U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

63–243 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 109–1100 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 25, 2005 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 25, 2005 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Statement of Senator Bill Nelson ........................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES

Chasis, Sarah, Director, Water and Coastal Program, Natural Resources Defense Council ........................................................................................................ 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Cooksey, Sarah W., Administrator, Delaware Coastal Programs; Board Member and Former Chair, Coastal States Organization ........................................ 15 

Governor and State letters from Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and California recommending CZMA reauthorization .................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Cruickshank, Dr. Walter D., Deputy Director, Minerals Management Service, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Hudson, Jr., W. Donald, Ph.D., President, Chewonki Foundation; Maine Governor Baldacci’s Non-Governmental Appointee to the Gulf of Maine Council 

on the Marine Environment; President, U.S. Gulf of Maine Association; 

and Treasurer, National Marine Educators Association .................................. 54 

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

Fry, Tom, President, National Ocean Industries Association .............................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Jeffress, Bill, Director, Office of Project Management and Permitting, Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources ...................................................................... 59 

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

Kitsos, Thomas, Ph.D., Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator, National 

Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 6 

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

APPENDIX

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared statement .......... 69 

Letters to Hon. Ted Stevens, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, Hon. Maria Cantwell, 

and Hon Olympia J. Snowe from: 

W. Paul Farmer, Executive Director/CEO, American Planning Association ................................................................................................................. 90 

Lynne Zeitlin Hale, Director, Global Marine Initiative, The Nature Conservancy ......................................................................................................... 88 

Marc J. Hershman, Professor of Marine Affairs, Adjunct Professor of 

Law, University of Washington ................................................................... 89 

National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERRA), prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 70 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to: 

Sarah Chasis ..................................................................................................... 87 

Sarah W. Cooksey ............................................................................................. 85 

Dr. Walter D. Cruickshank .............................................................................. 85 

Thomas Kitsos, Ph.D. ....................................................................................... 83 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to: 

Sarah Chasis ..................................................................................................... 79 

Sarah W. Cooksey ............................................................................................. 77 

Dr. Walter D. Cruickshank .............................................................................. 75 

W. Donald Hudson, Jr., Ph.D. ......................................................................... 80 

Thomas Kitsos, Ph.D. ....................................................................................... 74 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Olympia J. Snowe 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. The hearing will come to order. First of all, I 

want to thank Chairman Stevens for allowing me to chair this full 

Committee hearing today on the very important issue of reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act. I certainly want to express my appreciation to you, Chairman Stevens, for putting this 

on the Committee’s agenda so that it can move forward, and I truly 

appreciate that. 

I look forward to discussing a great challenge facing our Nation’s 

coastal states, and that is the need to balance economic development and environmental protection. Together we can chart a 

course for better balancing and supporting these efforts through S. 

360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. 

I am proud to have introduced this legislation, which would 

strengthen the Act’s State-Federal partnerships and funding programs to support our coastal communities. Many of my colleagues 

have been instrumental in collaborating with me on this particular 

language. 

I recognize the challenges facing our lands that border the oceans 

and Great Lakes. Even though coastal counties cover only 17 percent of the United States, this area is home to more than 50 percent of the Nation’s population. Over 360 ports and 10 of our 15 

largest cities are located on the seaboard. Moreover, the population 

growth rate will continue to climb in these areas as people are attracted by the vibrant mix of recreational amenities and economic 

opportunities. Over time, however, social and economic demands in 

these areas will strain coastal infrastructure, alter waterfront access, and increase the flow of pollution into our waters. 

But urban areas are not our only concern. Our coasts, a relatively small sliver of our country, also support diverse habitats 

and ecosystems that are vital to multibillion dollar commercial and 

recreational fisheries and other natural resources. Healthy fishing 

industries form the backbone of our coastal towns in many states 

2 

across this country, including my home State of Maine, and recreational opportunities along our state’s picturesque coastline draw 

increasing numbers of people, making tourism in our state the 

largest industry. We must ensure that coastal plans continue to 

take natural resource conservation into account. 

Since 1972 the Coastal Zone Management Act has enabled coastal states to manage and develop their environments and resources 

in a sound, sustainable manner. However, as noted in the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy’s final report, the increasing pressures 

facing our coastal regions continue to evolve in scope and complexity. For example, non-point source pollution has become the 

primary cause of nutrient loading, hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, 

and environmental toxins in coastal waters. Development and 

sprawl in the coastal zone compounds this problem and puts additional pressures on habitats and infrastructure. 

This hearing today is a critical step toward addressing these 

growing challenges. Today we will hear about ways to better support local coordination and planning efforts, fund essential new 

coastal research, and resolve funding disparities that currently 

exist under this Act. Yet most of the legislation does not need to 

be amended. The Act has established a remarkably successful 

State-Federal framework for coastal zone management, and we 

must ensure it continues to do so. 

For instance, 34 states volunteer to participate in the Act’s program to develop coastal zone management plans custom-tailored to 

their individual needs. Once a plan is Federally approved, matching funds are available to help each state implement its plan, and 

these states are able to review and approve any Federal action off 

their shores. This consistency requirement fosters much-needed collaboration between local, State, and Federal governments. 

My bill would uphold the grant programs and consistency rules 

of the original Act, but it also seeks to expand funding sources and 

community planning tools to meet emerging state needs. For example, it would increase the total funding authorization to $160 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and increase it to $175 million by 2010. 

It would also encourage, but not require, states to take additional 

steps to combat the problem of non-point source pollution and encourage local infrastructure and development planning through a 

new coastal community program. In Maine, non-point source pollution programs have been credited with reopening hundreds of acres 

of shellfish beds, a $16 million industry, and the recovery of fish 

nursery areas. However, NOAA’s funding for non-point programs 

has declined dramatically, so we must renew our Federal commitment to addressing this national problem. Every coastal state could 

potentially benefit from the flexibility and funding of these programs. 

As we strive to support our states’ coastal planning efforts, we 

must do so equitably. To this end, my bill will fix a problem with 

the funding structure of the coastal zone management program. 

Each state’s funding level has been determined by a formula based 

on the length of coastline and population. In 1992 this level was 

capped at $2 million in an attempt to ensure equal treatment of 

states. A growing number of the states have reached this cap in the 

last 13 years. The result is that the 13 states accounting for 83 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
3 

cent of our coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population are 

trapped under this cap. 

The coastal management programs of these states are stagnating 

while their needs are ever-increasing. My colleagues and I are developing language in this bill for removing this cap while assuring 

that smaller states receive funding at equitable levels. 

Finally, as we work to reauthorize the Act, our overarching goals 

must be to uphold and strengthen the provisions that empower 

states to control activities affecting their coasts. Each state has a 

unique social and economic situation, and ultimately each state, 

not a Federal agency, needs to control the future direction of its 

coast. There is no better way to assure this is done than through 

the collaboration and funding frameworks of the Act. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists today 

as we work to build on this success. For our first panel I would like 

to welcome Dr. Thomas Kitsos, Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator of NOAA’s National Ocean Service; Dr. Walter 

Cruickshank, who is the Deputy Director of the Interior Minerals 

Management Service; and Ms. Sarah Cooksey, who is a board 

member and former chair of the Coastal States Organization. 

On our second panel we will hear from Ms. Sarah Chasis, Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Water and Coastal 

Program; Tom Fry, President of the National Ocean Industries Association; and from Alaska we have Mr. Bill Jeffress, Director of 

the Office of Program Management and Permitting in the Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources. Finally, from my home State of 

Maine, I extend a warm welcome to Dr. Don Hudson, Chair-elect 

of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 

Chairman Stevens. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe. I am delighted you introduced this bill and happy to work with you on it. 

I want to make a few points before we start. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act has been unauthorized since 

1999. Those of us on the Appropriations Committee have kept it 

funded since that time. I had a conversation with a gentleman from 

the Department of Commerce who pointed out to me that this and 

other programs are unfunded, and there are some activities involved in the programs where there are potential penalties that 

may well be unenforceable unless we have reauthorization of this 

act and these other acts that have been held up. 

This is a very serious thing for us. The four bills we have sent 

to the floor so far have all been held up because of increased authorizations in the bills. This bill that you have proposed, and I 

think the proposal is reasonable, will probably face the same problem unless we can get an agreement on how far the authorized levels should be increased by this bill. 

The enacted level of these grants has actually varied in the last 

few years, but they have hovered right around—it started off $69 

million in 2002 and it is down to $63.9 million in the request for 

this year and $66 million was actually provided last year. It shows 

4 

that without an authorized level the amount varies from year to 

year. So I think we must get together on that point. 

Second, I note that there is a provision, a sense of Congress, to 

reevaluate the calculation of shoreline mileage. As I am sure that 

Mr. Jeffress will point out, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources has recalculated the entire tidal shoreline as defined in this 

bill, which includes the outer coast, offshore islands, sounds, bays, 

rivers, creeks to the head of tidewater or to where tidewater is narrowed to the width of 100 feet. In doing so, the new calculation for 

Alaska’s tideline is 44,500 miles, greater than all of the entire continental United States. 

Of that amount, less than 1 percent is developed. That is the reason we have asked Mr. Jeffress to come down and testify today concerning what is done in Alaska. We have a unique coastal area and 

it is obvious that to compare this—to put the same provisions applicable to our coastline of 44,500 miles to the same tests that are 

provided in the other states—for instance, we have a population of 

16 people per mile along the coastline. California’s population is 

442 times that. There is no question that the population along the 

coastline should be one of the criteria in considering the application 

of this act. So we will look forward to this hearing and to the comments that are made by the witnesses. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SNOWE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

comments on the issue of increased authorization levels. I think 

that is a point well taken, because obviously our first and foremost 

goal is to pass a reauthorization since that expired in 1999. That 

is a primary goal, and I appreciate your thoughts on it. We will 

work together on some of these issues to help give impetus to passing this legislation. 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Madam Chairman, thank you for having this 

hearing. Each of us Senators comes to the table with an interest 

to protect regarding our own states. The esteemed Chairman of the 

Commerce Committee clearly has his interest in the State of Alaska. You and I have our respective interests in two coastal states, 

yours of Maine, mine of Florida. 

I have more coastline in the State of Florida, by the way, than 

California, and that surprises people—by far. California has something like 800 miles. I have something like 1,500 miles, only exceeded by Senator Stevens’ state, which exceeds the coastline of 

Florida, but not in beaches. In the actual beaches, the State of 

Florida has a lot more beaches than any other state. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, be careful, because the entire Arctic coast 

is beach. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. I am talking about the kind of beach where 

people frolic in the surf. 

The CHAIRMAN. My friend, if some people are right about global 

climate change you better reserve your future, a piece for the future. 

5 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. A place like Florida, global climate change, we 

will not have a state of Florida left; it will be all covered with 

water. 

Well, anyway, the point of all this is that this act has worked 

well, but it is now under attack. It is not under attack by this committee; it is under attack by the House and it is under attack tomorrow in the Senate Energy Committee. What we have is an attempt to weaken parts of this act, and the effect is to weaken a 

state’s right to have meaningful input into what happens off of its 

shores. 

Even the National Governors Association has taken a strong 

stand on this. What you have is, Madam Chair, what you and I are 

going to face increasingly, are the attempts to drill for oil off of the 

coast. What the House bill has already done is it alters the appeal 

schedule for consistency appeals to the Secretary of Commerce and 

gives the Secretary of Interior new powers to grant easements and 

right of ways for oil and gas exploration outside of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act process. 

Now, tomorrow in the Senate Energy bill that is going to be 

marked up, what they are going to do is to draw—they are going 

to have an amendment, and I will identify the Senator who is going 

to offer it. It is Senator Landrieu. Senator Landrieu is my dear 

friend and I love her and the feeling is mutual, but on this issue 

she thinks that a coast is not a coast unless it has oil rigs off the 

coast. 

Of course, we not only have a $50 billion a year tourism industry 

that clearly depends on pristine sugary sand beaches, but we also 

have a fragile environmental situation and, interestingly for Senator Stevens, who is the chairman of Defense Appropriations, we 

have one of the unique assets in the world and it is called restricted air space. That is why so much of the military training is 

being done off of Florida’s coast. I maintain that you cannot be 

dropping bombs on simulated targets underneath the restricted air 

space if you are going to have oil rigs down there. 

But anyway, tomorrow the Senate Energy Committee is going to 

consider an amendment that would allow the Department of Interior to draw lines delineating each state’s waters in which they 

could very possibly start to delineate the waters of Louisiana and 

Alabama off the coast of Florida. I do not like it and if they do— 

and I hope we can defeat it—they will severely weaken the State 

of Florida’s ability to have a say in the oil and gas activities off of 

its coast. 

So what I think we need to do is to realize that our coastal resources must be protected within reason and not exploited, and I 

thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. I appreciate your comments in that regard. Obviously, we have a lot of 

challenges with the energy legislation being marked up, some of 

which conflicts with the essence of what the Coastal Zone Management Act is all about. 

Dr. Kitsos, welcome. 

6 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS KITSOS, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

(NOAA) 

Dr. KITSOS. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. My name is 

Tom Kitsos. I am with NOAA. I am here representing the position 

of the Department of Commerce and NOAA on your legislation. I 

would like to note that last week I had the pleasure of being in 

your state in Portland for a meeting of the Marine Protected Area 

Advisory Committee and I had a chance to go to the Portland Fish 

Auction, which is an experience I think everybody should have, and 

we certainly understand why coastal zone management (CZM) is so 

important to your home state. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on Senate 

Bill 360 and we appreciate your efforts, Senator Snowe, and the efforts of Senator Stevens and Senator Nelson in support of ocean 

policy generally and in support of this bill. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) recognizes and balances national objectives in 

development and conservation of coastal ocean areas with the historical interest and role of the states in governing near-shore development and land use. 

In response to the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan supports reauthorization of the CZMA and outlines many other critical actions to be implemented in cooperation with the coastal states. The national and 

state coastal management programs and partnerships established 

by the CZMA provide excellent mechanisms for carrying out many 

of the commission’s recommendations and the President’s Ocean 

Action Plan. State participation in the CZM is voluntary. As you 

noted, Senator Snowe, 34 of the 35 eligible coastal states are implementing approved programs and the 35th, the State of Illinois, is 

currently developing a program for approval. 

The CZMA’s Federal consistency provisions provide states a 

unique tool to meet their coastal objectives while ensuring a coordinated national approach to coastal management. States have 

worked closely with applicants to ensure projects are consistent 

with their enforceable policies. States have concurred with about 95 

percent of the projects they have reviewed under these provisions. 

NOAA recently completed a series of regional Federal consistency 

workshops that have helped State and Federal agencies to better 

collaborate on CZM consistency requirements and improve the efficiency of the process. 

The CZMA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System complements the state coastal zone management programs. The 26 

Federally designated National Estuarine Research Reserves protect 

more than one million acres of estuarine lands and waters. The reserves support important research, monitoring, education, and 

stewardship activities within coastal watersheds in support of 

coastal management. The reserve systemwide monitoring program 

includes 104 water quality monitoring stations and 26 weather stations. The system provides important environmental data in support of the Integrated Ocean Observing System called for in the 

President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan. 

7 

Senator Snowe, the CZMA benefits the Nation in many different 

ways. The reserves provide long-term protection and advance our 

understanding of sensitive estuarine habitats. In Fiscal Year 2002 

and 2003 the reserve system, working through state partners, acquired more than 13,500 acres of valuable habitat for research, 

education, and stewardship purposes. Coastal states and territories 

continue to protect and restore coastal waters from the harmful effects of polluted runoff. 

Section 306A of the CZMA, the coastal resources improvement 

program, helps states to support local projects, including providing 

public access to beaches and waterfronts. In 2002 and 2003, states 

matched about $7.5 million in Federal funds to develop 163 access 

projects in 17 states. The risk of dramatic loss of life and property 

from storms and other coastal hazards is increasing daily as coastal development and population continues to surge. North Carolina 

in cooperation with NOAA’s Coastal Services Center has developed 

a geographic information system to help visualize the impacts of 

flood forecasts, helping citizens better understand the ramifications 

of impending storm events. 

State coastal zone management programs promote more livable 

communities by providing technical and management assistance to 

local governments on waterfront revitalization, coastal brownfields 

cleanup, and restoration of degraded resources. 

The Administration supports CZMA reauthorization. Senate Bill 

360 proposes new methods for addressing the ever-increasing pressures on the coastal zone. It would allow section 306 funding to be 

used for coastal non-point pollution control programs and state-specific emerging issues. It creates a new coastal community grants 

program to help assess and manage growth, public infrastructure, 

and open space needs. These provisions could provide communities 

greater flexibility to mitigate population growth, revitalize urban 

waterfronts and economies, increase public access, reduce coastal 

hazard threats, and protect important habitats. 

In closing, the reauthorization of the CZMA offers an excellent 

opportunity to renew the Federal commitment to enhancing and restoring America’s coastal resources. I look forward, NOAA looks 

forward, to working with you, Senator Snowe, Senator Stevens, and 

Senator Nelson, on reauthorizing this important program and at an 

appropriate time I would be happy to answer any questions. 

And I ask that my official statement be included in the record. 

Senator SNOWE. Without objection, so ordered; for all of the panelists as well. 

Thank you, Dr. Kitsos. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kitsos follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS KITSOS, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Tom Kitsos, 

Associate Deputy 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 S. 360, a bill to reauthorize and amend 

the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). In general, the Administration supports 

CZMA reauthorization and this legislation. We appreciate the efforts of Senator 

8 

Snowe in sponsoring this bill and for supporting this program, which has served as 

a cornerstone for national coastal policy for more than 30 years. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 created an innovative intergovernmental program that has been of great benefit to the Nation, the states, and the 

public. The CZMA recognizes and balances national objectives in development and 

conservation of coastal and ocean areas with the historical interest and role of the 

states in governing near shore development and land use. Under Federally approved 

coastal management programs states are provided incentives and assistance to coordinate their environmental, resource management and development programs and 

objectives to promote sustainable coastal development and long-term conservation. 

Under the CZMA’s estuarine research reserve program, states—often in partnership 

with academia and Federal agencies—implement research and education programs 

to better understand complex coastal processes. 

My testimony will focus on the success of the CZMA and the importance of reauthorization of CZMA through S. 360. 

The Success of the CZMA 

For the past 33 years, the Federal Government, states, and local governments 

have worked under the unique partnership created by the CZMA to ‘‘preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the Nation’s 

coastal zone for the present and future generations.’’ 

In response to the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the President’s 

U.S. Ocean Action Plan highlighted the importance of ongoing and renewed efforts 

to ‘‘assist State, Tribal, and local stakeholders to develop comprehensive strategies 

to protect the Nation’s coastal resources.’’ The U.S. Ocean Action Plan specifically 

supports reauthorization of the CZMA and outlines many other critical actions to 

be implemented in partnership with the coastal states, some in conjunction with 

state coastal management and estuarine reserve programs. To this end, we are currently working with EPA and the states to conduct a series of community workshops 

to improve coastal watershed protection, as well as working with the State of Illinois to complete the voluntary state participation in the CZM system. 

Coastal estuaries are among the most biologically productive regions in the Nation. The states’ Coastal Management Programs and National Estuarine Research 

Reserves advance research, best management practices, and the development of infrastructure necessary to better understand and address the complex relationships 

between people and the coast. This understanding comes not only from CZMA-supported research into the natural functions of our coastal areas, but also into man’s 

impact upon them, all in an effort to sustain the long-term economic and ecological 

viability of irreplaceable coastal resources to support an ecosystem approach to management. State programs address a wide range of national objectives, including: 

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

from erosion and storms, 

• Providing for appropriate coastal development, 

• Protecting and restoring ecologically important coastal habitats, 

• Controlling nonpoint source pollution, 

• Improving public access and recreational opportunities in coastal areas, 

• Enhancing public awareness through education and outreach, and 

• Revitalizing local waterfronts. 

Coastal Zone Management Program 

Thirty-four of the thirty-five eligible coastal states, Commonwealths, and Territories are implementing Federally approved coastal management plans. As recommended in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, NOAA is working with the final eligible 

coastal state, Illinois, to approve its coastal management program. Through the 

CZMA, NOAA provides funding for developing and implementing the plans, and provides technical assistance on best practices for addressing important coastal management issues. Funding for the CZM program is allocated to eligible coastal states 

based on shoreline mileage and coastal population. We appreciate efforts to ensure 

funding increases can be distributed equitably among all state programs. This funding is required to be matched on a dollar for dollar basis, yet many states far exceed 

this match requirement and are able to leverage additional state resources using 

CZMA dollars. For example, the Maine Coastal Program has been successful in 

matching state dollars to Federal dollars at a ratio of more than 5:1; in past years 

this ratio has been as high as 11:1. 

