of the

reauthorization in achieving the Act’s environmental protection objectives.

Importantly, H.R. 897 preserves important ecological objectives in Section 309 enhancement grants, by requiring that programs funded under that Section attain one

or more coastal zone enhancement objectives. These objectives include protection,

restoration or enhancement of coastal wetlands, development of measures to assess,

consider and control cumulative impacts of coastal growth and development, and

adoption of enforceable policies for the siting of energy facilities. As described above,

we believe that funding through CZMA should be limited to projects that achieve

ecological benefits and programs that harm the environment should be prevented.

The preservation of the enhancement objectives in H.R. 897 helps keep the Act on

track in that regard.

Coastal Community Conservation Act of 2001

The Coastal Community Conservation Act of 2001 Discussion Draft would also reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. While this bill is a good start, it needs

114

to be strengthened to adequately address the challenges of dealing with nonpoint

source pollution. In this bill, two distinct grant programs currently provided in the

Act are essentially repealed. The Section 309 grant program is expanded to allow

funding for states to implement, modify and amend their Coastal Zone Management

Programs that otherwise have been supported through Section 306 grants.

Funding to Control Runoff Pollution

The bill also seeks to authorize the use of grant funds toward implementation of

the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, however the bill’s authorization of

expenditures of funds for this purpose should be clarified prior to final consideration

of the bill by the Subcommittee.

Unlike H.R. 897, the Section 309 Grant Program contemplated by the Discussion

Draft does not clearly incorporate the implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program into either the implementation of the state’s management

program under Section 306 or the newly created Coastal Community Conservation

Projects. It does, however, clearly state that no less than 10% of the funding provided for Section 309 must be spent to implement the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Program. As a result it is unclear whether the draft bill authorizes the use

of Section 309 grants for implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program.

The Coastal Community Conservation Projects would limit funding to technical

assistance; construction; planning, design and engineering reports; and monitoring

and assessment. This appears to exclude implementation and development of management measures required by the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

Balance of Environmental and Economic Objectives (Funding for Acquisition)

Under the Section 309 Coastal Community Conservation Project eligibility, funds

can be used for construction, and not acquisition. These limited funds should be

prioritized for uses that would not be otherwise possible. Under the existing law,

funds for acquisition can be provided, however, the relevant section is repealed by

this bill. We urge that the new section be revised to authorize acquisition for conservation purposes to ensure that our last remaining undeveloped coastal lands can

be preserved for posterity.

Loss of Section 309 Enhancement Objectives

The environmental community is concerned about the loss of clear objectives in

Section 309 that would help to ensure that projects funded under this section have

a net ecological benefit. Under existing law, the enhancement objectives include protection, restoration or enhancement of coastal wetlands; development of measures

to assess, consider and control cumulative impacts of coastal growth and development; and adoption of enforceable policies for the siting of energy facilities. Some

of these objectives are even more critical today than they were when the law was

enacted.

With the current trends in coastal development, energy exploration and species

extinction, now more than ever, such objectives need to be clearly stated, and funds

need to be dispersed according to coastal management criteria. The loss of these enhancement objectives leaves the Act with a single grant program in which funds

may be dispersed irrespective of coastal management priorities. This raises significant concerns in the environmental community as to the direction that the Coastal

Zone Management Act is taking with regard to environmental protection.

A reauthorization of CZMA must appropriately update these objectives to ensure

that coastal protection is being achieved through the use of CZMA grants. We were

disappointed to see that this is not achieved by the proposed discussion draft. Rather, important objectives are being lost. We would welcome an opportunity to work

with the Subcommittee to preserve these objectives as it further develops this legislation.

Habitat Creation

While restoration and creation of habitat can have significant environmental benefits, The Coastal Zone Management Act should define protection of natural habitat

as a principal goal in order to minimize the need to restore and create new habitat.

Wetland creation, for example, should not be seen as a replacement for protection

of natural wetlands, since engineered wetlands rarely serve the same ecological

function as a natural wetland would. The inclusion of the term ‘‘creation’’ is of concern due, in part, to the absence of clear language to prioritize the protection of natural ecosystems. This is a concern in both the Discussion Draft and H.R. 897.

We also are concerned that this could increase funding availability for activities

such as the creation of islands from dredged material. This would not only take

away funding from desperately needed environmental protection, but it could also

115

allow such creation of islands to become a commonplace solution for dredging waste

disposal, trading aquatic habitat for new land, and encouraging dredging and channel deepening where it is unnecessary or economically unjustified. In such a case,

spoil islands are not guaranteed to mimic natural habitats, and in some cases, glorified disposal projects have created more serious ecological problems than they have

solved. This is a separate issue from restoration of natural areas, which tends to

have a higher probability of success than does creation.

Both bills should begin by defining habitat protection as a principle goal if they

are going to expand the Act to address creation of habitat, which is a secondary priority.

Definition of Underutilized

The term ‘‘underutilized’’ proposed for insertion in Section 102 of the discussion

draft should be defined. While we recognize that this term is commonly used in the

context of brownfields redevelopment, it would be useful to define it for the purposes

of this Act to ensure that it is not interpreted as referring to ‘‘undeveloped’’ coastal

lands or other lands whose development may not be consistent with the Act.

Authorization of Funding

The proposed bill would authorize funding to be set aside specifically for the implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, which we wholeheartedly support. We appreciate that the bill intends to provide no less than 10%

of the funds available through Section 309 for this purpose. As described above,

however, we are concerned that the authorization of expenditures for the program

is unclear and we strongly urge the Subcommittee to clarify this.

Secondly, we respectfully note that the 10% allocation unfortunately would not be

sufficient to support these programs and is not even equivalent to the amount appropriated for this purpose for fiscal year 2001, which was $10 million. Significantly

increased funding is needed to develop and implement the coastal nonpoint pollution

control program in future years. We would suggest that this amount be raised by

increasing the total amount of funds authorized for Section 309 to $25 million.

Summary

In summary, we urge the Subcommittee to consider a carefully crafted Coastal

Zone Management Act reauthorization bill that would revise the management process to be consistent with current stresses and threats to the coasts. Coast Alliance

and its affiliated organizations strongly recommend that the Act should embody the

following principles in order to achieve its goals:

1. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program in its current form must be

integrated into the Act, and sufficient funds must be authorized for its support.

2. The Program’s requirements for enforceable mechanisms must be maintained.

3. The Act’s consistency provisions which provide an important tool for states to

protect their coastal ecosystems must not be weakened.

4. Principles or objectives should be included to ensure that projects or programs

supported through appropriations under this Act prioritize environmental protection, protecting and maintaining the natural integrity and complexity of coastal ecosystems.

Since runoff is the primary cause of aquatic habitat degradation, achieving the

goals of the Act requires preventing runoff through the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Program. Without a doubt, the success or failure of the that program depends on three factors: adequate plans to control the true causes of polluted runoff,

the presence of enforceable mechanisms to make sure those sources are reduced,

and adequate resources to implement these plans. To date, states and the Federal

Government have invested in the development of runoff prevention and control

plans. Some are finalized and many others are on the verge of completion. Congress

can continue its efforts to protect the coasts by ensuring that the Coastal Nonpoint

Pollution Control Program is reauthorized and funded as part of the Coastal Zone

Management Act Reauthorization this year and that the revised Act is designed

with necessary objectives to prioritize environmental protection. Coast Alliance looks

forward to working with this Subcommittee toward that end.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Savitz.

You raised an interesting perspective about comparing funding

for coastal protection to funding for other coastal activities.

For example, in my district, you could get a single dredging project for $100 million and it will sail through virtually without

116

question. But the entire coast protection is about $80 million for

this single program.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with dredging and the

activities that it is supposed to support. But at this point in time,

it might be advantageous for us to begin to compare those two Federal allocations.

Mr. Wyman, you mentioned four things that you would like to

see us do in the legislation dealing with consistency review.

Mr. WYMAN. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. And the last one was a timely review of the process, which I guess you mean put a timeframe, a time certain, for

the review to be completed?

Mr. WYMAN. That is correct. You may recall, Congress added 16

U.S. Code 1465, I believe, about 4 or 5 years ago in an attempt to

establish a timeframe for those decisions to be issued.

There has been a hangup based on the development of an

administrative record that we believe can be further worked out by

statutory-firm deadline.