The CZMA’s Federal consistency provisions provide a unique tool to meet state 

coastal objectives, while ensuring a coordinated national approach to coastal manVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
9 

agement. The consistency provisions apply to Federal agencies, as well as individuals and groups applying for Federal permits and funding. The consistency provisions require any proposed activities that have reasonably foreseeable effects on any 

land, water use or natural resource of the coastal zone to be consistent with the enforceable components of Federally-approved State Coastal Management Programs. 

States have concurred with about 95 percent of the projects they have reviewed 

under these provisions. NOAA recently completed a series of regional Federal consistency workshops that have helped State and Federal agencies to better coordinate 

and collaborate on CZMA consistency requirements and improve the efficiency of the 

process. 

National Estuary Research Reserve Program 

Critical, long-term research takes place at the twenty-six Federally designated 

National Estuarine Research Reserves (Reserves) in twenty-one coastal states and 

Commonwealths. Texas currently is pursuing designation of an additional site. Connecticut and Wisconsin have expressed interest in designation of new Reserves. The 

Reserves play an important role in meeting the U.S. Ocean Action Plan’s goal to 

‘‘expand our scientific knowledge of oceans, coasts and Great Lakes.’’ 

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

and Reserve programs conduct important research, monitoring, education and stewardship activities within coastal watersheds. The Reserve system has developed system-wide efforts and standards to ensure data compatibility and consistent methodologies are used at all sites. The Reserve’s System-Wide Monitoring Program includes 104 water-quality monitoring stations and 26 weather stations. The system 

provides important environmental data in support of the national backbone of the 

Integrated Ocean Observing System supported in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. The 

Reserve system also supports a fellowship program, training up to 52 graduate students each year in estuarine science. This fellowship program not only facilitates 

important research, but also encourages the development of young scientists to sustain the science workforce to meet the Nation’s needs. 

Coastal Management and Reserve outreach programs educate thousands of local 

citizens, teachers, students, and policy-makers on the important connections between people, the land, and the sea, supporting sustainable and ecosystem-based approaches to coastal resource management. The Reserve coastal training program 

reaches hundreds of coastal decision makers each year, providing them with information to improve management of our fragile coastal resources. 

The CZMA Benefits the Nation 

State coastal management programs and the network of Reserves enhance the vitality of our coastal economies and the protection and sustainability of important 

coastal resources and habitats. 

Habitat Conservation—The Reserves provide long-term protection and advance 

our understanding of sensitive estuarine habitats. In FY 2002–2003, the Reserve 

system, working through state partners, acquired more than 13,500 acres of valuable habitat for research, education and stewardship purposes. 

Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control—Coastal states and Territories continue to protect and restore coastal waters from the harmful effects of polluted runoff. Recently, Wisconsin passed the nation’s most comprehensive nonpoint source 

regulations. These rules outline performance standards for various sources of polluted runoff ranging from agriculture to urban stormwater; identify appropriate best 

management practices for runoff control; and enhance existing cost-sharing programs. 

Public Access—Section 306A of the CZMA, the Coastal Resource Improvement 

Program, is an important mechanism for many states to support local projects, including providing access to beaches and waterfronts. In 2002–2003, states matched 

about $7.5 million in Federal funds to develop 163 access projects in 17 states. For 

example, the Port of Houston Authority, working with the Texas coastal management program, developed the Atkinson Island Interpretive Canoe Trail. The Reserves are also involved in projects to enhance public access. The Grand Bay Reserve in Mississippi is improving and expanding facilities at its two public boat 

ramps. The Rookery Bay Reserve in Florida has developed public parking, a boat 

launch and a 2.5-mile boardwalk at Tarpon Bay. 

Coastal Hazards—The risk of dramatic loss of life and property from storms and 

other coastal hazards is increasing daily as coastal development and population continues to surge. Oregon coastal managers developed the Oregon Coastal Atlas to improve and streamline hazard-related decision making related to tsunami inundation 

and landslides. The Oregon Coastal Management Program is also working with the 

NOAA Coastal Services Center to develop a coastal erosion forecast tool for the 

10 

Atlas. North Carolina, also in cooperation with the NOAA Coastal Services Center, 

has developed a tool to help visualize flood forecasts. Implemented during Hurricane 

Isabel, this geographic information system (GIS) helps citizens better understand 

the likely impacts of impending storm events. 

Coastal Community Development—State coastal management programs promote 

more livable communities by providing technical and management assistance to 

local governments. The Washington Coastal Management Program and Padilla Bay 

National Estuarine Research Reserve utilized the Reserve’s Coastal Training Program to educate local planners on how development impacts natural shoreline processes. The CZMA also serves as a conduit for delivery of many NOAA products and 

services that help state and local governments as they prepare and implement plans 

to revitalize waterfronts, cleanup coastal brownfields, and restore degraded coastal 

resources. 

CZM Performance Measures—NOAA is conducting an on-going effort to develop 

and evaluate performance measures to better gauge the successes of state coastal 

management programs and the Reserves. NOAA has developed this performance 

measurement system over the past four years, in partnership with the states. This 

information, in combination with the results of periodic programmatic evaluations 

required by the CZMA, can be used to determine the true state of our coasts and 

the programs that manage them. 

Importance of S. 360 

The CZMA has provided numerous benefits to states and to the citizens living, 

working, and recreating in our coastal communities. Because of its emphasis on cooperation and coordination, the CZMA has enjoyed widespread support from Congress, states, local governments, interest groups, and the public. The Administration 

supports CZMA reauthorization and appreciates the efforts of Senator Snowe and 

Senator Kerry, in introducing S. 360. 

S. 360 proposes new methods for addressing the ever-increasing pressures on the 

coastal zone. This legislation would add two new categories to Section 309, Coastal 

Zone Enhancement Grants. These new categories would allow funding to be used 

for coastal nonpoint pollution control programs and state-specific emerging issues. 

Secondly, it proposes a new Coastal Community Grants program to help assess and 

manage growth, public infrastructure, and open space needs. This program would 

provide for management-oriented research and technical assistance through the existing state coastal management programs and estuarine reserves. Through amendments such as these, the CZMA could provide communities with greater flexibility 

to mitigate population growth, revitalize urban waterfronts and water-dependent 

economies, provide for increased public access, conserve and restore important coastal habitats, and further reduce the threat to lives and property associated with 

coastal storms. 

S. 360 could be strengthened by ensuring Section 17, Authorization for Appropriations, is consistent with the President’s Budget Request. 

Conclusion 

In closing, the CZMA is a vital tool for coordinating and integrating local, state 

and Federal policies and programs affecting the coast and for building a national 

cooperative effort to protect resources, provide access and mitigate risk, while supporting coastal-dependent development. The reauthorization of the CZMA offers an 

excellent opportunity to renew the Federal commitment to enhancing and restoring 

America’s coastal resources. The amendments offered in S. 360 would improve an 

already effective partnership between the Federal Government, the state coastal 

management programs, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The proposed 

Coastal Communities Program would help encourage new and innovative methods 

for addressing many of the problems faced by the coastal states and communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working 

with you on reauthorizing this important program. 

I will be glad to answer any questions. 

Senator SNOWE. Dr. Cruickshank. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER D. CRUICKSHANK, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to tesVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
11 

tify on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its relationship to the Department of the Interior’s outer continental shelf program. The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce have worked diligently to communicate and comprehend 

each other’s concerns over the Federal consistency program and 

how the existing Federal regulatory regime manages offshore and 

coastal activities. Secretary Norton places special significance on 

the requirement that all OCS program decisions carefully evaluate 

and be responsive to the laws, goals, and policies of affected states. 

As my colleague from NOAA has indicated, the Administration 

supports reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and 

I defer to his testimony for specific comments on S. 360. 

I will discuss the Minerals Management Service’s role in the 

management and stewardship of Federal offshore lands and the importance of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the continued 

success of the Nation’s energy and mineral development program 

on the OCS. The Federal offshore plays a vital role in our Nation’s 

energy future. Energy use sustains our economy and our quality of 

life. But high prices and increasing dependence on foreign sources 

raise important national policy issues. 

The OCS is a major supplier of oil and natural gas for the domestic market, contributing more oil and natural gas to the U.S. economy than any single state or country in the world. Currently the 

OCS accounts for over 30 percent of the oil produced in this country and 23 percent of our natural gas. Within the next 5 years, offshore production will likely account for more than 40 percent and 

26 percent respectively of those two commodities, primarily owing 

to deep water discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico. 

As the Department of Interior’s offshore resource management 

agency, the MMS has a focused and well established mandate, to 

balance the exploration and development of oil, gas, and mineral 

resources of the OCS with environmental protection and safety. 

MMS has worked diligently to create a framework for overseeing 

OCS activities. Our management principles include conservation of 

resources by providing for their most efficient use, assurance of a 

fair and equitable return to the public, protection of the human, 

marine, and coastal environments, involvement of interested and 

affected parties in planning and decisionmaking, and minimizing 

conflicts between mineral activities and other uses of the OCS. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in its report said that ‘‘the 

scope and comprehensiveness of the OCS oil and gas program can 

be a model for the management of a wide variety of offshore activities.’’ 

In his national energy policy, the President directed the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to determine if changes to the regulatory regime were needed to promote energy-related projects in 

the coastal zone and on the OCS. As a result of our joint effort, in 

June 2003 NOAA published a proposed rule to address energy-related consistency issues. The proposed rule would establish a 

straightforward consistency review process with clear information 

requirements and predictable review and decision time frames, 

eliminate conflicts between the existing CZMA rules and the requirements of the OCS Lands Act, and maintain the states’ ability 

12 

to review Federal actions which have reasonably foreseeable effects 

on land, water, and natural resources of the coastal zone. 

In addition, MMS has taken proactive steps to enhance the integration of CZMA with our offshore program. A particular example 

is in our Gulf of Mexico region, where we have been working to improve our coordination with all of the Gulf States. We have streamlined the lease sale consistency review process through an approach agreed to by all of the states. We have entered agreements 

with each of the Gulf States on specific information that would satisfy state consistency requirements. And we have an expedited consistency review process for about three-quarters of all Gulf plans 

through the use of concurrence agreements, again with each of the 

Gulf States. 

In addition, we have a very good working relationship with Alaska’s Office of Program Management and Permitting and we look 

forward to contributing to their efforts as they proceed with their 

coastal zone management program. 

In conclusion, I would like to note that both OCSLA and the 

Coastal Zone Management Act explicitly provide states a critical 

role in shaping national policy regarding the development of OCS 

resources for the Nation’s benefit. In its declaration of policy for the 

OCS, Congress said that states and affected local governments are 

entitled to an opportunity to participate in the policy and planning 

decisions made by the Federal Government related to the exploration for and development of minerals on the OCS. The Department of Interior and the Minerals Management Service are firmly 

committed to the consultative responsibility that this entails. 

This concludes my remarks and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions from members of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cruickshank follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER D. CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a great pleasure for me to 

be here to discuss the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

in the context of the Department of the Interior’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

Program. The partnership forged between the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Commerce on coastal zone management is consistent with the Secretary’s Four C’s—‘‘communication, consultation, and cooperation, all in the service 

of conservation.’’ Over the past several years, the Department of the Interior and 

the Department of Commerce have worked diligently on communicating and comprehending each others’ concerns over Federal consistency and how the existing 

Federal regulatory regime manages offshore and coastal activities. We have consulted cooperatively and produced a mutually-agreeable proposal that addresses our 

Nation’s needs for siting energy facilities that affect the coastal zone while balancing conservation, protection, and beneficial use of our invaluable coastal resources. In addition, Secretary Norton has placed special significance on the requirement that all OCS program decisions must carefully evaluate and be responsive to 

the laws, goals, and policies of the affected states. 

The Administration supports the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. This hearing is looking at S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005, which I defer to my esteemed colleague from NOAA to present the 

Administration’s comments on the bill. 

Today I am here to discuss the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) role in the 

management and stewardship of Federal offshore lands and the importance of the 

CZMA in the continued success of the Nation’s energy and mineral development program in the Federal OCS. We recognize that other agencies issue authorizations for 

the construction and operation of energy-related facilities (such as natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals) which are subject to CZMA; my testimony 

13 

will not address the roles of those agencies. The Federal offshore plays a vital role 

with respect to our Nation’s energy future. 

America faces an energy challenge. Energy use sustains our economy and our 

quality of life, but high prices and increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies 

raise important national policy issues. There is no one single or short term solution. 

Achieving the goal of secure, affordable and environmentally sound energy will require diligent, concerted efforts on many fronts on both the supply and demand 

sides of the energy equation. 

President Bush’s National Energy Policy (NEP) report laid out a comprehensive, 

long-term energy strategy for securing America’s energy future. That strategy recognizes that to reduce our rising dependence on foreign energy supplies, we must increase domestic production, while pursuing energy conservation and the use of alternative and renewable energy sources. 

The OCS Lands Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to make resources available to meet the nation’s energy needs. The accompanying Congressional Declaration of Policy states, ‘‘The OCS is a vital national resource reserve held by the Federal Government for the public, which should be made available for expeditious and 

orderly development.’’ As the Department of the Interior’s offshore resource management agency, the MMS has a focused and well established ocean mandate—to balance the exploration and development of oil, gas, and mineral resources of the OCS 

with safety and protection of the marine and coastal environment. 

The Federal OCS is a major supplier of oil and natural gas for the domestic market, contributing more oil and natural gas for U.S. consumption than any single 

state or country in the world. As steward of the mineral resources on the 1.76 billion 

acres of the Nation’s OCS, MMS has, since 1982, managed OCS production of 9.6 

trillion barrels of oil and more than 109 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for U.S. 

consumption. 

Today, MMS administers approximately 8,200 leases and oversees approximately 

4,000 facilities on the OCS. OCS production accounts for over 30 percent of the Nation’s domestic oil production and approximately 23 percent of our domestic natural 

gas production. Within the next 5 years, offshore production will likely account for 

more than 40 percent of oil and 26 percent of U.S. natural gas production, owing 

primarily to deep water discoveries. 

As the OCS resource management agency, MMS has worked diligently for over 

20 years to create a framework for OCS mineral resource development. Principles 

guiding our management of the resources of the OCS include: conservation of resources by providing for their most efficient use; assurance of a fair and equitable 

return to the public for rights conveyed; protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; involvement of interested and affected parties in planning and decision-making; and minimization of conflicts between mineral activities and other 

uses of the OCS. MMS also has over two decades of experience working with coastal 

states regarding coastal zone issues related to development on the OCS. The U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy in its report, ‘‘An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,’’ stated, ‘‘the scope and comprehensiveness of the OCS oil and gas program can 

be a model for the management of a wide variety of offshore activities.’’ 

In the NEP, the President directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce 

to determine if changes to the Federal regulatory regime were needed to facilitate 

energy-related projects in the coastal zone and on the OCS. Secretary Norton and 

then-Secretary Evans convened a ‘‘Coastal Zone Management Act Team’’ to develop 

a proposed rule addressing questions raised in NOAA’s July 2002 Advanced Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), and to establish an effective partnership for consistency issues. I am pleased to report that this effort has led to a much improved 

proposed rule. 

Using the July 2002 ANPR as the starting point, the team engaged in an intensive effort to fulfill the Secretaries’ goals in a manner that reflected the interests 

and concerns of our various stakeholders. As a result of our joint effort, in June 

2003, NOAA published a proposed rule that better addressed energy-related consistency issues while ensuring protection of the Nation’s coastal resources. The proposal 

would: 

• Establish a straightforward consistency review process with clear information 

requirements. 

• Provide a predictable consistency review process so that states, Federal agencies, and applicants know which activities are covered, when consistency reviews will begin, and when decisions will be made. 

• Clarify what information is required for consistency review purposes. 

• Eliminate conflict and confusion between the statutory requirements of the 

CZMA and OCS Lands Act, and most importantly, 

14 

• Maintain the states’ ability to review those Federal actions which have reasonably foreseeable effects on any land, water use or natural resources of their 

coastal zone as provided for in the CZMA. 

When promulgated as a final rule, the changes will improve the effectiveness of 

the Federal consistency process while preserving the proper balance between state 

and Federal management of coastal resources. 

We have also been working with NOAA to achieve prompt and efficient consultations under the Endangered Species Act and rulemakings under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Now I’d like to talk about other proactive steps MMS is taking to ensure integration of CZMA into our offshore management program. 

The MMS has developed a CZM strategy in the Gulf of Mexico with the primary 

goals of: 

• Providing a more efficient process for state consistency review of MMS OCS 

lease sale and permitted activities. 

• Standardizing information required of industry based on actual authorized 

CZMA requirements. 

• Managing the CZM Federal consistency review timeframes more effectively. 

• Improving MMS/Gulf State relationships. 

I am happy to say this initiative has been extremely successful. We have: 

• Streamlined the lease sale consistency review process through a tiered Consistency Determination document approach agreed to by all Gulf States. 

• Written agreements with all Gulf States on specific information that would satisfy state consistency requirements, thereby eliminating the need for an additional 30-day time frame allowed under the January 2001 regulations for the 

states’ decision on adequate information to begin consistency review. 

• Eliminated broad descriptive information previously required in industry submittals. 

• Standardized and updated information required by industry via several Notices 

to Lessees and Operators. 

• Expedited consistency review of 75 to 80 percent of all Gulf plans submitted 

through the use of concurrence agreements with the Gulf States. 

• Significantly improved MMS/Gulf State Coordination. 

Alaska is in the process of revising its CZM plan. In Alaska, there is an interest 

in subsistence fishing and hunting, which is the cultural heart and soul of rural 

Alaska. The need to protect fish and wildlife and their use for future generations 

is important in Alaska, as is the desire to encourage wise, sustainable development. 

Alaska has an outstanding record of balancing these competing interests. For 

MMS, the issue here will be OCS leasing off the northern coast of Alaska and ensuring that subsistence resources remain at levels adequate to meet community needs. 

The MMS and Alaska’s coordinating agency, the Office of Permitting and Project 

Management (OPMP), enjoy an excellent working relationship. Alaska is presently 

reworking its CZM program and MMS is ready to contribute as they progress in 

their efforts. 

Conclusion 

OCSLA and CZMA explicitly provide states a critical role in shaping national policy regarding the development of OCS resources for the Nation’s benefit. The Congressional Declaration of Policy for OCSLA prescribes, ‘‘States, and through such 

States, affected local governments, are entitled to an opportunity to participate, to 

the extent consistent with the national interest, in the policy and planning decisions 

made by the Federal Government relating to the exploration for, and development 

and production of, minerals of the OCS.’’ The Department is firmly committed to 

the consultative responsibility this entails. 

Building on our successful partnership, the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Commerce will continue to work together to identify and resolve 

issues that could arise in the administration of both the CZMA and OCSLA to promote Congress’ objectives in both statutes and the objectives of the President’s National Energy Policy. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks however I would be pleased 

to answer questions from you or the Members of the Committee. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Dr. Cruickshank. 

15 

Ms. Cooksey. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH W. COOKSEY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

DELAWARE COASTAL PROGRAMS; BOARD MEMBER AND 

FORMER CHAIR, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION 

Ms. COOKSEY. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Stevens and 

Subcommittee Chairman Snowe and other Subcommittee Members, 

for the opportunity to testify. For the record, I have also attached 

a copy of the National Governors Association policy which calls for 

the reauthorization of CZMA. 

The benefits and challenges of coastal and ocean management 

are well documented in the Ocean Commission and other reports. 

So rather than reiterating them, I will focus specifically on Senate 

Bill 360, which recommends reauthorization. Additional details are 

included in my written remarks. 

As previous witnesses have described, CZMA is unique in linking 

Federal, state, and community-based coastal management efforts. 

It furthers national goals by supporting and identifying economic 

and environmental priorities and implementing local strategies. 

The testimony of Don Hudson from the Gulf of Maine is just one 

of the 34 state and territory coastal management success stories 

that could be told today if time allowed. 