But my experience with these override appeals, and I happen to

have participated in six of them—my law firm has, and I have done

a lot briefs in the last 0 or 12 years—is that the administrative

record will be virtually fully developed by the time the state’s consistency objection is lodged, especially in matters of plans of exploration, for which the EIS, which may pertain to that particular

project, would have been done at the time of lease sale.

Even when there development projects for which Interior would

decide to have an EIS be prepared, because of concerns that agencies would want to see the final EIS in order to make the final decision, I believe that the system could work, that the final EIS

would be able to be finally developed, and, therefore, the administrative record could be given to the decisionmaker and a firm deadline could be imposed. And there would be no more uncertainties

about when the administrative record would close and then the

time limits would kick in.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have a suggested timeframe for that?

Mr. WYMAN. Yes, I believe—the specific amendment is not before

me right now, and sometimes these delays vary, with all delays I

handle for other appeals. I can’t remember exactly. I believe it is

90 days.

Mr. GILCHREST. Ninety days.

Mr. WYMAN. With another 45 days given as an escape hatch in

case there was some unforeseen development in the decisionmaker’s review of the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. You mentioned four things for changes with the

present consistency review provisions. Could you go over the first

one again, dealing with the states?

Mr. WYMAN. Yes, I think that has—at least some people may

have misunderstood that; I am not saying they would agree with

my articulation of what we mean, by any means.

But one of the things we see—and this came out of, really, a

Commerce rulemaking that was finalized on December 8, 2000,

that has been subject to a lot of attention.

117

There is now a suggestion that states can review activities taking

place in neighboring states, in neighboring state’s coastal zones or

otherwise that could affect their own coastal zone.

We are reviewing that rulemaking. I actually was first persuaded

of that being a serious legal issue by comments filed by the city of

Virginia Beach, Virginia, who had fought its own fight in the early

1990’s against a North Carolina veto of what city of Virginia Beach

considered a very important water project.

And the city of Virginia Beach went to court about it. And it is

my appreciation the briefs were filed, and that, actually, the North

Carolina veto was not sustained, even by the Secretary of Commerce in the override decision.

I think it is bad policy. But I also believe there are constitutional

questions of whether a state can veto an activity of another state

that has been briefed but not finally decided.

I also believe that approach was the Federal Government’s position until 1993, when Secretary Brown under the Clinton administration was persuaded by his lawyers that he should change the department’s position.

But it has led to final rulemaking, and we would like to change

that.

Very important: We are not even questioning whatsoever a

state’s continued right to review OCS activity. That is built in the

statute plainly. We would not mean for that amendment to accomplish any restrictions of a state’s review of OCS activities. It is part

and parcel of the act, and we know it will continue to be.

Mr. GILCHREST. I appreciate that, and I know that is an area of

concern with you. And it is an area that we will take a close look

as we proceed with developing this legislation.

Mr. WYMAN. Thank you.

Ms. Claussen, the earlier panel seemed to be opposed to earmarking a percentage of dollars for the grant program for nonpoint

source pollution.

Could you comment on that?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Well, I should start by saying that Pew Oceans

Commission has not taken this up in a specific way, so I can’t give

you an answer based on commission deliberations. I can probably

give you a personal view.

Mr. GILCHREST. That would be good.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. I can say that when I was in government, which

I was for more than 20 years, I always thought flexibility was really important.

Mr. GILCHREST. You thought what was really important?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Flexibility.

Mr. GILCHREST. Flexibility.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. But now that I am not—

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Okay.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. And because 10 percent seems like such a small

percentage, and because I am really concerned about how few

states have actually moved forward in a vigorous way to deal the

nonpoint problem, in part because I think the total dollars that

they get are not enough. You know, funding has been late and sort

of slow on this.

118

My personal view is that it is probably a good idea.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. Savitz?

Ms. SAVITZ. Are you asking me to comment on that question?

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Ms. SAVITZ. Well, Coast Alliance feels very strongly that a certain percentage of Coastal Zone Management Act funding be allocated to the coast nonpoint program implementation. There are a

number of reasons for that. Most importantly, of course, is just the

degree of importance of nonpoint pollution.