Both the final report of the U.S. Ocean Commission and the 

President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan identified reauthorization of 

CZMA as a priority. The Ocean Commission specifically recommends the following to be included. Senate Bill 360 addresses 

most of these: 

Strengthening the planning and coordination capability of coastal 

states to address coastal, watershed, and ocean planning; 

Increased Federal financial, technical, and institutional support 

for sustainable coastal and community development; 

Expand investment in the conservation and restoration of coastal 

habitats and support regional ecosystem management and improved science, resource assessment, and information to support 

decisionmaking based on science from coastal watersheds and 

oceans. 

Governor Ruth Ann Minner from Delaware, as well as many 

other Governors, specifically included a request for CZMA reauthorization in their recommendations to the Ocean Commission. I 

have and I would like to submit into the record Governor and State 

letters from the States of Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and California that also recommend reauthorization. 

Senator SNOWE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

STATE OF TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE, 

Austin, TX, May 18, 2005 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Snowe: 

On behalf of the State of Texas, I urge the Senate to reauthorize the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA). I support the recommendations of the President’s U.S. 

Ocean Action Plan and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Final Report that 

call for the reauthorization of the CZMA and highlighted its importance in ensuring 

economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and ocean resources. 

16 

Texas has the third longest coastline in the Nation, covering 18 coastal counties 

and including 400 miles of Gulf beaches and 3,300 miles of bay shoreline. With this 

coastline, as well as millions of acres of submerged land in our coastal bays, the 

management of our waterways and coastal resources is critical. We face significant 

challenges along our coast that can have a negative impact on both the health and 

economic well being of this state and its citizens. 

Texas CZMA funds are crucial in addressing shoreline access, economic development of coastal areas, protection of wetlands, and reduction of pollutants carried 

into coastal waters from our rapidly expanding coastal urban areas. 

I understand that the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 

will begin consideration of CZMA reauthorization during a hearing on S. 360 (sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe and John Kerry) that is scheduled for Wednesday, May 25. 

The following issues are of primary importance when considering reauthorization 

of the CZMA: 

1. Increase support for state and territorial coastal zone management programs 

through administration and implementation of grant programs and tools. These 

grant programs are critical to meeting the increased challenges along the Texas 

coast. The authorization of the Coastal Resource Improvement Program, under Section 306A, and Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants, under Section 309, are important to providing much needed assistance to local communities. 

2. Authorize a Coastal Community Restoration Program. By providing incentives 

to local government for actions that resolve important habitat protection conflicts, 

revitalize previously developed areas and coordinate conservation efforts Congress 

will enable state and local governments to better manage our nationally important 

coastal zones. 

3. Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The Federal-state partnership 

established under the CZMA enables state review of Federal activities to ensure 

compliance with state plans. In Texas, Federal consistency has not limited reasonable activities and development of resources in the coastal zone. I would oppose any 

actions to weaken the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency with 

state plans. 

I would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes 

to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during this 109th Session of Congress. Thank 

you for taking up this important matter at this time. 

Sincerely, 

JERRY PATTERSON, 

Commissioner. 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Columbia, SC, May 18, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

I would like to express my support for S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. We face significant challenges along our coast in terms 

of encouraging economic development while reconciling growth pressures with the 

unique natural value of our coast. Improved coastal management, as is proposed in 

S. 360, would greatly increase our capacity to address these critical coastal issues. 

In my June 4, 2004 letter to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy commenting 

on their Preliminary Report, one of the key recommendations I supported was reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. With the release of the final report last fall, Congress now has the opportunity to act on priority recommendations 

of the Commission, and I believe passage of S. 360 would be a significant step toward realizing these priorities. 

The following two issues are of primary importance to South Carolina when considering reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): 

1. Maintenance of state’s rights: 

17 

The existing Federal consistency provisions should be retained in their current 

form. The Federal-state partnership established under the CZMA enables state 

review of Federal activities to ensure compliance with state plans. In our state, 

Federal consistency has not limited reasonable activities and development of resources in the coastal zone. Provisions in previous energy legislation have had 

the potential to erode this important mechanism for considering state concerns. 

I would urge you to oppose any effort to weaken the CZMA requirements for 

coordination and consistency with state plans. 

2. Assistance for Coastal Communities: 

One of the most critical sections of S. 360 from South Carolina’s perspective is 

Section 11, Coastal Community Program. We have several initiatives underway 

that this legislation will complement, resulting in improved conservation, infrastructure planning, growth and development along our coast. By providing incentives to local government for actions that resolve important habitat protection conflicts, revitalize previously developed areas and coordinate conservation 

efforts, Congress will enable state and local governments to better manage our 

nationally important coastal zones. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

MARK SANFORD, 

Governor. 

cc: Hon. Lindsey Graham and Hon. Jim DeMint 

STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Montgomery, AL, May 20, 2005 

Hon. RICHARD SHELBY, 

110 Hart Senate Building, 

Hon. JEFF SESSIONS, 

335 Russell Senate Building, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

Dear Senators: 

On behalf of the State of Alabama this year, I am writing to urge the Senate to 

reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Both the President’s U.S. 

Ocean Action Plan and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Final Report recommended the reauthorization of the CZMA and highlighted its importance in insuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and ocean resources. We encourage Congress to reauthorize and amend CZMA as a critical, high 

priority action for improved coastal and ocean management. We support full funding 

and strengthening of elements of the CZMA, including habitat restoration, community planning and programs, watershed management and special area management 

planning. The CZMA is an important vehicle for implementation of a wide range 

of Ocean Commission and U.S. Ocean Action Plan recommendations, because it 

takes an integrated approach and is a true cooperative program between the Federal, state and local governments. This partnership is vital to addressing ecosystem 

management, and we believe that the state and local governments should have an 

important role in this process. A reauthorized CZMA needs to retain its focus on 

partnerships—the state’s working hand-in-hand with local governments. CZMA 

needs to maintain the state’s ability to implement programs that meet Federal goals 

that best fit each state’s ecological, geographical and political sceneries. A reauthorized CZMA needs to allow for flexible state programs and provide for a program to 

encourage strong planning at the local government level. We support an incentivebased approach to expanding partnerships under the CZMA and increasing focus on 

watershed issues and local planning. 

We face significant challenges along our coast that can have a negative impact 

on both the health and economic well being of this state and our citizens. In Alabama, CZMA funds, which are matched by the state agencies, local governments 

and academic institutions, are used to address the following priority issues: Coastal 

non-point source pollution, beach monitoring and restoration, research and education, public access, habitat restoration and land acquisition programs, I understand that the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will begin 

consideration of CZMA reauthorization during a hearing on S. 360 (sponsored by 

18 

Senators Olympia Snowe and John Kerry) that is scheduled for Wednesday, May 

25, 2005. 

The following issues are of primary importance when considering reauthorization 

of the CZMA: 

1. Increase support for state and territorial coastal zone management programs 

through administration and implementation grant programs and tools. These 

grant programs are critical to meeting the increased challenges along Alabama’s 

coast. The authorization of the Coastal Resource Improvement Program, under 

Section 306A, and Coastal Zone enhancement Grants, under Section 309, is important to providing much needed assistance to local communities for local 

beach and dune monitoring, enforcement and planning programs. 

2. Authorize a Coastal Community Restoration Program. By providing incentives to local government for actions that resolve important habitat protection 

conflicts, revitalizing previously developed areas and coordinating conservation 

efforts, Congress will enable state and local governments to better manage our 

nationally important coastal zones. 

3. Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The Federal-state partnership established under the CZMA enables state review of Federal activities to 

ensure compliance with state plans. In Alabama, Federal consistency has not 

limited reasonable activities and development of resources in the coastal zone, 

including the development of offshore gas production. I would oppose any actions to weaken the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency with 

state plans. 

l would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes 

to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during this 109th Session of Congress. Thank 

you for taking up this important matter at this time. 

Sincerely, 

BOB RILEY, 

Governor. 

cc: Congressman Jo Bonner and Senate Commerce Committee Staff 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Richmond, VA, May 23, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

I am writing to urge the Senate to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA). Both the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy’s Final Report recommended the reauthorization of the CZMA and 

highlighted its importance in ensuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and ocean resources. 

We face significant challenges along our coast that may have a negative impact 

on both the health and economic well-being of this state and our citizens. In Virginia, CZMA funds, which are matched by the state, are used to address critically 

important coastal issues such as wetlands protection, sea grass and oyster reef restoration, ecotourism development, technical assistance to local governments, coastal 

land acquisition, nonpoint source pollution solution, and provision of maps of coastal 

resources and information through the Internet and other media. I understand that 

the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will begin consideration of CZMA reauthorization during a hearing on S. 360 (sponsored by Senators 

Olympia Snowe and John Kerry) that is scheduled for May 25. 

The following issues are of primary importance when considering reauthorization 

of the CZMA: 

1. Increase support for state and territorial coastal zone management programs 

through management and implementation of grant programs and tools. These grant 

programs are critical to meeting the increasing challenges along Virginia’s coast. 

Virginia’s coastal population is growing (63 percent of Virginians live on the 22 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
19 

cent of land that comprises our coastal zone), yet our Federal funding for CZM has 

decreased. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that even prior to the FY 2005 CZM 

cuts, funding had been level since about 1988. In the face of only mild inflation, this 

has translated to the equivalent of roughly a 70 percent cut in Federal funds. In 

other words Virginia’s FY 2005 award of approximately $2.7 million is worth about 

$635,000 in 1988 dollars; at that time Virginia was receiving about $2 million. 

While the growth of the Federal budget has outpaced the rate of inflation, almost 

none of those increased expenditures have been allocated for CZM appropriations. 

The authorization of the Coastal Resource Improvement Program, under Section 

306A, and Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants, under Section 309, is important to 

providing much needed assistance to local communities. In Virginia these funds 

have helped in the acquisition of the most sensitive coastal areas (Virginia has only 

been able to set aside about $200,000 per year for this purpose, and far more is 

needed); in building boardwalks, nature trails and other public access amenities 

critical to supporting Virginia’s growing ecotourism industry; and for the development of new policies to protect special areas such as the biologically diverse southern watersheds of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and the Middle Peninsula’s Dragon 

Run. Section 309 is also funding the development of an integrated Blue-Green Infrastructure Internet Mapping System which will allow anyone to access, via the Internet, maps of the various important coastal resources on the land and in the water 

so that planning and decision-making can be better conducted with full and accurate 

information. 

2. Authorize a Coastal Community Restoration Program. By providing incentives 

to local government for actions that resolve important habitat protection conflicts, 

revitalize previously developed areas, assess and manage growth and coordinate 

conservation efforts, Congress will enable state and local governments to better 

manage our nationally important coastal zones. In Virginia, controlling growth and 

development is largely within our local governments’ purview. Many of Virginia’s 

coastal counties are rural and lack the funds to hire full-time planners and zoning 

administrators, yet they are facing unprecedented demands for more housing and 

development, particularly on the fragile waterfront. Carefully planning and carrying 

out growth in our coastal zones is critical to the long-term protection of our ocean 

and coastal resources. 

3. Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The Federal-state partnership 

established under the CZMA enables state review of Federal activities to ensure 

compliance with state plans. In Virginia Federal consistency has not limited reasonable activities and development of resources in the coastal zone. I would oppose any 

actions to weaken the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency with 

state plans. Federal consistency provisions have minimized negative environmental 

consequences of projects while still allowing appropriate development to proceed. 

I would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes 

to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during this 109th Session of Congress. Thank 

you for addressing this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

MARK. R. WARNER, 

Governor. 

cc: Virginia Congressional Delegation 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY

Sacramento, CA, May 24, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

I am writing to express our support for S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement 

Reauthorization Act of 2005. California, like many other states, faces significant 

challenges in encouraging economic development in its coastal communities while 

coping with the resultant growth. If enacted, the provisions of S. 360 would greatly 

increase the ability of California’s three Coastal Zone Management agencies to tackle these challenges. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 provides 

20 

grant funds to states that are matched, and used to leverage significant additional 

investment. These funds are critical to support community efforts to manage coastal 

resources and to abate nonpoint source pollution. The health and prosperity of our 

coastal communities depends on continued investment in our nation’s coastal legacy 

for future generations. 

Both the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy’s Final Report recommended the reauthorization of the CZMA and highlighted its importance in protecting and managing this nation’s coastal and ocean 

resources. In his June 3, 2004 letter to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and 

in his Ocean Action Plan, Governor Schwarzenegger supported the reauthorization 

of the CZMA to strengthen provisions for addressing nonpoint source pollution and 

to maintain the Federal consistency provisions that allow California to address the 

adverse impacts of Federally approved activities such as oil and gas development 

off our coast. 

The following two issues are of primary importance when considering reauthorization of the CZMA: 

Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The landmark Federal CZMA 

is the only land and water use planning and management law at the national 

level. It represents a unique and carefully crafted partnership between coastal 

states and the Federal Government. Through this partnership, the CZMA has 

also, for the first time, given local coastal government a meaningful voice in 

Federal actions and decisions that directly affect the environmental quality of 

their local communities. We oppose any change to the consistency rules that 

would weaken states’ rights to have an equal voice in vital decision-making 

dealing with activities that can have significant adverse effects on local coastal 

communities and other coastal resources. 

Provide Sufficient Funding for Coastal Non-Point Source Pollution Programs. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Ocean Commission reported 

polluted runoff as the top threat to our nation’s coastal and ocean resources. In 

addition, the U.S. EPA has identified runoff from impervious surfaces as the 

number one threat to the Nation’s water quality. Congress should adequately 

fund nonpoint source pollution grants (CZMA Section 6217) to allow coastal 

states to address one of the most significant sources of pollution to the Nation’s 

coastal waters. 

We would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes 

to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during this 109th Congress. Thank you for taking up this important matter at this time. 

Sincerely, 

MIKE CHRISMAN, 

California Secretary for Resources. 

cc. Meg Caldwell, Chair, California Coastal Commission 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE

Boston, MA, May 20, 2005 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Snowe: 

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am writing to urge the Senate to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Both the President’s 

U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Final Report 

recommended the reauthorization of the CZMA and highlighted its importance in 

ensuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and ocean resources. 

We face significant challenges along our coast that can have a negative impact 

on both the health and economic well-being of this state and our citizens. Here in 

Massachusetts, CZMA funds, which are matched by the state, are used to address 

the following priority issues: ocean resource management, smart growth for coastal 

communities, beach protection, and wetland restoration. I understand that the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will begin consideration of 

CZMA reauthorization during a hearing on S. 360 (sponsored by Senators Olympia 

Snowe and John Kerry) that is scheduled for Wednesday, May 25, 2005. 

The following issues are of primary importance when considering reauthorization 

of the CZMA: 

21 

1. Increase support for state and territorial coastal zone management programs 

through administration and implementation grant programs and tools. These 

grant programs are critical to meeting the increased challenges along Massachusetts’ coast. The Coastal Zone Management regional staff provide technical 

assistance on complex scientific and regulatory issues that is critical to local decision-making under our strong home-rule traditions. The authorization of the 

Coastal Resource Improvement Program, under Section 306A, and Coastal Zone 

Enhancement Grants, under Section 309, are important to providing much 

needed assistance to coastal areas. The flexibility in this voluntary program allowed Massachusetts to use Federal funds to initiate the Ocean Management 

Task Force process in response to the increase in offshore ocean projects like 

Cape Wind and the Hubline gas pipeline. 

2. Authorize a Coastal Community Restoration Program. By providing incentives to local government for actions that resolve important habitat protection 

conflicts, revitalize previously developed areas and coordinate conservation efforts Congress will enable state and local governments to better manage our nationally important coastal zones. CZM’s efforts at coastal smart growth are a 

step in the right direction, but much more capacity is needed at the local level 

to deal with sprawl and its impacts on water quality, beach access, and coastal 

habitat protection. 

3. Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The Federal-state partnership established under the CZMA enables state review of Federal activities to 

ensure compliance with state plans. In Massachusetts, Federal consistency has 

not limited reasonable activities and development of resources in the coastal 

zone. I would oppose any actions to weaken the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency with state plans. The unique and critical role of Federal 

consistency review for projects just offshore the Commonwealth has been highlighted by the Cape Wind wind farm, Northeast Gateway and the Neptune Liquid Natural Gas proposals. 

I would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes 

to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during this 109th Session of Congress. Thank 

you for taking up this important matter at this time. 

Sincerely, 

MITT ROMNEY, 

Governor. 

STATE OF MAINE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Augusta, ME, May 23, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

On behalf of the State of Maine, I am writing to urge the Senate to take positive 

action on reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act this year, and to 

thank you for scheduling a hearing this week on S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act. I would especially like to acknowledge Senator Snowe’s 

ongoing leadership in support of the CZMA, as co-sponsor of S. 360 (along with Senator Kerry.) I am encouraged that the Senate is moving on the CZMA as called for 

in the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan, in my detailed comments in response to 

the Ocean Commission, I emphasized the importance of an enhanced Coastal Zone 

Management Act as the vehicle for delivering on-the-ground environmental improvements and ensuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and 

ocean resources. 

In Maine, CZMA funds, which are matched by the state, are used for protecting 

ocean and coastal water quality, assisting coastal communities with the impacts of 

growth, restoring coastal habitats, enhancing public access and mitigating coastal 

hazards. We have a strong Maine Coastal Program with a twenty-seven year track 

record of success. However, we continue to face significant, increasingly complex 

22 

challenges along our coast that can have a negative impact on both the health and 

economic well-being of this state and our citizens. 

I would like to underscore a few areas of primary importance to Maine as you 

consider reauthorization of the CZMA: 

1. Increase support for state coastal zone management programs. CZM grants are 

critical to meeting increased challenges along Maine’s coast. Section 306 grants have 

supported the formation of Maine’s Working Waterfront Coalition, development of 

a municipal technical assistance effort and a local grants program, all aimed at 

stemming the tide of conversion of Maine’s small working harbors to residential and 

tourist-related uses. 

The authorization of the Coastal Resource Improvement Program, under Section 

306A, and Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants, under Section 309, are important to 

providing much needed assistance to local communities. Section 309 funds now support our 2 year bay management study, helping us to determine how to work more 

effectively with towns and other stakeholders to ensure balanced development and 

conservation of nearshore waters. 

Decreases in Federal CZM funding in 2005 caused the Maine Coastal Program to 

reduce staff and services. A $500,000 reduction in funding severely impacted our 

local grants program, and our nonpoint source pollution program. Maine supports 

the authorization levels proposed by the Coastal States Organization, but calls attention to the need for funds to sufficiently address polluted runoff in addition to 

the myriad of other eligible priority needs. 

2. Authorize a Coastal Communities Program. By providing incentives to local government, Congress will enable state and local governments to better manage our nationally important coastal zones. CZM funds in Maine currently support a twelvetown habitat and open space planning initiative in which the municipalities are expected to develop joint programs for protection of regionally significant habitats. 

Further down the coast, a groundbreaking agreement on the Penobscot River will 

result in significant habitat improvement while protecting hydropower opportunities. Coastwide, more than 30 towns have been assisted with habitat protection 

strategies. The cost to fully implement these programs is substantial and requires 

a strong commitment on the part of our local/state/Federal partnership. 

3. Provide ongoing funding for Coastal NonPoint Pollution Control. It is estimated 

that more than 80 percent of pollution entering Maine’s coastal waters is from diffuse sources of coastal runoff, yet most programs that assist states with control and 

elimination of polluted runoff are being cut. To not target significant funding towards a priority problem is an inefficient use of Federal and state resources. S. 360 

allows CZM programs to direct funds towards pollution programs in addition to 

other state priorities. 

4. Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The Federal-state partnership 

established under the CZMA enables state review of Federal activities to ensure 

compliance with state plans. In Maine, Federal consistency has not limited reasonable activities and development of resources in the coastal zone. To the contrary, 

our staff has been praised by Federal agencies, military staff and private sector developers for their fair, thorough and timely response to Federal actions in the coastal zone. I would oppose any actions to weaken the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency with state plans. 

5. Increase opportunities for regional cooperation. Finally, I am aware of the work 

of NOAA and other agencies to reorient existing programs towards an ecosystembased management framework. In the Gulf of Maine, we have the beginnings of 

such an innovative approach to regional governance in the Gulf of Maine Council, 

the Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine and the GOM Ocean 

Observing System (GoMOOS). S. 360 could be further strengthened by including 

provisions for regional cooperation and a grants program to provide incentives for 

states to pursue regional pilot projects that demonstrate success in ecosystem-based 

management. 

I would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes 

to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during this 109th Session of Congress. Thank 

you for taking up this important matter at this time. 

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, 

Governor. 

23 

STATE OF OREGON STATE CAPITOL

Salem, OR, May 25, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Stevens: 

On behalf of the State of Oregon, I want to express my strong support for reauthorization of the national Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA has 

been instrumental in helping Oregon to balance growth and economic development 

in coastal communities with protection of the outstanding scenic and environmental 

resources of the Oregon coast. Reauthorizing this important Act will affirm the values and importance of our coasts to the Nation and underscore the need to manage 

and protect them for the future. 

For nearly three decades, Oregon and the Nation have benefited from unique provisions of the Act that promote partnerships among states, local governments, and 

Federal agencies to address crosscutting issues affecting coastal watersheds, 

shorelands, estuaries and ocean resources. Funding under the Act has been vital to 

building capacity in local governments and state agencies to protect coastal resources, provide public amenities and manage growth. Many cities simply could not 

do the job of protecting coastal resources, providing public access, or creating livable 

communities without this Federal funding. The Act’s unique ‘‘Federal consistency’’ 

provisions enable Oregon to review Federal agency actions to ensure that they meet 

state and local needs and requirements. 

The recent report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy described many issues 

facing the Nation’s coasts and oceans that I believe can be most effectively addressed through strengthened state coastal management programs. These issues include managing urban growth, protecting and restoring coastal habitats, reducing 

pollution from watersheds into coastal waters, avoiding or reducing natural hazards 

on coastal shorelands and in floodplains, planning and managing ocean resources, 

reinvesting in port and harbor facilities, providing public access, education, and information, and protecting special coastal and ocean areas. Thus I believe that it 

makes sense to not only reauthorize the CZMA but also strengthen it based on need 

and experience. 

I urge the Congress to add a Coastal Communities Program, as recommended by 

the Coastal States Organization, to address development and conservation through 

community assessments, planning, and demonstration projects. Oregon has targeted 

significant state and Federal CZMA financial and technical resources to local governments to assist in managing growth and development while protecting coastal 

resources. Based on our experience, I firmly believe that a robust Coastal Communities Program would pay big dividends to the Nation in protecting coastal resources 

while growing coastal communities. 

Because meeting the increasing challenges of coastal management through the 

CZMA will require increased funding, I also encourage the Committee to support 

significantly higher levels of Federal Appropriations for coastal zone management 

to help states and local governments, as well as related special programs such as 

the NOAA Coastal Services Center, National Estuarine Research Reserve system, 

and research on nearshore ecosystems and fisheries on which our coastal communities depend. 

I thank you and the Committee for your important work on this vital piece of legislation. If I can provide you with more information about coastal zone management 

in Oregon, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours, 

THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI, 

Governor. 

cc: Oregon Congressional Delegation 

24 

STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Olympia, Washington, June 6, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

On behalf of the state of Washington, I am writing to urge the Senate to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Both the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s final report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, recommended reauthorizing the CZMA and highlighted 

its importance in ensuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal 

and ocean resources. 

We face significant challenges along our coast that can impair the health and economic wellbeing of our state and its citizens. The CZMA funds are matched by 

Washington State to help protect coastal resources and support waterfront and port 

development, recreation, and tourism. We are addressing salmon recovery in Puget 

Sound, water quality problems in Hood Canal, shoreline erosion on the Pacific 

Coast, and other difficult coastal management issues. To meet these challenges and 

to advance the President’s Ocean Action agenda, it is critical that we increase CZM 

resources to support local shoreline planning, watershed protection, and habitat conservation. 

I am informed that the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 

began considering the CZMA reauthorization at a hearing on S. 360 (sponsored by 

Senators Olympia Snowe and John Kerry) on Wednesday, May 25. The following 

issues are of primary concern to our state in considering reauthorization of the 

CZMA: 

1. Increase support for state and territorial coastal-zone management programs 

to provide funding and assistance to help our communities anticipate and accommodate growth while protecting coastal resources. The authorization of the 

Coastal Resource Improvement Program, under Section 306A, and Coastal Zone 

Enhancement Grants, under Section 309, provides much-needed assistance to 

local communities updating their shoreline plans and conserving natural resources. 

2. Authorize a Coastal Community Program to provide funding and technical assistance to help local governments plan for growth, reduce nonpoint-source pollution, protect and restore important habitat areas, and revitalize waterfront 

areas. Coastal communities in Washington—from our urban cities on the shores 

of Puget Sound to our rural communities on the Pacific Coast—are in direct 

need of additional assistance in meeting these challenges. 

3. Maintain existing Federal consistency provisions. The Federal-state partnership established under the CZMA gives states the power to ensure that Federal 

activities, such as dam re-licensing and dredging projects, are consistent with 

the state’s coastal program. In Washington State, Federal consistency has not 

limited reasonable activities and development in the coastal zone. I oppose 

weakening the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency with state 

plans. 

Reauthorizing the CZMA will enable state and local governments to better manage locally and national significant coastal areas. These programs invigorate our 

economy and improve quality of life for the citizens of Washington. For all of these 

reasons, I request your support of S. 360 this year. 

Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Please let me know how I can 

help. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE, 

Governor. 

Ms. COOKSEY. Many coastal States are taking the lead in responding to these plans for action. Hawaii, California, and Alaska 

25 

have established ocean councils. Alaska is in the process of successfully completing amendments to its CZM program. Massachusetts 

has proposed legislation to develop a comprehensive ocean management plan. South Carolina is developing recommendations for its 

coastal future. The New Jersey Governor recently announced a 

coastal action plan. There are also significant state-led plans 

throughout the Nation, Pacific Islands, and Alaska. 

CSO’s recommendations largely track the Ocean Commission 

blueprint and the proposals already included in S. 360 in the four 

following areas: support for coastal program implementation and 

enhancement grants shared by all States under CZMA sections 306 

and 309; support for proposals for resource improvement grants 

under section 306A and community grants under the new section 

309[a]; continued support for Federal consistency authority under 

CZMA section 307; clear authority and funding for the National Estuarine Research Reserves’ research, education, and stewardship 

missions under section 315 and 318; and additional authority to 

foster regional ecosystem management under section 308 and management-oriented research and technical assistance under section 

310. 

CSO strongly supports the recommended authorization levels for 

State grants under sections 306, 306A, and 309. The language 

added under 306[c] providing for equitable sharing of increased 

funds by all States is important to assure that States whose grants 

have been capped over the past 6 to 10 years will receive a fair 

share of increased funding. 

We request the Committee also make changes to section 309 to 

expand eligibility for enhancement grants, to include not just formal program changes but also projects or activities that support 

improved ecosystem-based management, or demonstrate significant 

potential for improving integrated coastal watershed and ocean 

management. 

CSO strongly supports a proposal under Senate Bill 360 to support resource improvement grants that are listed under section 

306A and the coastal community grants under 309[a]. 

There seems to be considerable confusion about both the purpose 

and application of the CZMA Federal consistency authority. It has 

wrongly been characterized as a duplicative level of authority and 

review. On the contrary, the clear objective and function of consistency is to support a process for coordination and cooperation. This 

is how it actually works in the vast majority of States and it works 

well, including in Delaware. 

While all Federal activities and permits that may affect resources and uses of a State coastal zone will trigger consistency, it 

does not impose new regulatory requirements. It simply provides 

that that activity must be consistent with those applicable State 

enforceable policies that already exist and are incorporated into the 

Federally approved program. 

CSO does not support piecemeal amendments to the CZM that 

have been proposed in the various versions of the energy bill that 

Senator Nelson mentioned this morning. CSO and NERRA are 

pleased that Senate Bill 360 clarifies the authority of the reserve 

system to include education and resource stewardship in addition 

to research. 

26 

We urge the Committee to consider amending the CZMA or passing companion legislation to provide additional support for Stateregional collaborations. Currently CZMA section 308 authorizes the 

use of the CZM management fund for other things, projects to address management issues that are regional in scope, projects including interstate projects, and demonstration projects, which have 

a high potential for improving coastal zone management, especially 

at the local level. We propose that these specific authorities be retained and amended to support adaptive ecosystem-based management, rather than direct the CZM fund to NOAA to offset operating 

and administrative costs. 

CSO also recommends strengthening the provisions of section 

310 to include support for a regional coastal services center. As recommended by the Ocean Commission, funding should be authorized annually for grants to States under this section. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CSO is ready to 

work with you in any way to support passage and reauthorization 

of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooksey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH W. COOKSEY, ADMINISTRATOR, DELAWARE COASTAL

PROGRAMS; BOARD MEMBER AND FORMER CHAIR, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION

Introduction 

I want to thank Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, Subcommittee Chair Olympia 

Snowe, as well as Ranking Members, Senators Daniel Inouye and Maria Cantwell, 

and other distinguished Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify 

today on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). On behalf of my colleagues in the coastal states, I also want to express our appreciation 

for your leadership in supporting the CZMA and other crucial coastal and ocean legislation. 

My name is Sarah Cooksey. I am the Administrator of Delaware’s Coastal Management Programs, which includes both the coastal management and the research 

reserve programs. I am testifying today in my role as Board Member and formerChair of the Coastal States Organization (CSO). I want to extend the regrets of the 

current CSO Chair, Phil Hinesley from Alabama, who couldn’t be with us today as 

he is in American Samoa celebrating the 25th Anniversary of their CZM Program. 

Since 1970, CSO has represented the interests of the coastal states, including the 

Great Lakes and island territories on matters related to coastal, Great Lakes and 

ocean resource protection, management and development. CSO’s membership consists of Delegates appointed by the Governors from the 35 States, Commonwealths, 

and Territories. The National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERRA) is 

also an affiliate member of CSO. For the record, I request that this testimony be 

added to the record and have also attached a copy of the National Governors Association (NGA) policy that calls for CZMA reauthorization. 

It is fitting that the CZMA, which was originally passed to support recommendations of the 1969 Stratton Commission, will be reauthorized to address the recent 

and important call to action detailed in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy final 

report and the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Both documents identified reauthorization of the CZMA as a priority. Legislative priorities, in addition to the 

CZMA, that were identified by both the Ocean Commission and the Action Plan 

under the jurisdiction of this Committee include a NOAA Organic Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. We hope to see action 

this year on these fundamental building blocks of any national coastal and ocean 

policy. The time for action is now. 

Our Nation’s history, economy and culture are inextricably linked to and dependent upon the natural resources and economic vitality of the coasts—from the ports 

around which our nation’s largest cities grew; to the fishing communities along the 

coast of Maine; to the beaches from Cape Cod to California; to the habitats of Galveston Bay and wetlands of Louisiana; to unique landscape and indigenous peoples 

of Alaska and the Pacific islands. It has been estimated that 1 out of 6 U.S. jobs 

is marine related, and 1⁄3 of the Gross Domestic Product is produced in coastal counties. The 180 million American and international visitors who enjoy coastal areas 

27 

and coral reefs each year account for 85 percent of U.S. tourism revenues. International shipping brings more than $700 billion in goods to U.S. ports. Coasts— 

where our nation’s major river basins connect our inland watersheds to our oceans— 

are truly a national resource. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

The CZMA is the only national program that supports a Federal-state partnership 

with the goal of improving both the quality of life in coastal communities and enhancing the stewardship, sustainable use and conservation of coastal and ocean resources for the benefit of current and future generations. Congress was prescient in 

1972 when it passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to provide incentives: 

to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities 

in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve the wise use of the land and water resources of the 

coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development 

programs . . . . (16 USC 1452(2)) 

The CZMA is unique in linking Federal, state and community-based coastal management efforts. The CZMA furthers national goals by supporting the identification 

of priorities and implementation of local strategies in the three fundamental ways. 

• It provides a national framework and matching grants that support states, in 

working with local communities and Federal agencies partners, to develop and 

implement coastal and ocean management plans, program and policies, which 

are based on local priorities and further the national economic, environmental 

and societal objectives set out in the Act. 

• It provides a process for coordinating state and Federal activities, licenses and 

permits to assure that they are consistent with the applicable policies of Federally approved state coastal zone management programs. (This is commonly referred to as ‘‘consistency authority.’’) 

• It establishes and supports a network of 26 National Estuarine Research Reserves representing diverse estuarine and coastal ecosystems, which play a critical role in national efforts to understand and sustain healthy estuaries and 

coastal communities. 

Thirty four of the 35 eligible state have developed—and the 35th state, Illinois, 

is in the process of developing—comprehensive coastal programs which are designed 

to protect and restore wetlands and other critical habitats; increase recreational opportunities and public access to shorelines; reduce the threats of coastal hazards to 

public health and property; and reduce coastal pollution and cumulative and secondary that can degrade coastal waters; as well as, to support well-planned coastal 

communities, compatible coastal dependent development and revitalize waterfronts. 

The 26 estuaries have been designated as part of the National Research Reserve 

System (NERRS) include sites from Alaska to Puerto Rico, with an additional site 

in Texas expected to be designated later this year. NERRS serve as local laboratories and regional centers of excellence. At Reserve sites, coastal communities can 

access a broad array of critical information and coastal services. These services include: (1) training to promote informed environmental decision-making; (2) a national monitoring program for estuaries; and (3) education opportunities for students 

and the public. With these key elements, the reserve system is in the unique position of serving the national interest while responding to local needs. They have developed several unique system-wide national programs including system-wide monitoring, graduate research fellowships and coastal training programs. 

Many coastal states are taking the lead in building on these efforts. In Hawaii, 

California, and Alaska, the Governors have established Ocean Councils to take a 

more integrated and comprehensive look at coastal and ocean management priorities. As you will hear about in later testimony, Alaska is in the process of successfully completing amendments to its CZM program. The Governor of Massachusetts 

has proposed legislation to improve management of coastal estuaries and to develop 

a comprehensive ocean management plan. South Carolina has completed an assessment and developed recommendations for its ‘‘Coastal Future.’’ The New Jersey 

Governor recently announced a Coastal Action Plan. Other states are developing 

equally ambitious coastal and ocean agendas. There are also significant state-led regional efforts in the Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Islands. 

Enacting many of the recommendations proposed in S. 360, The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005, will provide much needed support for these 

28 

ongoing efforts, encourage increased coordination, and improve partnerships with 

Federal agencies, as well as the private and public sector that will be crucial to our 

nation’s future success in managing coastal and ocean resources. 

Coastal and Ocean Stewardship Challenges: A Roadmap for CZM 

Reauthorization 

The final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (April 2004) documents 

the challenges and sets out a vision and blueprint for action for the future of our 

nation’s coasts and oceans. To address the many challenges outlined in the Report, 

the Ocean Commission Coastal population is increasing by 3,600 per day—a rate of 

growth that may result in 27 million more residents per, in an area that is already 

the most densely populated in the country. The impact of resulting land consumption and development can outstrip population increased by 3–5 times the pace of 

population. That rate of harmful algal blooms (HAB) outbreaks and appearances of 

‘‘dead zone’’ are increasing. In 1997, HABs cost the Maryland seafood and recreation 

industry more than $50 million. Hurricanes and tropical storms are predicted to 

continue to threaten coastal communities. 

Although less comprehensive than the Ocean Commission Report, the President’s 

U.S. Action Plan (September 2004) recognizes the need to support adaptive, ecosystem-based approach management and to facilitate regional management. The Action Plan specifically calls on Congress to work with the Administration to reauthorize the CZMA. The Ocean Commission Report recommends significantly increased 

funding for states to undertake coastal and ocean programs and activities. The Report also calls for implementation of improved regional ecosystem-based approaches 

to management to address the growing pressures of coastal development, emerging 

uses and conflicts in ocean areas, including ecosystem assessments, improved scientific information, monitoring, and research to support adaptive coastal and watershed management. 

The Ocean Commission Report specifically recommends that the following be included in CZMA reauthorization: 

• strengthen the planning and coordination capabilities of coastal states to address watershed and ocean planning; 

• increase Federal financial, technical and institutional support for sustainable 

community development; 

• expand investment in the conservation and restoration of coastal habitats; and 

• support state coastal resource assessments. 

In response to the Ocean Commission Report, President George Bush put forth 

the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (September 2004) which recognizes the need to support 

adaptive, ecosystem-based approach management and to facilitate regional management. The Action Plan specifically calls on Congress to work with the Administration to reauthorize the CZMA. 

S. 360, at least in part, addresses all of these recommendations. A more specific 

discussion of S. 360, as well as CSO and NERRA recommendations for reauthorization is set out in the following section. 

S. 360—Reauthorization Recommendations 

The coastal states have several recommendations which should be included in legislation to reauthorize the CZMA. These changes will substantially improve the capacity of states to meet the national goals of the CZMA, as well as the challenges 

identified in the Ocean Commission Report and the President’s U.S. Action Plan. 

The states appreciate that their recommendations have largely been addressed in 

S. 360. 

Summary of Primary Recommendations 

• Provide increased funding and support for all eligible coastal management programs to increase their capacity to address the challenges identified in the 

Ocean Commission Report. Assure that all eligible states share equitably in the 

increased funding. (See S. 360, Sections 3, 7 and 17) 

• Authorize additional support for grants to states for resource management improvements including habitat restoration, reduction of coastal nonpoint pollution and support for well-planned community development. (See S. 360, Sections 

8, 11 and 17.) 

• Continue support for governmental coordination and consistency of Federal activities and permits activities that may affect state coastal resources with applicable, Federally approved state coastal management policies, as provided in Section 307 of the CZMA. 

29 

• Clarify the authority and increase funding for the NERRS system including core 

program administration, coastal training, site stewardship, system-wide monitoring and research, national education initiatives, and construction of projects 

at Reserves (See S. 360, Sections 4, 5, 15, and 17). 

Discussion and Additional Recommendations 

Program Implementation and Enhancement Grants 

Consistent with the recommendations of the Ocean Commission, S. 360 strengthens states’ capacity to further the national goals of the Act and improve integration 

of coastal, watershed and ocean management activities. CSO strongly supports the 

recommendation for increased authorization levels beginning at $90.5 million in 

2006 for state grants under sections 306, 306A and 309. The language added to section 306(c) providing for equitable sharing of increased funds by all states reflects 

language that has been included in appropriations bills over the past several years. 

This provision is important to assure that states whose grants have been ‘‘capped’’ 

over the past 6-10 years will receive a fair share of increased funding (Capped states 

include but are not limited to AK, ME, LA, WA, TX, MA, NC, NJ, CA, SC, MI, and 

MD). CSO also supports the proposed changes that would eliminate the specific 10 

percent cap on resource improvement grants under section 306A and the $10 million 

limit on section 309 program enhancement grants. 

We request the Committee to consider making a few additional changes to Section 

309. 

• Amend subsection (b)(1) to expand eligibility for enhancement grants beyond 

‘‘program changes’’ to include ‘‘projects or activities that support multi-jurisdictional, multi-state or regional ecosystem-based management, or demonstrate 

significant potential for improving integrated coastal, watershed and ocean 

management.’’ 

• Rather than have the Secretary rank state enhancement proposals under subsection (c); provide states with the option to set aside up to 20 percent of grants 

annually for CZM program enhancements. This change would more accurately 

reflect current practice, since currently there is no actual ranking or competition for enhancement grants. 

These changes would provide states with the flexibility they need to adopt innovative projects and strategies, as well as formal program elements, to enhance the effectiveness of coastal, watershed and ocean management efforts. 

Resource Improvement and Community Grants 

The expanded authority and funding provided in S. 360 to support resource improvement grants, under Section 306A, and coastal community grants, under 309A, 

will provide critical resources to support critical implementation actions that will result in increased public access and waterfront revitalization; protection of cultural 

and historic resources; habitat conservation and restoration; coastal hazards mitigation; control of aquatic invasive species; reduction of hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, 

and polluted runoff. It will also improve state capacity to provide technical assistance to coastal communities that support well-planned development and sustainable 

economic growth. 

One change the states suggest the Committee make to these provisions is that, rather than directing the states to set aside $10 million out of the section 309A community grants for coastal nonpoint pollution as provided in section 17(1) of the bill, 

additional funding be provided for states to use in a flexible way to take actions 

they deem necessary to be effective in protecting coastal water quality. 