And I honestly think it is safe to say Coast Alliance would take

the position that states ought to be spending 50 percent of their

coastal management money controlling nonpoint source pollution.

It is the number one source of pollution on the coasts. Ten percent

is a way of saying, at the very least, this an important issue.

We did a study last year. It came out in September, which we

titled ‘‘Mission Possible,’’ which is a very optimistic title for our reports which are generally more downbeat.

What we did was we surveyed five states. We surveyed state program managers, we surveyed Federal agency folks at NOAA, and

we surveyed citizens, to see how coastal nonpoint program

development was going. And we found a lot of agreement, number

one, that pollution runoff is a problem; number two, that the biggest barrier to addressing the polluted runoff is a lack of funding.

And one of the things we found was that even when states are

allocating funding to control nonpoint, it doesn’t always get spent

in that way. Or when they are allocating funding coastal zone purposes, oftentimes controlling nonpoint is a low priority.

And I believe that if you talk to some of the people in the states

who are actually in charge of the nonpoint program, privately they

would tell you that they think this is a great idea.

I would also point out that states are very different, and some

states, you know, may reflect what I just said and other states may

be the exact opposite. They may spend a lot of resources dealing

with nonpoint pollution.

Obviously, the states who had their programs approved, like

Maryland and California, have invested more in this process than

other states.

For those states, it is important that their neighboring states

also invest in polluted runoff. As you know, there are a lot of interstate issues associated with this problem.

So, you know, I think that this is a small amount. It shows that

there is a commitment to controlling the number one source of pollution on the coast. And without doing that, we have no guarantee

that this problem will ultimately be solved.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Dr. Burroughs, a comment on that?

Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes. I guess my response will be somewhat different than the others.

My thought is that you can look at the new scientific information

to target where your nitrogen-based nonpoint source problems are

the greatest. And you can also look at the authorities that you have

under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and as one of the other

119

commentators mentioned earlier, a lot of these are ultimately local

decisions.

And using the coastal community provisions of the act, you could

encourage states with their local partners, to come forward with innovative plans.

I don’t know what that would turn out to be as a percentage of

the overall funding, but that would be very much consistent with

what I understand to be our recently developed scientific knowledge.

And what it would do for those dollars that flow in that direction

is it would give them the maximum amount of impact. In other

words, we would target those geographic areas and nutrient delivery processes, if you will, that are causing a great problem and for

which each dollar that we put forward, we could expect to see a significant reduction.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you are suggesting that an actual percentage

earmarked toward nonpoint source pollution control would be a

good idea?

Mr. BURROUGHS. I am suggesting that a process whereby you

make it highly desirable for states to propose those programs is

good.

Now, if you ask me what percentage that would be, I can’t give

you a number. But I think what the science tells you is that there

are ways of directing your interests and the panel’s interests in fixing that problem to certain geographic areas and certain nutrient

delivery systems— Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. BURROUGHS. —recognizing that perhaps atmospheric and

point-source nitrogen, which is a big factor in the coastal zone, are

things perhaps the CZMA might wish to stay away from, given

there are other authorities that are dealing with them.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Mr. BURROUGHS. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you very much for your testimonies.

I guess I would like to ask Mr. Wyman a couple of questions. I

would venture to say that your testimony is a lot different than all

the rest that we have heard today— [Laughter.]

—from any of the three panels.

Basically, let me just quote a couple of things that are coming

from your statement. ‘‘The CZMA consistency program has allowed states to unilaterally use the process as a tool in their philosophical opposition to

offshore drilling.’’ My question to you is, what is wrong with that?

Mr. WYMAN. As I appreciate the Coastal Zone Management Act,

it is a collaborative process. What we are dealing with are states

sitting down and talking with private permit applicants with a

give-and-take.

That certainly happens in Louisiana in its coastal zone management process in how they address any problems they have on outer

continental shelf lands activity.

120

I have personally been a part of dialogue with the state’s CZMA

program there in which pipelines coming in from the Outer Continental Shelf are planned and are prepared consistent with the

coastal zone management plan of Louisiana. Then the area is fully

restored, and there is mitigation that takes place.