Federal Consistency Authority 

There seems to be considerable confusion about both the purpose and application 

of CZMA Federal consistency authority. It has wrongly been characterized as a duplicative level of review or an additional state requirement. On the contrary, the 

clear objective and function of consistency is to support a process for ‘‘coordination 

and cooperation’’ of all applicable reviews at the Federal and state level. The CZMA 

correctly recognizes that that most effective way to further the national objective of 

the Act is to assure that Federal activities and permits incorporate applicable state 

requirements early in the process of developing there projects or activities. 

In the case of Federal activities or permits that may affect state coastal uses or 

resources, Federal agencies or applicants are required to determine ‘‘at the earliest 

practical time’’ whether there are state requirements that apply and how they will 

be incorporated into the planned activity. The states are required to respond the 

consistency determination with any concerns ‘‘at the earliest practical time.’’ This 

is how it actually works in the vast majority of cases—and it works well—in DelaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
30 

ware and other states. Pending amendments to the consistency regulation proposed 

by the Administration would reinforce the requirements for early consideration and 

coordination of all reviews. 

While all Federal activities and permit that ‘‘may affect’’ resources and uses of a 

state’s coastal zone trigger consideration of consistency, it does not impose new regulatory requirements. It simply provides that that the activity must be consistent 

with those applicable enforceable policies that already exist and that are incorporated into the Federally approved coastal management programs and are recognized as furthering the national goals of the Act. The CZMA provides further safeguards for the agencies and applicants by providing for an appeal to the Secretary 

of Commerce to assure that decisions are consistent with the national objectives of 

the CZMA and national security. Provisions are set in the CZMA and consistency 

regulations that allow states to identify what Federal activities and permits affecting the coastal zone they want to review, including what they do not want to review, 

and to work with Federal agencies on coordinated review processes. These provisions include listed and unlisted activities, geographic location, and exceptions of de 

minimus impacts (See e.g. 15 C.F.R. sections 930.34 and 930.53.) These regulations 

should provide the necessary flexibility for the state to determine how to assure that 

applicable state requirements can most effectively provide for consistency of Federal 

activities that affect state coastal resources. 

NERRS 

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. 

CSO and NERRA are pleased that S. 360 broadens the authority of the Reserve 

System to include education and resource stewardship in addition to research. We 

want to assure that the final language provides adequate authority for NERRS’ primary research and education elements including the Coastal Training, System-Wide 

Monitoring, Graduate Research Fellowships, and K–12 Estuarine Education Program. 

We would respectfully suggest that a vision for expansion of the NERRS be included in a reauthorization bill. NERRA vision is to enhance research, education, 

and stewardship activities nationwide through the establishment of Reserves in 

every coastal and Great Lakes state, as the resources become available. With respect to authorization levels, NERRA recommends that a stable base for each Reserve be provided to support basic operations and research, education, and stewardship programs. 

NERRA supports a 5-year reauthorization beginning at $22 million and increasing 

by $1 million per year to accommodate new sites, expansion of products and services, and cost of living increases. 

CSO and NERRA strongly endorse incorporation of funding for construction and 

land acquisition into the reauthorization measure as stated in S. 360. 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, as stated in S. 360—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 priority land and water areas for watershed management. 

Fostering Regional Partnerships and Management-Oriented Research 

We urge the Committee to consider amending the CZMA to provide additional 

support for state-regional collaborations that identify priority coastal and ocean 

management issues and develop implementation strategies based on best science 

available. Both the Ocean Commission and Administration’s Action Plan call for a 

more ecosystem-based regional coastal watershed and ocean management strategy, 

and support for regional pilot projects that build on existing plans and processes. 

The CZMA can provide a direct link now to these regional efforts through states 

coastal and ocean management plans, based on consideration of public trust, public 

31 

health and safety interests. Currently, CZMA section 308 authorizes the use of the 

Coastal Zone Management Fund for, among other things: ‘‘projects to address management issues that are regional in scope projects, including interstate projects,’’ 

and ‘‘demonstration projects which have a high potential for improving coastal zone 

management, especially at the local level.’’ 

We propose that these specific authorities be retained and amended to reflect support for adaptive, ecosystem based management of coastal watershed and oceans. 

Rather than redirect the CZM Fund to NOAA top offset operating and administrative costs as proposed by S. 360, Section 9, the current balance in the fund as well 

as future payments should be dedicated to the states as originally intended for these 

regional, interstate, and ecosystem based watershed projects and activities. Additional funding should be authorized and deposited in the Fund to support competitive grants for such multi-jurisdictional, interstate or regional partnership projects, 

taking into account a balance of regional needs, state priorities, and a variety of 

project types and scales. While the oil and gas loan repayments that have traditionally supported the CZM Fund are scheduled to diminish in coming years, Congress 

should consider replenishing the Fund through both annual appropriations and 

dedicating new revenues generated from permitting offshore uses such as aquaculture, transportation and other support facilities for oil and gas, and renewable 

energy activity. 

The Ocean Commission report recognized the importance of investing in improved 

understanding of the coastal and ocean ecosystems, and recommended support of 

coastal assessments and regional information programs led by the states. To address this recommendation in part, CSO recommends amending the provisions of 

CZMA section 310, which require the Secretary to conduct a program of ‘‘technical 

assistance and management-oriented research’’ necessary to support the implementation of State coastal management programs. The section’s current limitation to assistance and research related to ‘‘program amendments under Section 309’’ should 

be eliminated. Provisions should be strengthened that require the Secretary to coordinate efforts relevant to intra- and inter-agency Federal agency research, studies 

and technical assistance activities. CSO supports the proposal in S. 360, Section 12 

that would authorize the Secretary to establish a program enter into cooperative 

agreements to support development of innovative coastal and estuarine technology. 

That section should be expanded to authorize regional coastal service centers, as 

needed, charged with coordinating and facilitating access to NOAA and other Federal agency research and technical assistance, disseminating relevant information 

and provide technical assistance, training and transfer best coastal and ocean management practices. Subsection 310(b)(3) should be amended ‘‘establishes and supports a routine process to assure that’’ the Secretary consults with states on a regular basis regarding ‘‘coastal and ocean research and information needs,’’ as well as 

development and implementation of programs under the section. 

Finally, $30 million should be authorized annually for grants to states under this 

section to undertake periodic ecosystem assessments of natural, cultural and economic coastal resources to support development of relevant performance indicators 

and sound coastal and ocean management decisions. This funding can be used to 

identify gaps in monitoring and research needs and to make relevant information 

available to the public through mechanisms such as the ‘‘state coastal atlas’’ developed by Oregon or other information management or geospatial information tools or 

techniques. NOAA should support efforts to link these state assessments to broader 

regional ecosystem assessments and ocean observations systems. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CSO is ready to work with you 

in any way to support passage of S. 360 and reauthorization of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act this year. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Ms. Cooksey, and I want to thank 

all our panelists. 

I would like to address one of the first issues, and I know Senator Nelson has raised it with the imminent markup of the energy 

bill in the Energy Committee. With the Senate being on the verge 

of considering new energy legislation and new energy policy, one of 

the issues that has surrounded the reauthorization of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act—and in fact has been a barrier to securing 

reauthorization, as Chairman Stevens said, since 1999—has been 

32 

clarity and predictability with respect to the regulatory process and 

the consistency requirements under the legislation. 

I would like to be able to work through some of these issues and 

to separate fact from fiction, because, as you mentioned, Dr. Kitsos, 

in your remarks here this morning, States have concurred with 

about 95 percent of the projects that they have reviewed under 

these consistency provisions. So exactly what is the essence of the 

problem here? 

There is a lot of exaggeration with respect to this process. It is 

an issue that we are going to have to grapple with. We are facing 

some of these challenges because if they attempt to lessen States’ 

rights or circumvent the Coastal Zone Management Act in the energy legislation, we have to counter those attempts with the facts. 

So can you clarify the regulatory process and exactly what is at 

issue here, especially regarding claims about an unlimited process 

that they now want to reduce? I know the Commerce Department, 

in conjunction with Interior, has recommended a 270-day process, 

for example. Tell me, what has generally been the standard for this 

consistency requirement process? 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, the standard, Senator Snowe, is that States 

have an approved program that includes specific enforceable policies and that Federal agencies or that private applicants for Federal licenses and permits conduct activities that are consistent with 

those enforceable policies. In a very general way, that is sort of the 

consistency principle. 

It has been subject to some controversy. On behalf of NOAA, we 

do not believe that it is as controversial as other folks have asserted, and the statistics as you quoted from my written testimony 

are in fact accurate. 

Now, some will argue those statistics leave out a number of cases 

where States have used consistency as leverage to bring people to 

the table to get some things done that the applicant or the Federal 

agency might not otherwise have wanted to do. Our response to 

that is that is the purpose of section 307 of the CZMA. It is called 

the intergovernmental cooperation section and it is intended to try 

to get Federal Government and State governments and local applicants to work together to make sure that their activities are not 

inconsistent with approved CZMA programs. 

Some of the more high visibility cases deal with offshore oil and 

gas and I think the witness for the National Ocean Industries Association later today, this morning, will talk about those perhaps 

in some greater detail. But there have only been about 14 of those 

and 7 have come down on the side of the State and 7 have come 

down on the side of the—— 

Senator SNOWE. So there are 14? 

Dr. KITSOS. 14 cases have gone to appeal to the Secretary of 

Commerce. 

Senator SNOWE. Out of how many, would you say? 

Dr. KITSOS. Thousands. 

Senator SNOWE. Thousands? 

Dr. KITSOS. Thousands and thousands. Thousands and thousands 

of exploration plans and development and production plans and 

lease sales over the years since 1978, since the OCS Lands Act was 

amended. Now, most of those of course come from the Gulf of MexVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
33 

ico, Mississippi, Alabama, particularly Louisiana and Texas, where 

the acceptance of offshore oil and gas of course is quite positive, 

and the consistency issue has not been a matter of contention. 

The number of cases that have reached the level of the Secretary 

of Commerce generally come from outside the Gulf of Mexico, some 

in California of course. 

So our sense is that consistency is working. It is working, it is 

working well. We believe that your legislation, which has not 

opened that up, is a good idea and that, as Dr. Cruickshank has 

indicated, the Interior and Commerce Departments have worked 

well together on crafting a proposed regulation that we hope will 

become final. It is a potential rule that we hope will become final, 

that deals with issues of streamlining, the kind of record that 

needs to be put before the Secretary of Commerce, and the time 

limits involved in the Secretary making appeal decisions. 

But we believe that that addresses the issues that were in the 

Vice President’s energy report and should resolve a number of 

problems. 

Senator SNOWE. For the record, could you explain what happens 

in the 270 days? Is that correct? 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, it is a little more detailed than that, but essentially the 270 days is the time for the Secretary of Commerce to 

keep the record open. Then once the record closes, under current 

law there is a 90-day period for the Secretary to make a final decision, and if he needs another 45 days he can have that. But then 

he must issue a decision. 

There is an agreement between the Commerce Department and 

Interior Department that the Secretary of Commerce should not 

have an unlimited amount of time, as long as he has the material 

needed to make a decision, in order to make an appeal decision 

about a consistency case. We believe that the regulation that is currently being considered addresses that directly. 

Senator SNOWE. Dr. Cruickshank, could you speak to that as 

well, from your perspective in the Interior Department? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes. I would agree with Dr. Kitsos’ statement 

that—with one minor exception. Our count is there have been 17 

appeals, 14 of which actually came to decision with the Secretary 

of Commerce. Three were actually resolved during the appeals 

process before a decision was required. But the numbers are very 

similar in that regard. 

But we also feel that the issues that have been raised are issues 

that can and should be dealt with through the rulemaking process, 

and we have been working, as Dr. Kitsos indicated, very closely 

with NOAA and we are very pleased with the way the rulemaking 

process has gone. 

Senator SNOWE. Ms. Cooksey, would you like to speak to that? 

Ms. COOKSEY. Just very briefly. States believe it is fair and it is 

based on State enforceable policies. It levels the playing field. 

Senator SNOWE. I know you have mentioned in your testimony 

that the consistency requirements have been mischaracterized. I 

would concur with you, and this speaks to the issue in terms of the 

track record. So the 270-day period, does that—— 

Ms. COOKSEY. That is not a problem. 

Senator SNOWE. It is not a problem, OK. Thank you. 

34 

Chairman Stevens. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Kitsos, I participated in the 1996 amendment 

that would require issuing a final decision for an appeal 90 days 

after the issuance of a notice of decision and the record was closed. 

I have before me the list of those consistency appeals. I think there 

are only two that were decided in less than a year. The months 

elapsed run from 23 months, 15 months, 16 months, 25 months, 39 

months, 49 months, 48 months, 50 months, 38 months, and 50 

months. Two of them were withdrawn, one after 50 months. 

That does not sound to me like what you have just testified, a 

year plus 90 days. We had a law that said you would close the 

record within a reasonable period of time, and 90 days after that 

you would make a decision. Now, it seems to me through rulemaking you have decided that 270 days is a reasonable period of 

time. Where did you get that? 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, that is based on the experience of the Department on how much time it takes to deal with some of these difficult 

consistency issues. Senator, I do not have that list in front of me. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad to put it in the record. The question is, how long does it take from the objection date? You are answering from the decision to close; the question is from objection 

to close. We have got some interesting times coming. 

Just for instance, I am sure we will hear about this later, but I 

was told just last week that by 2015 we will be importing 40 percent of our natural gas. There are only two places in the United 

States will allow that to be done now, despite repeated attempts. 

So the industry now is going to Mexico on the West Coast. I assume they will go to Canada on the East Coast. There is one place 

in Maine where they now can go, I understand, one place, a Native 

reservation in Maine. 

But do you think you can have this record duplicated in connection with those offshore plants? 

[The information referred to follows:] 

35 

OCS-Related Coastal Zone Consistency Appeals 

Since 1982 there have been 14 appeals that have had Secretarial decisions issued and of those, 7 of the 

State’s objections have been overridden. There have been others which were settled, dismissed on procedural grounds, or withdrawn before getting to a Secretarial decision. There are no active OCS activity appeals. 

Consistency 

Appeals Company State Objection Date 

Appeal 

Filed 

Months 

Elapsed 

Decision 

Date Decision 

P-OCS 0203 Exploration Plan Union CA 11/17/82 12/17/82 23 11/9/84 Granted 

Santa Rosa Exploration Plan Exxon CA 7/26/83 8/26/83 15 11/14/84 Denied 

Santa Ynez Development 

and Production Plan 

Exxon CA 6/23/83 7/22/83 16 11/18/84 Partial Decision; 6/87 

Agreement 

P-OCS 0505 Exploration Plan Gulf/Chevron CA 2/14/85 3/13/85 9 12/23/85 Granted 

NPDES Permit* Korea 

Drilling 

Co. 

CA 11/14/86 12/12/86 25 1/19/89 Granted 

P-OCS 0512 Exploration Plan Texaco CA 2/23/88 3/23/88 14 5/19/89 Granted 

P-OCS 0522 Exploration Plan Conoco CA 6/9/88 6/29/88 39 9/23/91 Withdrawn 

P-OCS 0525 Exploration Plan Chevron CA 6/9/88 7/1/88 28 10/29/90 Denied 

Pulley Ridge 

Blocks 629 

630 Exploration Plan 

Unocal FL 11/22/88 12/21/88 49 1/7/93 Denied 

Pulley Ridge 

Blocks 799 

Exploration 

Plan 

Mobil FL 12/16/88 1/11/89 48 1/7/93 Denied 

Galahad Prospect Exploration Plan 

Amoco AK 3/6/89 4/3/89 15 7/20/90 Granted 

Manteo Prospect NPDES 

Permit 

Mobil NC 7/17/90 7/27/90 50 9/2/94 Denied 

Manteo Prospect Block 

467 Exploration Plan 

Mobil NC 11/19/90 12/6/90 45 9/2/94 Denied 

Diamond/Emerald Prospects 

Exploration 

Plan 

Texaco AK 11/9/90 12/7/90 3 Withdrawn 3/91 Agreement 

Destin Dome 

Block 97 Exploration Plan 

Chevron FL 2/26/91 3/11/91 22 1/8/93 Granted 

Pensacola Block 

889 Supplemental Exploration Plan 

Mobil FL 4/6/92 4/29/92 38 6/20/95 Granted 

Destin Dome 

Block 56 Unit 

Chevron FL 2/17/98 3/9/98 50 Withdrawn Reached 

Agreement 5/02; 

Executed 

Agreement 7/02 

*National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 

36 

Timeline for Selected Appeals 

Union Exploration Partners Consistency Appeal Pulley Ridge 

02/18/88 Union Submitted Proposed Plan of Exploration (and accompanying Environmental Report (ER)) 

04/08/88 MMS Determined Union’s Plan and ER Complete 

04/14/88 State of Florida (Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation) Began Review of 

Union’s Consistency Certification 

06/03/88 MMS Approved Union’s Plan and ER Subject to State Consistency Certification 

08/16/88 State Notified MMS that Could Neither Concur nor Object—Needed Information from Two FL/DOI Task Groups and State Requested Additional Information from Union 

09/08/88 Union Provided Additional Information 

11/22/88 State Objected to Union’s Proposed Plan of Exploration (Inconsistent with 

State CMP—Unique ecosystem and socioeconomic effects not adequately considered) 

12/21/88 Union Filed Appeal to Secretary of Commerce and Requested 30 Day Extension from Briefing Schedule Issuance 

03/09/89 DOC Granted Union’s Request for an Extension 

03/29/89 Federal Register Notice of Appeal and Request for Comments 

04/19/89 Union Filed Timely Brief for Appeal 

04&05/89 FL Newspaper Request for Comments on Appeal 

04/28/89 DOC Solicited Views of 5 Federal Agencies and the National Security Council 

05/11/89 DOC Granted State Time Extension for Response 

05/24/89 State Requested a Public Hearing on Issues from this Appeal and Companion 

Appeal of Mobil 

06/02/89 NOAA Granted State’s Request 

07/06/89 State Filed Timely Brief in Response to Union’s Appeal 

09/89 Local Hearings Held on Both Union and Mobil Appeals 

10/12/89 2 FL/DOI Task Group Reports Admitted to Record (‘‘Oil Spill Risk Assessment 

Task Force Report’’ & ‘‘Southwest Florida OCS Drilling Impact Assessment 

Task Force Report’’) 

10/12&13/89 Union Filed Supplemental Information to Its Appeal 

10/15/89 Record Closed to Public Comment 

11/20/89 Union, Mobil. and the State Mutually Agreed Secretary Should Delay Establishment of Final Briefing Schedule (until after release of President’s Outer 

Continental Shelf Leasing and Development Task Force report—Unless report not released by end of January 1990) 

04/06/90 Secretary of Commerce established Final Briefing Schedule (President’s Task 

Force Report not out) 

05/21/90 State Requested Stay of Briefing Schedule 

05/22/90 Union Opposed Stay 

05/25/90 Union and State Both Filed Timely Final Briefs 

06/07/90 DOC Denied Stay 

06/08/90 Union and State Both Filed Timely Supplemental Final Briefs 

06/26/90 President Imposed Moratorium on Oil and Gas Leasing and Development off 

Coast of Florida 

01/07/93 Secretary of Commerce Denies Union’s Appeal—(Ground 1: Not consistent 

with the objectives of the CZMA due to the value of the environmental resources and the potential for significant damage if impacted by oil. Ground 

2: National Security not significantly impaired.) 

37 

Timeline for Selected Appeals 

Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. Consistency Appeal Pulley Ridge 

05/13/88 Mobil Submitted Proposed Plan of Exploration (and accompanying documents) 

06/13/88 MMS Determined Mobil’s Plan and Accompanying Documents Complete 

06/15/88 State of Florida (Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation) Began Review of 

Mobil’s Consistency Certification 

07/13/88 MMS Approved Mobil’s Plan, Environmental Report, Environmental Assessment and Informed Mobil that Drilling Permits Would Not be Issued Pending State Consistency Certification Review and MMS Approval of a Biological Monitoring Plan 

09/12/88 State Notified MMS that Could Neither Concur nor Object—Needed Information from Two FL/DOI Task Groups 

12/14/88 State Objected to Mobil’s Proposed Plan of Exploration and Accompanying Documents (Proposed activity inconsistent with the provisions of Florida statutes.) 

1/12/89 Mobil Filed Appeal to Secretary of Commerce and Requested 30 Day Extension 

from Briefing Schedule Issuance 

03/09/89 DOC Granted Mobil’s Request for an Extension 

03/29/89 Federal Register Notice of Appeal and Request for Comments 

04/19/89 Mobil Filed Timely Brief for Appeal 

04&05/89 FL Newspaper Request for Comments on Appeal 

04/28/89 DOC Solicited Views of Federal Agencies and the National Security Council 

05/22/89 State Requested a Public Hearing on Issues from this Appeal and Companion 

Appeal of Union 

06/02/89 NOAA Granted State’s Request 

06/15/89 State Filed Timely Brief in Response to Mobil’s Appeal 

09/89 Local Hearings Held on Both Mobil and Union Appeals 

10/12/89 2 FL/DOI Task Group Reports Admitted to Record (‘‘Oil Spill Risk Assessment 

Task Force Report’’ & ‘‘Southwest Florida OCS Drilling Impact Assessment 

Task Force Report’’) 

10/12/89 Mobil Filed Supplemental Information to Its Appeal 

10/15/89 Record Closed to Public Comment 

11/20/89 Mobil, Union, and the State Mutually Agreed Secretary Should Delay Establishment of Final Briefing Schedule (until after release of President’s Outer 

Continental Shelf Leasing and Development Task Force report—Unless report not released by end of January 1990) 

04/06/90 Secretary of Commerce established Final Briefing Schedule (President’s Task 

Force Report not out) 

05/21/90 State Requested Stay of May 25, 1990 Final Brief Filing and June 8, 1990 

Supplemental Final Brief Filing Deadlines 

05/22/90 Mobil Opposed Stay 

06/07/90 DOC Denied Stay 

06/26/90 President Imposed Moratorium on Oil and Gas Leasing and Development off 

Coast of Florida 

01/07/93 Secretary of Commerce Denies Mobil’s Appeal—(Ground 1: Not consistent with 

the objectives of the CZMA due to over-all adverse effects presumed to be 

substantial. Ground 2: National Security not significantly impaired.) 

Dr. KITSOS. I think that if the proposed rule becomes final you 

will see those time limits reduced substantially. One of the—my 

sense of the data that you just quoted, Senator—and I would need 

to get back to you with a more detailed response for the record. But 

one of the issues in the 1996 amendments was that there was no 

time limit on when the Secretary of Commerce could close the 

record. Once the record was closed, then there were clear time limits. 

The CHAIRMAN. We were told at the time that they would decide 

what was a reasonable time. Do you remember that? 

Dr. KITSOS. Yes. I was not involved in that, but I do know a little 

bit about the history of that. But the record was kept open apparently in a number of cases longer than what others might consider 

a reasonable amount of time. 

38 

The proposed rule does address that, though, and would put 

clearer time limits on the Secretary to close the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as Senator Snowe said, the energy provisions are unacceptable. One establishes a deadline for decision on 

appeals of a consistency determination. You have just said you are 

ready to set a deadline of a year; is that right? 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, it is approximately a year. There is 30 days to 

notify. I believe the rule says 30 days to notify everyone that an 

appeal has been received. The record is kept open for 270 days for 

the Secretary to gather the material that he needs, and then he 

must issue a decision within 90 days after that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unless he decides to add 45 days more. 

Dr. KITSOS. Exactly. But that would—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The other amendment is that the FERC record 

be the sole record for the administrative agency proceedings for application for authorization of offshore LNG or natural gas pipelines. 

That is highlighting what I have just said. That is the most critical 

problem facing the United States today, is how to get those onshore 

plants—how to get that LNG, natural gas—onshore. And we are to 

see at least a year and a half just on this kind of decision? There 

are lots of other decisions that have to be made about the pipelines 

beyond the CZMA hearing. 

So these are going to just pyramid. It takes so much time for 

that, it will take so much time for endangered species, so much 

time for whatever else. There are a whole series of things you have 

to do. They told me you have to have 71 permits to drill a well in 

my State on Federal land. Now, if every one of those agencies takes 

that year, I am going to be Carl Hayden’s age before we even approve the first application. 

Dr. KITSOS. Senator, the Department of Commerce and NOAA is 

of course committed to the President’s support for the energy legislation and for streamlining the process. We believe that we have, 

in the regulatory discussions we have had with the Interior Department, done a job of addressing that and reducing the amount of 

time that consistency appeals can be issued. 

The CHAIRMAN. How about some immediate finding as to whether the complaint has merit? This has no relationship at all to the 

kind of hearing that has to be had in the future, which is, does this 

complaint have any merit? Is it something that is within the law 

that you possibly could find as a justification for delaying an offshore gas pipeline or LNG pipeline? 

Why not do that? I think we will have to some day legislate that 

you can not interfere with those, because the future of the country 

depends upon energy and I do not know how we are going to get 

this gas distributed throughout the United States if we have to go 

to Mexico and Canada or Maine to deliver it to Florida or to Washington State. 

This hearing is a very sincere hearing to try and find a way to 

pave the way for an agreement with the Energy Committee on how 

to do this. 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, the consistency provision appeal process involves a private applicant bringing an appeal to the Secretary of 

Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce will make a judgment when 

39 

that is received. It is not an appeal brought by the States, Senator. 

It is an appeal brought in this case by—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, but anybody can bring it, and 

it triggers at least a year delay under your process. 

Dr. KITSOS. It triggers a year of a review of the appeal of the 

merits of the case and whether the Secretary should override the 

State or should uphold the State. That has been the process since 

1972 when the original CZMA was passed. It was reinforced by 

some strong amendments in 1990 by Congress and that is the way 

the process works. We believe we can cut down the amount of time 

and that is what we have in the potential rule that is currently 

being considered. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to ask Dr. Cruickshank. In the House energy bill it 

includes a provision that would give the Secretary of the Interior 

new authority to grant easements and rights-of-way to allow oil 

and gas activities to proceed in an expedited manner. My question 

is, since this is a provision that was not recommended by either the 

U.S. Ocean Commission report or the Pew Commission report, is 

it a provision that the Administration and the Secretary of Interior 

support? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes, Senator Nelson, the Administration does 

support that provision. I would note that the activities foreseen by 

that provision are activities that are not currently authorized 

under any act, particularly to look for offshore renewable energy, 

to allow support facilities for deepwater activities in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and to allow existing oil and gas platforms, which are primarily in the Gulf, to be converted for other uses should the agency 

with the underlying authority wish to use that platform as a base. 

All of these activities will be fully subject to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act and consistency review. 

Senator NELSON. Right, but it is a change of the existing act and 

the Administration, as you stated, does support that change. Now, 

as I see it it would streamline the permitting process by decreasing 

the input that coastal States would have on the process; is that correct? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. I do not see that, Senator. For most of these 

activities right now there is no established process. These are for 

activities that are not currently specifically authorized in law, and 

again the State would have a role, both through the CZMA and 

through NEPA, and our goal would be to try and operate the program, much as we do with the sand and gravel program, where we 

would enter into cooperative agreements with States to try and 

work through the issues that are of concern to them off their 

shores. 

Senator NELSON. Well, this provision supported by the Administration would cut NOAA out of the process, would it not? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. It would not—it would not remove any authority that any Federal agency currently has. 

Senator NELSON. And you maintain that this provision would not 

lessen the authorities of States to be able to protect their coastlines? 

40 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. That is correct. 

Senator NELSON. That is what you are maintaining? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes. 

Senator NELSON. Then why are you proposing the change in the 

existing law? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Because right now there is no law that specifically allows—that specifically addresses energy projects other than 

oil and gas exploration and development. And as has been noted 

both in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report and in the 

President’s Ocean Action Plan, there does need to be some sort of 

governance structure over some of the activities that are being proposed for the coastal waters and offshore waters. 

Senator NELSON. Right, so the provision is specifically for oil and 

gas. 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. No. It is aimed mostly at renewable energy. 

The only oil and gas items that would be covered is there have 

been requests to build platforms or facilities in the Gulf of Mexico 

to support some of the activities that are 150, 200 miles offshore; 

facilities that might house emergency medical facilities, helicopter 

refueling, things like that; and support activities that are authorized under other provisions, other parts of the OCS Lands Act. 

That is the only—where there is a reference to oil and gas in this 

new provision, it is thinking about facilities like that. It would not 

in any way change the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provisions for oil and gas leasing. 

Senator NELSON. So your testimony is that the provisions have 

nothing to do with oil and gas leasing? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. That is correct. 

Senator NELSON. On the outer continental shelf. 

All right. There is another provision that makes FERC the sole 

agency responsible for maintaining the record on appeal for pipeline construction. This is an activity that would come under the 

CZMA consistency requirements and includes a record with input 

from the State and the public. Does this provision lessen the State 

and public involvement in the process and does it cut the CZMA 

and the Secretary of Commerce out of the process? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Senator, I am not in a position to speak for 

FERC and I am not well enough aware of their programs. I would 

say from the Department of the Interior’s perspective we feel that 

the issues can be dealt with through the rulemaking process, as Dr. 

Kitsos has discussed. 

Senator SNOWE. To follow up on that question that Senator Nelson posed on restricting the gas projects appeals to the FERC 

record of information, what information would be—is it so openended now that it becomes burdensome? 

Dr. CRUICKSHANK. Again, I cannot speak for the FERC process. 

FERC is not part of the Department of the Interior and I simply 

do not have the background to be able to talk about how FERC 

conducts their business. 

Senator SNOWE. But that is central to this program and its reauthorization. It is one of the other impediments to reauthorizing the 

Coastal Zone Management Act, as one of the issues that is probably going to be pending in the energy markup. 

Dr. Kitsos, can you speak to that? 

41 

Dr. KITSOS. Carefully. There is an issue in the energy bill, Senator, regarding the record that would be available to the Secretary 

of Commerce for consistency appeals, the discussion that Senator 

Stevens and I just had. There is a provision that would limit that 

record to just the FERC record. 

The Department of Commerce and NOAA is concerned about 

that because we believe the Secretary of Commerce needs to make 

a consistency decision based on a broader record based on coastal 

zone management issues and principles and the enforceable policies of the States, as CSO has just testified. The FERC record is 

important for FERC. The offshore oil and gas record is important 

to the Secretary of the Interior. But the Secretary of Commerce has 

other grounds based on statutory language on which he or she 

must make a decision about an appeal, whether to override or 

whether to sustain. We are concerned about limiting that record. 

Senator SNOWE. Ms. Cooksey? 

Ms. COOKSEY. I would like to reiterate that point. You are asking 

an excellent question that I also would like the answer to. I do not 

know what is going to be required to be in that record and that 

is a concern. We do not know what the decision will be made upon. 

Will it be about coastal effects, coastal economy, coastal resources? 

The CHAIRMAN. Could I interject here? 

Senator SNOWE. You may, Chairman Stevens. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why could not these two proceedings be joined? 

Why do we have to have these things seriatim? You have an application to one agency, we go through a year, then it has to go to 

another agency for a year, then we will probably have a NEPA 

hearing after that. Why can we not have one-stop shopping on 

something that is so essential to the future of the country? 

We are not talking about leasing. We are talking about facilities, 

facilities to bring onshore energy. Now, I just cannot understand 

why each Department and each agency wants its full time one after 

the other. I think once an application is filed with FERC we should 

tell them: You notify Interior, you notify Commerce, you notify anyone who has got a law that might be applicable to this, and you 

join together and you have a hearing and you make a decision. And 

that will be reviewable by a court on an emergency basis if necessary. 

This has to be done. It will take 6 years to build those facilities 

and they have to be ready by 2015. I just do not understand it. 

Ms. Cooksey, with due respect, there has to be some way to join 

these things together. 

Ms. COOKSEY. Senator Stevens, I agree with you. I think that 

FERC should have started this process years ago and I think that 

they should have looked at it minimally on a regional level. Where 

is the place to site these? Which States want these? Where will it 

have the least amount of impact? 

I have not seen that. It is a patchwork quilt. Then an application 

lands on my desk with an expedited review and it becomes burdensome upon the States to get all that information together. I believe 

the Federal Government has dropped the ball on this, not the 

States. 

42 

Senator SNOWE. Well, what should be the requirement on the 

Federal Government? What could we do differently that would help 

that situation? 

Ms. COOKSEY. Again, in my view I believe it is the Federal Government’s role to take a look nationwide. Where should these be 

sited? 

Senator SNOWE. That is a difficult question, given the fact that 

you are talking about States’ rights. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the basic problem is—I agree with the chairman. 

Ms. COOKSEY. That would be part of—that would be included in 

the analysis. The State of Delaware has a prohibition of certain facilities in certain areas, and FERC should have looked at that 

ahead of time in my view. 

Senator SNOWE. But is there not a better way? You really would 

be running roughshod over States’ rights—I do not think that 

would work well in my State. But is there not another way of addressing the problems that Chairman Stevens is talking about? 

You have a sort of a linear, consecutive approach, rather than having an overarching one-stop shopping regulatory process with respect to the consideration of these decisions and the appeal process. 

Is there a way of doing that, Dr. Kitsos—a way so that you are 

considering everything? 

Dr. KITSOS. I think there is a way, Senator, for the Federal family to work more concurrently, along the lines of what Senator Stevens has indicated. 

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that as chairman I ask Senator Domenici for consultation between the two committees and let us just get 

together. Our two committees have the jurisdiction over what is 

being asked and I think we should not fight. We should find a way 

to expedite this and satisfy the requirements of having some sort 

of right to appeal on consistency, but get it done. 

Dr. KITSOS. I think that is possible, Senator. Our concern is to 

make sure that the States’ rights are protected under the CZMA, 

but that there is a way to do this expeditiously. 

Senator SNOWE. I could not agree with you more. 

Yes, Senator Nelson, any final questions? 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Kitsos, in your prepared testimony you note 

that CMZA—CZMA has been successful and that States have concurred with 95 percent of the Federal actions reviewed. Do you 

think the Secretary of Commerce has done a good job balancing the 

Nation’s interests with the coastal States’ management programs 

in the appeals process? 

Dr. KITSOS. I think the Secretaries of Commerce throughout the 

years have done a wonderful job, Senator, in balancing. 

Senator NELSON. So you do not think that taking this responsibility away from the Secretary of Commerce to give to the Secretary of the Interior is a good idea, do you? 

Dr. KITSOS. We believe that the Secretary of Commerce should 

retain the appeal authority under the original legislation that has 

been supported for about 33 years by the Congress. The CZMA program is a Department of Commerce NOAA program and, as I indicated in my earlier response, the basis of decisions about appeals 

are particular to the question of—the principles and the purposes 

43 

and the policies of coastal zone management. Giving that authority 

to other secretaries would lose expertise in the history of the development of the CZM program in the Department of Commerce. We 

believe that an objective third party like the Secretary of Commerce should be making that decision on appeals that come to him 

or her. 

I would note, though, that many appeals do not come. They are 

worked out ahead of time, and those that are eventually—most 

consistency issues are resolved without having to appeal. 

Senator NELSON. So you believe that a consistency provision, a 

Federal consistency provision, is an important part of the CZMA 

and it is an important tool for States to manage their coastlines? 

Dr. KITSOS. It is an extremely important tool for the States. I believe CSO would support that statement. CZMA is basically a program that gives States—is a voluntary program that encourages 

States to participate based on two things. One is a modest amount 

of money to carry out their program. Second is the authority they 

get under Federal consistency. 

As a result, almost all States now are participants. 

Senator NELSON. You would testify that the Federal consistency 

provision is an important tool because it allows for broad definition 

on what effects on land, water, natural resources triggers the 

CZMA consistency determination; is that correct? 

Dr. KITSOS. It gives States the opportunity to declare to Federal 

agencies who are about to take an action or issue a permit or a license that the actions are consistent or are not consistent with the 

enforceable policies of a State program. That has been a basic principle of CZMA from the very beginning. We think it is important. 

Senator NELSON. And effects are not just environmental, but also 

involve effects on coastal uses; is that correct? 

Dr. KITSOS. That is correct. 

Senator NELSON. And indirect effects as well as direct effects 

that are reasonably foreseeable trigger consistency determinations; 

is that correct? 

Dr. KITSOS. That is also correct, and that is based on amendments made in 1990 to the CZMA to clarify that issue. What you 

have just said is correct. 

Senator NELSON. Then is it true that limiting the geographic 

scope of a State’s Federal consistency jurisdiction would weaken a 

State’s current ability under the consistency provision? 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, this is a very tricky issue, Senator. There are 

safeguards in NOAA’s current regulations that would constrain a 

State from going too far afield from making consistency claims. But 

Congress did make it clear in 1990 that the effects test is the basis 

on which consistency should be triggered, and an action, no matter 

where it may occur, if it affects the land and water use and the 

natural resources of the coastal zone, is subject to the consistency 

review of that State. That has been a principle that has been in 

effect for a long time, the subject of the rulemaking by NOAA in 

2000, and also the basis on which the current negotiations for a 

change to the rule is based. 

Senator NELSON. You and I were a member of the House when 

we passed that 1990 act. 

Senator SNOWE. That is right. Yes, a few years ago. 

44 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could enter into that just one comment, I was 

a member over here, too. But our understanding was just what Dr. 

Kitsos just said, that we would not have a situation where Rhode 

Island or Massachusetts could have an input in what happened off 

Maine. 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, there is an interstate consistency regulation 

that NOAA had promulgated some years ago for dealing with activities in the coastal zone of one State vis-a`-vis the coastal zone 

of another State. That is part of the development of the rules and 

regulations. 

There is also additionally the issue of the effects of activities in 

Federal waters and that is the consistency issue, Senator. That is 

the 1990 amendments that I referred to before, and if there is an 

effect—if there is activity off of State A that has an effect on the 

land and water uses of State B in their coastal zone, State B would 

have some authority to exercise consistency. 

There are details that I would like to provide you for the record 

that constrain that to some extent. States have to declare geographic locations where activities are subject to consistency, but 

the basic principle of where is the effect still obtains. 

Senator NELSON. Madam Chairman, as a follow-up to that, therefore, on the basis of what you just said, if the State of Louisiana 

or the State of Mississippi or Alabama were to redraw their lines 

as to the oil and gas drilling so that in fact it was off the coast of 

Florida—— 

The CHAIRMAN. How far off? 

Senator NELSON.—therefore that would have or trigger the consistency requirement of State A and B that you just outlined? 

Dr. KITSOS. I do not think the States of Louisiana and Alabama 

could redraw their lines. 

Senator NELSON. Well, they are going to try tomorrow in the Energy Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, how far are you talking about? 

Senator NELSON. We will see how they draw the lines. 

The CHAIRMAN. How far off the shore does Florida claim? 

Senator NELSON. I think what you are going to see is the prohibition that has been worked out between the Federal Government 

and the Governor of Florida on Lease Sale 181, that was 6 million 

acres proposed for lease and the Governor of Florida got into it and 

constricted it back to 1.5 million acres so that it was off of Alabama, not off of Florida, I think you are going to see that attempted to be redrawn tomorrow in the Senate Energy Committee 

by Senator Landrieu’s amendment. 

Senator SNOWE. Just a couple points and then Senator Lautenberg is here. 

On these limits on this Federal appeals process and the consistency and the comment period, I have heard in some cases—I do not 

know if it was in the House legislation—that these limits would be 

retroactive, applying to appeals made before and after enactment 

of the legislation. 

Dr. KITSOS. I am not familiar with all the details in H.R.—— 

Senator SNOWE. How onerous would that be, above and beyond 

everything else, to limit the comment period? And to make it retroactive to other appeals? 

45 

Dr. KITSOS. I think that would be a difficult process for the Department to adhere to. 

Senator SNOWE. One other question. On the effects test, is it 

clarifying what activities trigger consistency? Has that been a hindrance at all in this process? 

Dr. KITSOS. Well, I think you may hear some witnesses following 

us that will argue that it has not been very helpful. On behalf of 

the Department, I think it helped to clarify what activities trigger 

consistency. Prior to 1990 there was a phrase in the law that said 

‘‘activities that directly affect the coastal zone’’ and that was subject to some dispute. That helped clarify that, the 1990 amendments helped clarify that particular issue. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I am going to 

use my time to just make my statement and I assume that the 

record will be kept open long enough for us to submit questions in 

writing. I thank you for holding this hearing. 