That dialogue does not take place in certain other areas of the

country in which the states have categorically opposed offshore

drilling in their areas. It is Federal property on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; I mean, I am not trying to belabor an obvious point.

But the most that I see the Coastal Zone Management Act doing

is giving the states rights in that process. I do not think the process can be a unilateral effort to stifle any development whatsoever.

The Act should work to coordinate the planning of that in a constructive way. And I have not had that experience in three different areas of this country.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would submit that the Coastal Zone Management Act is supposed to be the vehicle for which states and localities can actually deal with the entire process and provide a basis

for getting their point of view across.

You know, I would have to say that, coming from a territory— which in many of these kinds of issues, we are relatively unarmed

in trying to deal with some issues concerning economic development or interests, certain big economic interests—that we have

successfully used CZMA to deal with the Federal Government, because there are some Federal agencies that want to do things differently, including the Department of Defense.

We have had to deal with economic interests who we think are

not good for the community in the long run. And we have also used

it as an opportunity to deal with social and cultural issues, which

are of enormous consequence in a place that has indigenous fishing

practices that have to be taken into account.

And I am little concerned about giving it this philosophical twist

because I believe that, at the end of the day, policy must be driven

by some kind of general philosophical attitude.

The rate of success in Louisiana cannot be the benchmark for the

rate of success in California or the rate of success in other areas.

And so, I was taken a little bit taken aback by that comment.

Mr. WYMAN. Let me suggest this, because I should point out that

our amendments are not, I believe, in any way naive, or that we

are going to really ultimately accomplish any philosophical change

by any of these states.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I totally—

Mr. WYMAN. We believe California will remain California, and

the other areas.

All we are trying to do is level the playing ground in this dialogue process, level the playing field for industry to propose its activities, know the information the states will require, do its best to

certify consistency, but then further level the playing field for the

act’s recognition that if a state is philosophically opposed, is going

to object to consistency, there will at least be an appeal process

that works.

And I believe that our amendments will improve the efficiency of

that appellate process. The states can remain the states, and they

121

can be philosophically opposed. I am trying to level the playing

field under the act— Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay.

Mr. WYMAN. —for how those rights interact.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay. Well, you know, that brings me to the

next point, which is what you also raised in your testimony, that

the suggested amendments would work to distinctly improve the efficiency as well as the fundamental fairness of that process.

And I guess in reading the statistics on some of the disputes, or

some of the concerns that have been expressed, I understand that

95 percent of the projects reviewed under Federal consistency, the

states have concurred with that, and that there were only 40 times

that state objection was appealed to the Secretary of Commerce.

Of these 40 appeals to the Secretary’s decisions, 14 were for

outer continental shelf oil and gas activities. And there were only

14 instances where the oil and gas industry appealed a state’s objection to the Secretary; of those 14 cases, there were seven decisions to override the state’s decision, and seven decisions not to

override the states.

So it seems to me that that kind of balance and fairness, although there may be some elements of it that could improve the

efficiency, but at the end of day, it seems to me that the decisions

that have been actually made under this regime have been—you

know .500 baseball is pretty good.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WYMAN. I respectfully submit that statistics can very much

mislead the reader.

And I think that I have also encountered those statistics. I don’t

dispute the fact that there are so many development plans and exploration plans for the central and western gulf that you can gin

up an excellent figure for the fact that very many of these plans

go forward.

I have fought, on behalf of certain clients, consistency battles in

major frontier areas of this country—we will have to assess those

natural resources, at least as a country; perhaps it will be over the

next 50 years.

I believe that those seven decisions that you are talking about

really effectively helped cut vast swathes, areas out of what would

be perhaps be future exploration and development.

I think that those seven critical decisions are the core of the

problem.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I—

Mr. WYMAN. You cannot use all that—

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You know—

Mr. WYMAN. —success offshore in the central and western gulf

to assess those seven decisions.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I don’t want to deal with the issue that

we have ginned up the statistics here, but it seems to me that the

statistics speak for themselves.

I think that the existing regime has worked well. I think it balances all the elements that need to be balanced, including local

sentiments and including the interests of energy. And I think that

the existing system has worked well.

I wanted to ask, just briefly talk to Ms. Eileen Claussen.