People might not think that Maine and New Jersey have much 

in common. Apparently Louisiana and Florida and Alabama have 

a lot in common when it comes to getting out there and poking 

holes in the seabase, looking for oil, et cetera. 

We insist that proper management of the coastal area is vitally 

important. I know that it is in Maine and so it is in New Jersey. 

Coastal areas for us provide economic activity, jobs from tourism 

to fishing, and our shore accounts for 70 percent of my State’s $30 

billion tourist industry. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy estimates that economic activity in our Nation’s oceans and along our 

coastline accounts for $1 trillion a year and that is 10 percent of 

our Nation’s GDP. 

Coastal economies are booming. Try and get your car through 

some of these communities and you will find out how booming it 

is. The population is skyrocketing in our coastal areas. Over the 

next 7 years, population growth in my State, the most densely populated State in the Union, in four coastal counties is projected to 

be about 44 percent greater than the State as a whole. 

This coastal population explosion is not unique to New Jersey. 54 

percent of all Americans now live in 772 coastal counties adjacent 

to our Nation’s shorelines. In 20 years nearly 75 percent of Americans are expected to live in coastal counties. As our population becomes more concentrated along the coastlines, we exert new pressures on our fragile coastal environment and our resources. Almost 

every day we hear now of strange algae blooms in our bays, our 

fish kills, our houses plunging into the sea from an eroding beach. 

So I do not think Congress has any option but to strengthen the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. The act has played an important 

role in protecting our coastlines. In my State, for example, it has 

enabled the development of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which has been extremely productive in terms of coastal research and monitoring the coastal environment. 

46 

So Senator Snowe’s CZMA reauthorization bill increases funding 

for coastal management plans and I applaud that. I also hope that 

the funding formula will be revised to reflect coastal population 

growth. We have got to protect the rights of States regarding what 

happens in their offshore areas, especially in the outer continental 

shelf. 

So, Madam Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing and 

I look forward to hearing the panel. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Madame Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing on this important issue. 

While people might not normally think that Maine and New Jersey have much 

in common, we realize that the proper management of coastal areas is vitally important to both our home states. 

Coastal areas provide economic activity and jobs, from tourism to fishing to trade. 

The New Jersey shore accounts for 70 percent of my state’s $30 billion dollar tourism industry. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy estimates that economic activity in our nation’s oceans and along our coastlines accounts for one trillion dollars a year—ten 

percent of our nation’s GDP. Coastal economies are booming—and the population in 

our coastal areas is skyrocketing. Over the next seven years, population growth in 

New Jersey’s four coastal counties is projected to be about 44 percent greater than 

in the state as a whole. 

This coastal population explosion is not unique to New Jersey. Fifty-four percent 

of all Americans now live in 772 coastal counties adjacent to our nation’s shorelines. 

In 20 years, nearly 75 percent of Americans are expected to live in coastal counties. 

As our population becomes more concentrated along our coastlines, we exert new 

pressures on our fragile coastal environment and resources. Almost every day we 

hear of strange algae blooms in our bays, or fish kills, or houses plunging into the 

sea from an eroding beach. 

I believe Congress has no option but to strengthen the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA). The CZMA has played an important role in protecting our coastlines. 

In my state, for example, it has enabled the development of the Jacques Cousteau 

National Estuarine Research Reserve system, which has been extremely productive 

in terms of coastal research and monitoring the coastal environment. 

Senator Snowe’s CZMA reauthorization bill increases funding for coastal zone 

management plans, which I applaud. I also hope that the funding formula will be 

revised to reflect coastal population growth. We also must protect the rights of states 

regarding what happens in their offshore areas. especially the outer continental 

shelf. 

Thank you Madame Chairman. I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator SNOWE. I thank you, Senator Lautenberg, and thank you 

as well for supporting the legislation. I appreciate it. 

I also thank the witnesses. Our debate and discussion on these 

issues will continue. We appreciate your input. We will be following 

up on many of these issues that ultimately could determine whether or not we can get this reauthorized as we continue. I thank you. 

Ms. COOKSEY. Thank you for inviting us. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Our second panel: Ms. Sarah Chasis, Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Water and Coastal Program; Tom Fry, 

President of the National Ocean Industries Association; Mr. Bill 

Jeffress, Director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting in the Alaska Department of Natural Resources; and Dr. Don 

Hudson, Chair-elect of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine 

Environment. Welcome. 

47 

I welcome all of our panelists and I would ask you to summarize 

your statements. We will include your entire statement in the 

record, and we will begin with you, Ms. Chasis. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, DIRECTOR, 

WATER AND COASTAL PROGRAM, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Ms. CHASIS. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe, and thank 

you also to Senator Stevens and Senator Lautenberg. We know how 

incredibly busy you all are and we very much appreciate your taking the time to hold this hearing and consider reauthorization of 

the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

I am testifying on behalf of NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, today. NRDC is very supportive of your bill, Senator 

Snowe, S. 360. We think it is important for this committee to reauthorize and strengthen the CZMA, as that bill would do. We are 

seeing increasing pressures on our Nation’s coastal resources and 

the CZMA provides a valuable framework for addressing both ongoing and emerging issues facing the coastal regions of the country. 

The Federal Government provides funding, oversight, and the 

promise of Federal consistency. In exchange, the States voluntarily 

develop and implement Federally approved programs that address 

important issues facing the coastal zone, an area of recognized national importance both ecologically and economically. 

The Pew Ocean Commission, on which NRDC’s President John 

Adams served and on which Pat White from your State, Senator 

Snowe, also served, a lobster fisherman, recognized the importance 

of the CZMA and recommended that the act be expanded to encourage coastal habitat protection and more active State and local 

growth management efforts. We are pleased to see that S. 360 responds to both of these recommendations. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that Congress reauthorize the CZMA to strengthen the planning and coordination capabilities of the States and enable them to incorporate a 

coastal watershed focus and more effectively manage growth. 

Again, S. 360 would address many of these recommendations. 

The President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan also states its support 

for reauthorization of the CZMA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you pull that mike up just a little? 

Ms. CHASIS. Sorry, Senator Stevens. You cannot hear me? I will 

try to speak more loudly. 

I would like to turn my brief oral remarks to concerns we have 

with various legislative proposals not included in S. 360 that are 

currently under consideration by Congress and that, if adopted, 

would substantially weaken a key element of the CZMA, the Federal consistency requirements. It is noteworthy that neither the 

Pew Oceans Commission nor the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

recommended altering the Federal consistency provisions of the 

CZMA. Indeed, the U.S. Commission specifically said, ‘‘Existing incentives for State participation, Federal funding and Federal consistency authority, should remain.’’ 

The National Governors Association recently took a strong stand 

in support of retaining the current Federal consistency provisions, 

48 

and in their revised policy statement they said the following: ‘‘The 

Governors oppose any legislation or rulemaking that might weaken 

the CZMA requirements for coordination and consistency, such as 

limiting the geographic scope of the States’ Federal consistency jurisdiction, limiting the ability to receive and analyze adequate environmental data and information, or limiting the development of the 

appeals record in a manner that would place States at a disadvantage or discourage negotiated resolution of appeals.’’ 

Yet many of the legislative proposals would do exactly this. They 

would limit the geographic scope of the States’ Federal consistency 

jurisdiction, for example by taking away the rights of States to consistency review for lease sales more than 20 miles from the State’s 

coastal zone. They would limit the ability to receive and analyze 

adequate environmental data or information, for example by putting FERC in charge of setting a mandatory timetable for completion of all Federal and State reviews, including consistency reviews, 

and giving one agency, such as FERC, the exclusive charge of compiling a single administrative record for all Federal and State decisions. 

They would limit the development of the appeals record in a 

manner that would place States at a disadvantage or discourage 

negotiated resolution of appeals, for example by setting unreasonable timeframes that may preclude consideration of relevant environmental information in environmental impact statements or in 

biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act. 

According to NOAA, in the history of the CZMA there have been 

only 14 instances where the oil and gas industry appealed a State’s 

Federal consistency objection to the Secretary of Commerce and the 

Secretary issued a decision. Of these 14 cases, there were 7 decisions to override the State’s objections, 7 decisions not to override. 

According to NOAA, and I quote: ‘‘The record shows that energy 

development continues to occur while reasonable State review ensures that the CZMA objectives have been met.’’ 

We oppose legislation that would weaken the consistency provisions of the CZMA and urge members of this committee to ensure 

that such legislation is not enacted. 

Thank you very much and I would be happy to entertain questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, DIRECTOR, WATER AND COASTAL PROGRAM, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Thank you for this invitation to testify regarding S. 360, the ‘‘Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005.’’ This testimony is submitted on behalf of 

the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national nonprofit organization with over 550,000 members, dedicated to protecting natural resources and 

improving the quality of the human environment. I am a senior attorney with 

NRDC and Director of NRDC’s Water and Coastal Program. 

Introduction: Support for S. 360 

NRDC has been involved with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) since 

the mid-1970s. During this time, we have worked with NOAA, the states and other 

environmental groups on the development and implementation of state coastal zone 

management programs. We have supported reauthorization and strengthening of 

the Act. Following the 1990 amendments to the CZMA, we participated in the implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program—because of the 

49 

need for enhanced control over polluted runoff into coastal waters—and in the revision of the Federal consistency regulations to conform to the 1990 amendments. 

NRDC strongly supports passage of S. 360. This bill would reauthorize and 

strengthen the CZMA at a time of increasing pressure on our nation’s coastal resources. The CZMA provides a valuable framework for addressing both ongoing and 

emerging issues facing the coastal regions of our country. The Act represents a valuable partnership between the Federal Government and the states: the Federal Government provides funding, oversight and the promise of Federal consistency; in exchange, the states voluntarily develop and implement Federally approved programs 

that address important issues facing the coastal zone—an area of national importance, both ecologically and economically. We believe continuation of this partnership is important to the Nation and that the Act should be reauthorized. 

Two Ocean Commissions and the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan all 

Support Reauthorization of the CZMA 

The Pew Oceans Commission (America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea 

Change, May 2003), the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (An Ocean Blueprint for 

the 21st Century, September 2004) and the President (U.S. Ocean Action Plan) all 

have supported reauthorization of the CZMA. 

The Pew Ocean Commission, on which NRDC’s President John Adams served, recognized the importance of the CZMA and recommended that the Act be expanded 

to include a mandate for coastal habitat protection. POC Report at 118–119. The 

Commission also recommended encouraging more active state and local growthmanagement efforts, as well as coordination of efforts among local jurisdictions and 

adjacent states to ensure a rational regional approach. POC Report at 119. S. 360 

responds to both of these recommendations. It encourages a focus on coastal habitat 

protection and restoration in Section 8 of the bill (amending Section 306A, the 

Coastal Resource Improvement Program). In Section 11, S. 360 establishes a whole 

new program (Section 309A of the CZMA) to provide coastal community grants to 

encourage state and local communities to, among other things, assess and manage 

growth, public infrastructure and open space needs in order to provide for sustainable growth, resource protection and community revitalization. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that Congress reauthorize 

the CZMA to strengthen the planning and coordination capabilities of the states and 

enable them to incorporate a coastal watershed focus and more effectively manage 

growth. To this end, the U.S. Commission recommended including requirements for 

periodic resource assessments by each state, the development by each state of measurable goals and performance standards, improved program evaluations to measure 

state progress against these goals and standards, incentives for good performance 

and disincentives for inaction and expansion of state boundaries to include coastal 

watersheds. U.S. COP Report at 154–155. The Commission also recommended 

amending the Act to provide better financial, technical, and institutional support for 

watershed management activities. U.S. COP Report at 160. S. 360 responds to some, 

though not all, of these recommendations. It would be worthwhile for this Committee to consider incorporating more of these recommendations in S. 360. 

The President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan also states its support for reauthorization 

of the CZMA. Plan at 27. 

Additional Comments on S. 360 

We are generally supportive of language that encourages states to devote a meaningful portion of their CZM money to curbing polluted runoff into coastal waters. 

In the past, we have supported having a specific percentage of the Section 306/306A/ 

309 grant money spent on implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program in order to achieve needed progress in addressing water quality. We regret 

that there is nothing requiring this in S. 380. However, we do note and are supportive of language in Section 17 of S. 380 that would ensure that at least of portion 

of the new coastal community grants is spent on implementation of approved coastal 

nonpoint pollution control strategies and measures. (We recommend that it should 

be made clear that a state may spend more on these strategies should it so desire.) 

We strongly recommend that more money be provided to the states for implementation of the important Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. 

Concerns With Respect to Other Legislation 

We are very concerned about various legislative proposals—not included in S. 

360—that are currently under consideration that, if adopted, would substantially 

weaken a key element of the CZMA, the Federal consistency requirements. There 

are various proposals now before Congress to modify the Federal consistency appeals process and/or to limit the geographic scope of the consistency requirement 

(see, for example, S. 726 and H.R. 6). 

50 

It is noteworthy that neither the Pew Ocean Commission nor the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended altering the Federal consistency provisions of 

the CZMA. Indeed, the U.S. Commission specifically said: ‘‘Existing incentives for 

state participation—Federal funding and Federal consistency authority—should 

remain*.’’ U.S. COP Report at 155. 

The National Governors Association (NGA) recently took a strong stand in support of retaining the current Federal consistency provisions. NGA’s recently revised 

ocean-related policy Ocean and Coastal Zone Management (transmitted to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee on March 18, 2005) states that: 

‘‘The Governors urge Congress to retain all provisions of the act that ensure all 

Federal activities within or outside the coastal zone that may affect the coastal zone 

are subject to the consistency review process. The Governors firmly believe that all 

Federal actions in the coastal zone—or affecting any natural resources, land uses, 

or water uses in the coastal zone—should be fully consistent with approved coastal 

zone management plans. Consultation with states should begin early in the permitting and environmental impact assessment process. The Governors oppose any legislation or rulemaking that might weaken the CZMA requirements for coordination 

and consistency, such as: 

• limiting the geographic scope of the states’ Federal consistency jurisdiction; 

• limiting the ability to receive and analyze adequate environmental data and information; or 

• limiting the development of the appeals record in a manner that would place 

states at a disadvantage or discourage negotiated resolution of appeals.’’ 

NGA Ocean and Coastal Zone Management Policy Position 10.4.3. (Emphasis 

added). 

Yet many of the legislative proposals would do exactly what the Governors oppose: 

limit the geographic scope of the states’ Federal consistency jurisdiction (for example, by taking away the rights of states to consistency review for lease sales more 

than 20 miles from the state’s coastal zone); limit the ability to receive and analyze 

adequate environmental data or information (for example, by putting FERC in 

charge of setting the mandatory timetable for completion of all Federal and state 

reviews, including consistency reviews, and giving one agency, such as FERC or 

MMS, the exclusive charge of compiling a single administrative record for all Federal and state decisions); and limit the development of the appeals record in a manner that would place states at a disadvantage or discourage negotiated resolution 

of appeals (for example, by setting unreasonable timeframes for appeal decisions 

that may preclude consideration of relevant environmental information in EIS’s or 

Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act, or putting FERC in charge 

of compiling the record). 

According to NOAA, in the history of the CZMA, there have been only 14 instances where the oil and gas industry appealed a State’s Federal Consistency objection to the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary issued a decision. Of these 14 

cases, there were 7 decisions to override the State’s objection, 7 decisions not to 

override the State. ‘‘The record shows that energy development continues to occur, 

while reasonable State review ensures that the CZMA objectives have been met.’’ 

See 67 Federal Register 44409 (July 2, 2002). 

We strongly oppose legislation that would weaken the consistency provisions of 

the CZMA. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. Fry. 

STATEMENT OF TOM FRY, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FRY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to be back with you again. Senator Stevens, nice to be with 

you, and Senator Lautenberg. Thank you all for being here. 

My name is Tom Fry. I am the President of the National Ocean 

Industries Association. I am here on behalf of that association. In 

addition, I am here on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, 

the Domestic Petroleum Council, the Independent Petroleum AssoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
51 

ciation of America, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the Natural Gas Supply Association, and the U.S. Oil and 

Gas Association. I think I am out of time now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FRY. What that group is is all of the trade associations who 

represent folks in the oil and gas industry. Our association is 

uniquely positioned to talk about offshore in that our membership 

is made up of people who work only in the offshore. It is not only 

producing companies; the drilling contractors, the service companies, construction companies, shippers, the geophysical companies, 

supply companies, and even professionals, lawyers and accountants. So I am here today on behalf of all of those different groups. 

First, Madam Chairman, I would like to say that we do support 

the Coastal Zone Management Act. The tenets of the act, to support a healthy and vibrant coastal zone, are very important to us 

and dovetail very nicely with our desire to produce energy for the 

Nation in a safe and environmental way. However, there have been 

a few—we think—unintended consequences of the Act. Outlined in 

my testimony are some technical changes that we think would help 

improve the ability of the Act to respond to the needs of the country, both the States and the needs of the country from an energy 

standpoint. 

As has been mentioned before in this hearing, there has been a 

lot of talk about the number of appeals that have taken place in 

the past. We readily acknowledge that in most cases the consistency provisions work very well in those States where oil and gas 

activity already occurs. We also are not here today to argue about 

whether or not the Secretary of Commerce or Interior or whoever 

makes the final decision, what decision they should make on coastal zone management appeals. That is a decision that has to be 

made by those individuals. 

What we are asking for is some certainty to the process. We 

would like to have the process come to a conclusion. As has been 

pointed out, there is legislation that talks about a certain number 

of days. There is proposed legislation talking about the certain 

number of days. The problem has been that the record never closes 

and so we never get to those days running. Or if those days are 

running, somebody puts a stop on those days running, saying we 

need additional information. 

That is what has prevented decisions from being made. It has 

run across administrations. The last appeal sat in the Clinton Administration and in the Bush Administration for over 50 months 

with neither Secretary making a decision and the case finally needing to be settled. The reason it was able to sit there is because they 

kept saying—people kept saying, we need more information. We 

need to bring these matters to a conclusion. 

Companies who invest millions of dollars in lease sales that have 

been offered by the Federal Government, spend millions more to 

develop those leases that they have paid money for, deserve the opportunity to have a process wherein they can come to a final conclusion about—come to a final conclusion and decisions be made 

about consistency. 

Now, I want to also make it clear that it has never been our intention to cut the States out of this process. I think there has been 

52 

a lot of discussion that we are trying to have the States not be a 

part of the consistency process. Let me go through all the times the 

States are involved. The States are involved in the planning of the 

5-year plan. The States are involved in the planning for lease sales. 

The States are involved on a consistency basis with the exploration 

plans, drilling plans, and development plans. 

We are not asking for any of that to go away. We are only asking 

that when the appeals come forward to the Secretary that there be 

some end game in mind about how to make that happen. 

We would also request that the five or more Federal agencies 

begin to work more closely together so that we can have a single 

consistency certification for each project. Right now you may have 

as many as three, four, or five that have to go through consistency 

review. It means that all the parties are having to do duplicative 

work and I think it just makes good sense and really argues for 

better government. 

We would also suggest that those who are best able, those who 

are most knowledgeable about processes and how processes work, 

in whatever area it is, be those people who set the standards for 

appeals and be those people who make those determinations. 

So if I could reiterate one more time, Madam Chairwoman, we 

really feel strongly that the Coastal Zone Management Act can 

work, it can work very well, and we would just like to find a way 

to bring some certainty to the process. 

Thank you so much for your time. We look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM FRY, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify here today on S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act 

of 2005. I serve as President of the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA). 

NOIA is the only national trade association representing all segments of the offshore energy industry. The NOIA membership comprises more than 300 companies 

engaged in activities ranging from producing to drilling, engineering to marine and 

air transport, offshore construction to equipment installation, manufacture and supply, and geophysical surveying to diving. 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of NOIA, the American Petroleum Institute, 

the Domestic Petroleum Council, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the Natural Gas Supply 

Association, and the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. Our seven national trade associations represent thousands of companies, both majors and independents, engaged in 

all sectors of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. 

While our industry supports the Coastal Zone Management Act’s (CZMA) stated 

purpose of balancing the often competing and conflicting demands of coastal resource use, economic development, and conservation through cooperative partnerships among Federal, state and local governments, we do not believe that the current statute is meeting that goal. Instead, the current implementation of the CZMA 

has produced regulatory uncertainty and unreasonably impeded outer continental 

shelf exploration and production projects, as well as the siting of offshore energy infrastructure. Therefore, while we support a reauthorization of the Act, we could not 

support S. 360 unless it was amended to clarify the CZMA and correct the implementation deficiencies. 