122

And I want to thank you for your own work, too, and the Pew

Trust, and for acknowledging the work of Senator Carlotta Leon

Guerrero in that.

So could you characterize in your own work what are some of the

concerns? I understand you had a meeting in the Pacific—at great

expense.

[Laughter.]

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Our interest is in preserving marine biodiversity.

And that is sort of the charge of the Pew Oceans Commission.

We have 19 members of the commission. It is a very interesting,

diverse group of people, politically balanced. We have some governors, some former governors. We have scientists. We have people,

some industry people. We have sort of an interesting mix.

We have divided our work into four areas: pollution, which is, obviously, what I talked a little bit about today; and coastal development, which is the other piece of this; fishing; and governance.

We have been in many different parts of the country. We still

have some to go to. So we are going to be in Maine in June. And

we are going to be Alaska in August.

We do a lot of open hearings and meetings. We do fisherman

focus groups. We have done focus groups with affected industries.

It has been a very open process. And we hope to have a report

that we can provide to the Congress by the fall of next year.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. I have two quick questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MILLER.I apologize for my absence, but the Commerce Committee today is marking up an energy bill, and we had a California

caucus apropos that subject.

Mr. Wyman, if I might, in reading your presentation, your prepared statement, on page 4, you talk about CZMA’s relationship to

the OCS leasing program.

And if I understand that, you are suggesting there that CZMA,

through the appeals process and final determinations, that that

puts uncertainty and puts a fair amount of capital at risk. Is that—

Mr. WYMAN. Yes, sir.

I am really here to speak from really sort of the trenches of my

experience with some of these override appeals.

And I have seen capital tied up in the Mobil and Marathon case,

that ended up before the Supreme Court, for 19 years, $158 million

in bonus monies first put into the Federal Government in a lease

sale in 1981. It was ultimately returned to the lessees in the year

2001.

But all of that investment capital, which could have been working several other places, was tied up.

All of these appeals tie up investment capital.

Mr. MILLER. For me, it raises and interesting point, because I

guess I hearken back to when we wrote the OCS Act and there was

a great debate. I was one of those who believed that we should

have gotten rid of the bonus bid system, on the theory that there

was always a discussion—to some extent, I think, with great

123

pride—that they left X hundreds of millions of dollars on the table

from people. And then it didn’t pan out, or what have you.

My sense was always that the bonus bid—and the industry

fought very, very hard to hold onto the bonus bid—that that sort

of defined who the players were, because obviously you had to come

up with a substantial amount of money. And as you point out, you

may leave it there for a long time and not be successful.

And I never quite understood why the industry didn’t go to a

straight royalty bid system and say, ‘‘If we win, you win,’’ to the

government. So you don’t have any money laying around in an escrow account or you don’t have any money laying around in the

government that we have already spent and then we have to figure

out how to return it to you or buy back a lease or what have you.

If those aren’t successful, you know, why don’t we just move to

that system? And then the industry won’t have this money sitting

around in accounts unused that could be used for research and development or to buy something else or whatever you want to do

with it.

Mr. WYMAN. Congressman, I am not your man on finance issues.

If I was better at finance, I would be retired by now or something

like that.

I really don’t—

Mr. MILLER. But it is crucial because in your first statement you

say the OCS leases require to pay an up-front bonus. We don’t require an up-front bonus at all. It is one system that may be selected by the Secretary of Interior.

Mr. WYMAN. I agree with you.

Mr. MILLER. And if Secretary Norton thinks that this is unfair

in terms of the dormant use of capital, we can go to a lease bid.

There is a whole array of systems that can be used.

I just don’t think that argument justifies changing CZMA. It justifies changing the bid systems.

Mr. WYMAN. I am really not prepared to address that. I realize

the OCS Lands Act has provisions that allowed for a lot of imaginative ways to approach lease sales and how you can even apportion royalty after you find production.

My focus is really on these more narrow issues right now.

Mr. MILLER. Then let me suggest that I think that you ought to

address this, because, as I read what you are saying, you are using

that as leverage to say that ‘‘we have to knock down these appeal

processes because we are denied access to our capital.’’

In one case, I guess it is the North Carolina case, the capital was

tied up for 15 years or whatever and then finally we got a refund.

I quite believe we should have refunded that.

But all I am saying is, I don’t think you can come here with that

argument when there are alternatives to that system that don’t require you to put capital at risk.

What I suspect is, when we were debating to get rid of bonus bid

systems, the industry, the major players, liked the bonus bid systems because it defines the people who are going to show up to

make the bids and where the better bids go.

Mr. WYMAN. Well, I think that—

124

Mr. MILLER. You then can’t come say, you know, ‘‘We fought to

retain the bonus bid system but now the bonus bid system is what

causes us to say you have to rethink the appeals process in CZMA.’’ Hell, put in a refundable bonus bid or however you want to design it.

I have never been one who believes that we should take all this

money and think the government won and you lost because you

didn’t get the tracks or the oil didn’t show up. It ought to be related to—you know, you spend a lot of money to figure out if you

are going to get oil.

If you get the oil and if the royalty is 16 percent or 20 percent

or whatever the hell it is, 12 percent, then we get that share, you

get your share, and we on about our merry way.

I just don’t think you can use the bonus bid here.

So when you say you are not prepared to address it, I don’t think

it is fair to use it in an argument as a battering ram against the

CZMA when it is the industry that has insisted on the bonus bid

system.

Mr. WYMAN. Okay, I think we are at— Mr. MILLER. There are people behind you shaking their heads

yes, people behind you shaking their heads no.

[Laughter.]

So they can help clarify this.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WYMAN. For my approach— Mr. MILLER. I appreciate your— Mr. WYMAN. It is the reality of the moment and the foreseeable

future that the bonus bids are a factor in the lease investment.

Mr. MILLER. You have an new Secretary of Interior; I don’t know

what the reality of the moment is, from my perspective.

[Laughter.]

This I don’t think—if you use this as your argument, you are

quite capable of saying this is about tens of billions of dollars and,

therefore, it is these regulations that is causing the loss of this capital. No, it is not. It is because this is the preferred system that

industry seeks to use and even in light and knowledge of these regulations.

And I think it is pretty simple, from my side, to change the bidding system—apparently not simple within the industry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

We will have all of those people who were shaking their heads

sideways or up and down to come testify.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much

for letting me sit with the Committee and to ask the questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Thank you, all of you, for your testimony.

We apologize again for the fragmented nature of the House and

our proceedings. But your information given to us is quite valuable.

I just want to make one mention. Dr. Burroughs, your evaluation

of state coastal zone management program outcomes is very intriguing to us, and we will do what we can if not in fact plug that

into the process. It has been very helpful.

125

Mr. BURROUGHS. I would be glad to help you.

Mr. GILCHREST. I do have to say that Congressman Lynn Woolsey would like to submit a statement into the record. So, without

objection, we will do that.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

Statement for the Record by The Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, A

Representative in Congress from the State of California

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my opposition to proposed

amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) that your subcommittee

is considering. Like many of my California colleagues, I am opposed to these amendments that are strongly backed by the petroleum and gas trade associations. We are

strongly concerned that these amendments undermine the CZMA by weakening the

right of the states to review Federal activities inside or outside their coastal zone.

States deserve this right to ensure that Federal activities are consistent with their

own coastal management programs.

Californians, including my constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties, take seriously the protection of our coast. They recognize that it’s our state’s most precious

natural resource. That’s why our state established the California Coastal Commission, which has overseen the management of our coastal resources with a comprehensive statewide plan since 1965. The enactment of the CZMA seven years later

solidified each state’s right to review Federal coastal activities, such as offshore oil

and gas development. California has fought to protect its coast from offshore oil

drilling. Unfortunately, these proposed amendments to the CZMA would undermine

this principle and erode California’s ability to reject such activities that it believes

would significantly impact its coastal zone. Considering California’s leadership and

success in protecting its coast, it’s wrong to rewrite the CZMA in a manner that

would remove California from the process of deciding what’s best for our its coast.

Mr. Chairman, I urge your subcommittee to reject these proposed amendments.

Instead, I urge you to recognize the critical role that states, in particular California,

have provided in managing and protecting its coastal zone. Any reauthorization of

the CZMA should only continue, or strengthen, this model of stewardship.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. And, again, thank you very much for your

testimony.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