CZMA Implementation Affects U.S. Energy Production 

It is important to consider the implementation of the CZMA in the context of the 

overall energy challenges facing our nation. Energy demand is on the rise. The U.S. 

economy currently requires 20 million barrels of oil and 63 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day, according to the Energy Information Administration’s Annual 

53 

Energy Outlook 2005, and these numbers are expected to increase in coming years. 

Without a concurrent increase in supply, this situation is unsustainable and could 

lead to serious economic repercussions for both consumers and industries dependent 

on natural gas and oil—industries as diverse as automobiles, chemicals, electricity 

generation, airplane fuel, agricultural fertilizers, clothing manufacturing, and plywood production. 

Addressing regulatory inefficiencies that hinder or stall the development of a significant portion of our domestic energy resources is one achievable step toward increasing domestic supply and meeting our nation’s energy needs. 

The issues associated with the coastal zone management process represent a significant threat to the energy industry’s ability to explore for and produce offshore 

oil and natural gas, and consequently present a substantial impediment to the development of domestic energy supplies. Failure to make the necessary changes to 

the CZMA will continue to contribute to the supply-demand imbalance, increased reliance on foreign sources of energy, and the shifting overseas of thousands of jobs 

and billions of dollars in U.S. revenue. 

It is for these reasons that we strongly urge the Committee to clarify the CZMA 

and correct the implementation deficiencies. Overlapping jurisdiction of multiple 

government agencies, coupled with conflicting Federal laws (or conflicting interpretations of these statutes) have resulted in serious problems with the coastal zone 

management process. Companies trying to find and develop offshore energy resources frequently encounter duplicative requirements that result in costly delays 

in the regulatory process, even when these activities would not adversely impact 

states’ coastal zones. As noted in the President’s National Energy Policy Report, 

delays and uncertainties of the CZMA can hinder proper energy exploration and 

production projects. 

Proposed Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act 

In order to allow the CZMA to achieve its intended purpose without hindering the 

Nation’s energy development, we strongly urge the Committee to consider the following technical amendments to the CZMA in S. 360: 

(1) Amend the definition of ‘‘enforceable policy’’ in 16 U.S.C. § 1453(6a) to limit 

a state’s CZMA consistency review to activities occurring within its own boundaries 

or offshore its own state. The CZMA was intended to grant a state the right to conduct a consistency review of Federal licenses and permits within the territorial 

boundaries of that state. However, the statute has been implemented to allow states 

to review activities and block permits for activities taking place offshore other 

states. This amendment would still allow states to conduct a consistency review for 

all licenses and permits within its boundaries and off its own shore, but would stop 

states from interfering with the actions of other states within the other states’ 

boundaries or off the other states’ shores. 

(2) Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B) to allow a single consistency certification for 

an outer continental shelf plan to cover all activities, including air and water permits. The energy industry has experienced inordinate delays due to the lack of coordination between Federal agencies in processing permits for outer continental 

shelf activities, especially involving separate state consistency reviews for the multiple permits that are required. This consolidated process would increase the efficiency of state consistency reviews for outer continental shelf 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. 

(3) Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B) to grant the Secretary of the Interior the authority to determine information requirements for consistency certifications. Some 

states have used findings of ‘‘lack of information’’ to deny consistency certifications 

and obstruct outer continental shelf activity. The Secretary of the Interior has 

adopted detailed information requirements for outer continental shelf plans and specific Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requirements for the Department of the Interior’s consultation with state coastal zone authorities regarding areas of particular 

state concern. The Secretary is therefore in the best position to conduct an analysis 

of the information requirements. 

(4) Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(B)(iii) to provide the Secretary of the Interior 

with the authority to override state appeals concerning OCS activities. The Department of the Interior’s expertise regarding outer continental shelf plans and their impacts make the Interior Secretary, as opposed to the Commerce Secretary, uniquely 

suited to implement the law in this area. 

(5) Amend 16 U.S.C. § 1465 to ensure timely decisions by the Secretary to override 

appeals. CZMA appeals continue to be drawn out by overlong agency commenting, 

and by the Commerce Department’s implementation of the requirement that the 

54 

deadline for decision-making does not begin to run until after the administrative 

record is closed. This amendment is needed to institute a definite deadline that is 

only governed by when the appeal is filed. 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 support the goals and intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and believe 

that the technical amendments discussed here would improve the implementation 

of the statute by streamlining the review process while preserving states’ rights. I 

appreciate your consideration of our concerns regarding S. 360, and I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Fry. Thank you. 

Dr. Hudson from Maine. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF W. DONALD HUDSON, JR., PH.D., PRESIDENT, 

CHEWONKI FOUNDATION; MAINE GOVERNOR BALDACCI’S 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTEE TO THE GULF OF MAINE 

COUNCIL ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT; PRESIDENT, U.S. 

GULF OF MAINE ASSOCIATION; AND TREASURER, NATIONAL 

MARINE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION 

Dr. HUDSON. Thank you. Chairman Stevens, Senator Snowe, 

Senator Lautenberg: Thanks for the opportunity to speak this 

morning. My name is Don Hudson and I am President of the 

Chewonki Foundation, a nonprofit educational institution that has 

for 90 years introduced thousands of people to the wonders of the 

Maine coast and its watersheds. 

However, today I am testifying in my capacity as Maine’s public 

sector representative to the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine 

Environment. The council is a U.S.-Canadian partnership working 

to maintain and enhance environmental quality in the Gulf of 

Maine, one of the world’s most biologically productive environments, to allow for sustainable resource use by existing and future 

generations. 

The coastal zone is the dominant natural and economic feature 

of Maine, whether it is the need for water access, the need for infrastructure and sustainable development plans, or the need to permanently protect critical coastal habitats. Coastal management 

needs have outstripped our capacity to keep pace. The first phase 

of coastal zone management successfully established core policies 

and environmental laws and supported a network of National Estuarine Research Reserves, including one in Wells. The next wave of 

coastal management needs to support the use of new tools and 

technology, innovative development practices, more effective education programs, and more focused land conservation and restoration programs to achieve national goals for a healthy coast and a 

robust coastal economy. A reauthorized Coastal Zone Management 

Act will represent this second wave of effective management in 

partnership with States and local communities. 

I would like to touch briefly on five aspects of S. 360 and then 

address the topic of regional ecosystem-based management. To 

begin, S. 360 includes an important new focus with the coastal 

communities program. Maine has 136 municipalities in its coastal 

zone, plus two tribes, several unorganized territories, and more 

than 5,000 islands. Through current CZM-funded programs combined with State resources, Maine helps towns with grants and tarVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
55 

geted technical assistance and training. CZMA funds support 

Maine’s working waterfront initiative, which helps more than 90 

partner organizations retain critical small harbors for use by businesses. CZMA funds also support a local grants program, a new 

technical assistance website, and direct assistance for land acquisition. An enhanced coastal communities program would continue 

this innovative work. 

Second, S. 360 strengthens the role of the Coastal Zone Management Act in coastal habitat restoration. Through the use of CZMA 

funds, other Federal resources, State contributions, and local 

match, Maine completed five significant habitat restoration projects 

last year, forged a landmark agreement to restore fisheries on the 

Penobscot River, and assisted 30 municipalities with habitat protection strategies. In Sagadahoc County, near where I work, 12 

towns are collaborating on an innovative regional habitat and open 

space conservation effort. There are nine other regions in coastal 

Maine where such a landscape-scale approach could also be deployed. 

Third, S. 360 clarifies that States can use CZM funds to implement coastal non-point pollution control programs. While this clarification is useful, authorization levels should reflect an additional 

$10 million for States to use to be effective. Maine is typical of 

other coastal States in that non-point source pollution represents 

more than 80 percent of the remaining sources of pollution entering 

coastal waters. As a participant in a local monitoring program, I 

know that this is ongoing hard work. Maine was able to partner 

with the Maine Marine Trades Association to launch a clean marinas initiative, the only one in the Nation housed at a business 

trade organization, through a modest investment of $50,000 leveraged by local resources. Five new marinas gained clean certification last year. Without new coastal non-point funds, this fledgling program will not operate beyond June 2006. 

Fourth, Maine has just submitted its draft coastal and estuarine 

land conservation plan, anticipating that an amended S. 360 or a 

separate bill might formalize the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program. Our planning effort has been inclusive and 

identifies critical types of coastal lands that are most threatened. 

Over the last 18 years, the Land for Maine’s Future program has 

invested more than $21 million for 75 projects in Maine’s coastal 

zone, helping to protect almost 26,000 acres to address a variety of 

needs, and to secure public access to the shore. A source of Federal 

matching funds could greatly increase the pace and quality of 

coastal conservation in Maine and the Nation. 

The fifth area of S. 360 of interest to me is the coastal training 

program at the National Estuarine Research Reserves and other 

innovative programs that bring teachers, students, and decisionmakers more directly into contact with the habitats and ecosystems 

of coastal watersheds. Sound management practices will never succeed unless the public understands and embraces them, and the 

educational efforts of the reserve system and their many partners 

are essential ingredients for success. 

The Maine Coastal Program has a vision that includes a statewide network of coastal training programs that would function as 

56 

centers of learning and provide a home for a variety of citizen stewardship programs. 

Finally, over the last 15 years CZM and other Federal funds, 

combined with State resources, have provided the seed money that 

has established collaborative transboundary management of the 

Gulf of Maine. The Governors and premiers of the five Gulf jurisdictions—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, 

and Nova Scotia—created the council in 1989 as a regional forum 

to exchange information and engage in long-term planning. The 

council has no ongoing dedicated support. 

The U.S. Ocean Commission recognized the Gulf of Maine Council’s model approach. In response to the U.S. Ocean Commission report and President Bush’s Ocean Action Plan, the CZMA could be 

further strengthened to support regional ocean governance. Maine’s 

Governor John Baldacci has stated in his comments to the U.S. 

Ocean Commission he places a high priority on building a more robust regional governance model using the council, the Gulf of 

Maine Ocean Observing System, and other framework elements 

currently in place. 

The timing is perfect as our Canadian partners are developing 

their ocean action strategy and establishing large ocean management areas. While we are well poised for exciting ecosystem-based 

management work, we need Congressional support and the CZMA 

is one place Congress might invest to support this work. 

Thanks for the opportunity and I look forward to answering any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hudson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. DONALD HUDSON, JR., PH.D., PRESIDENT, CHEWONKI

FOUNDATION; MAINE GOVERNOR BALDACCI’S NON-GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTEE TO

THE GULF OF MAINE COUNCIL ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT; PRESIDENT, U.S. 

GULF OF MAINE ASSOCIATION; AND TREASURER, NATIONAL MARINE EDUCATORS

ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, Senator Snowe and other distinguished Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer 

testimony today regarding S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization 

Act of 2005. 

My name is Donald Hudson and I am President of the Chewonki Foundation, a 

non profit environmental education institution that has, for ninety years, introduced 

thousands of Maine’s youth and adults to the wonders of the Maine coast and its 

watersheds. However today I am testifying in my capacity as Maine Governor John 

Baldacci’s non-government representative to the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. The Council is a U.S.-Canadian partnership of government and 

non-government organizations working to maintain and enhance environmental 

quality in the Gulf of Maine—one of the world’s most biologically productive environments—to allow for sustainable resource use by existing and future generations. 

Remarks 

With close to 5,300 miles of coastline, 78 percent of the state’s population, 80 percent of all tourist expenditures and a 1.7 billion dollar contribution to the gross 

state product, the coastal zone is a dominant natural and economic feature of my 

state of Maine. Whether it is the need for water access for fishermen in Maine’s 

easternmost Washington County, the need for infrastructure and sustainable development plans in our rapidly growing Midcoast area, or the need to permanently protect critical coastal habitats in Southernmost Maine, coastal management needs 

have outstripped my state’s capacity to keep pace. What I would call the first phase 

of coastal zone management successfully established basic core policies and environmental laws and supported a network of National Estuarine Research Reserves including one in Wells, Maine. While this initial work established essential foundaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
57 

tions for balanced conservation and development, the next wave of coastal management needs to support the use of new tools and technology, innovative development 

practices, more effective education programs and more focused land conservation 

and restoration programs to achieve national goals for a healthy coast and robust 

coastal economy. Unfortunately, Maine’s Federal CZM funds have been capped for 

more than five years, limiting our capacity to effectively manage coastal resources. 

It is my hope that a reauthorized Coastal Zone Management Act will represent this 

second wave of more sophisticated, comprehensive and effective coastal management 

in partnership with states and local communities. 

I will take this opportunity to discuss five aspects of S 360, offering examples of 

how this legislation would provide direct benefits to my home state of Maine. Finally, I’ll speak to the topics of regional eco-system based management where I believe there are additional opportunities to strengthen the CZMA. 

Strengthening Coastal Communities 

S. 360 includes an important new focus on Coastal Communities Program in an 

enhanced Section 309. Like many other states, Maine has many, many municipalities in its coastal zone–136—plus two tribes, several unorganized territories and 

more than 5,000 islands. Small towns with little technical paid staff are the norm. 

Through current CZM-funded programs combined with state resources, Maine helps 

towns via grant programs and targeted technical assistance and training. One example of this work is Maine’s Working Waterfront Initiative where more than ninety partner organizations are working to retain critical small harbors for use by businesses that need a waterside location. Beginning with development of case studies 

of twenty-five working waterfront towns, CZM funds in Maine helped form a 

coastwide working waterfront coalition, a local grants program, a new technical assistance website, and direct assistance for land acquisition efforts. Maine’s legislature is currently contemplating the passage of a bond issue to establish a new working waterfronts acquisition program. Is there a better success story for coastal zone 

management than one that helps shed light on the problem, mobilizes constituents, 

creates solutions, helps local people to solve local problems and spurs new state investment in a critical problem? 

An enhanced coastal communities program would allow Maine to develop innovative programming targeted to the needs of our coastal towns. One such need is the 

capacity to work with groups of towns on targeted ‘‘bay management’’ programs, 

whereby groups of stakeholders would work side by side with state and Federal officials to understand local systems through additional research, to create area specific 

resource management plans, and manage nearshore resources more effectively. 

Restoring Coastal Habitats 

S. 360 strengthens the role of the CZMA in coastal habitat restoration. Through 

the use of CZMA funds, other Federal resources, state contributions and local 

match, Maine completed five significant habitat restoration projects last year, forged 

a landmark agreement to restore diadromous fisheries on the Penobscot River while 

preserving hydropower production on the lower river and assisted thirty municipalities with habitat protection strategies. In Sagadahoc County, where I work, twelve 

towns are collaborating on a regional habitat and open space conservation effort. 

Getting Maine towns to work together is challenge enough, to have more than 100 

people participate in a regional visioning session and giving the session rave reviews 

is a miracle! Research documents that protecting large, unfragmented tracts of important habitat, and linking protected habitats via buffered stream corridors is necessary to retain ecosystem functions. There are nine other regions in coastal Maine 

where such an innovative landscape-scale approach could be deployed if resources 

were provided. 

Reducing Coastal Non Point Pollution 

S. 360 clarifies that states can use CZM funds to implement coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. While this clarification is useful, authorization levels 

should reflect an additional $10 million for states to use in a flexible way to take 

the actions they deem to be effective in controlling nonpoint pollution instead of a 

zero sum game. Maine is typical of other coastal states in that nonpoint source pollution represents more than 80 percent of the remaining sources of pollution entering our estuaries and coastal waters. As a participant in a local program to monitor 

water quality, conduct shoreline surveys and open clamflats, I know that controlling 

coastal nonpoint pollution is ongoing, time consuming, hard work. Consistent Federal investment to help meet water quality goals is vital. Given inconsistent levels 

of funding over the years, Maine has not been able to fully implement its Federally 

approved coastal nonpoint program. For example, for three years when provided sufficient implementation funds, Maine was able to partner with the Maine Marine 

58 

Trades Association to launch a Clean Marinas initiative, a voluntary certification 

program for marinas and boatyards that go the extra mile to reduce pollution beyond what is required by law. Maine’s program is the only one in the Nation housed 

at a business trade organization. Through a modest investment of $50,000 in Federal funds, leveraged by local resources five new marinas gained ‘‘clean’’ certification 

last year and the program’s technical assistance efforts are available statewide. Although MMTA has developed a business plan that will allow them to accept increasing responsibility for the Clean Marina program over subsequent years, without new 

coastal nonpoint funds, the fledgling program would not operate beyond June 2006. 

With all evidence pointing to the ongoing pervasive effects of polluted runoff on 

coastal systems, to not offer increased consistent funding to this program would be 

missing the mark. 

Conserving Coastal and Estuarine Lands 

Maine has just submitted its draft Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 

Plan, anticipating that an amended S. 360, or a separate bill, might formalize the 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program as an ongoing competitive grant 

program to benefit all coastal states. Our planning effort identifies critical types of 

coastal lands that are most threatened by future development. All of the state’s 

major players in land conservation, including coastal land trusts were involved in 

its creation. Given such a blueprint, our conservation needs are many. Over the last 

eighteen years, the Land for Maine’s Future Program has invested more than $21 

million for 75 projects in Maine’s coastal zone, helping to protect almost 26,000 

acres of prime wildlife habitats, secure public access to the shore for boating and 

recreation, add to state and municipal park lands, maintain scenic areas, preserve 

coastal islands, and provide open space and recreational lands. A source of Federal 

matching funds to help leverage state conservation dollars could significantly increase the pace and quality of coastal conservation in Maine. 

Advancing Coastal Education and Awareness 

The fifth area of S. 360 that I will touch on is the benefit of The Coastal Training 

Program at the National Estuarine Research Reserves and other hands-on, innovative programs that bring teachers and students and decisionmakers more directly 

into contact with the habitats and ecosystems of coastal watersheds and the major 

issues of management and governance essential to secure a bright future for all. 

Whether it is a classroom of high school students conducting water quality surveys 

as part of chemistry class or a real estate business group gathering to learn about 

the value of wetlands on the landscape, sound management practices will never succeed unless the public understands and embraces them. The role of education cannot be understated. The Maine Coastal Program has a vision that includes a statewide network of Coastal Training Programs up and down the Maine coast that 

would function as centers of learning about local watersheds and provide a home 

for a variety of citizen stewardship and monitoring programs. 

Fostering Regional Governance 

Over the last fifteen years, CZM and other Federal funds, combined with state 

resources from Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, have provided the seed 

money, as well as much of the brain power, that has established collaborative, 

transboundary management of the Gulf of Maine. Maine appreciates the support of 

Senator Snowe for these efforts, however, there is no ongoing dedicated support. The 

governors and premiers of the five Gulf jurisdictions—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia—created the Council in 1989 as a 

regional forum to exchange information and engage in long-term planning. The 

Council conducts environmental monitoring; provides science translation for coastal 

managers; organizes conferences and workshops; offers grants and recognition 

awards; raises public awareness about the Gulf; and connects people, organizations, 

and information. 

The Gulf of Maine Council’s model approach was recognized by the U.S. Ocean 

Commission and our experience has contributed to the body of ideas being developed 

around regional governance and ocean councils. In response to the U.S. Ocean Commission report and President Bush’s Ocean Action Plan, the CZMA could be further 

strengthened to support regional ocean governance. Maine’s Governor John 

Baldacci, as stated in his comments to the U.S. Ocean Commission, places a high 

priority on building a more robust regional governance model using the Council, the 

Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System and other framework elements currently in 

place. Our Governor knows that the timing is perfect for strengthening regional governance in the Gulf of Maine as our Canadian partners are developing their Ocean 

Action Strategy and establishing Large Ocean Management Areas. While we are 

well poised for exciting ecosystem-based management work, we need Congressional 

59 

support and a strengthened Federal-state partnership to make this happen. The 

CZMA is one place Congress might invest in Federal/state ocean planning and management and a regional grant programs to support this work on an ongoing basis. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony. I would be happy 

to answer questions. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Dr. Hudson. 

Mr. Jeffress, thank you for being here from Alaska and making 

that trip. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BILL JEFFRESS, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING, 

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. JEFFRESS. Honorable Chairwoman, Senator Lautenberg, and 

Senator Stevens: Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My 

name is Bill Jeffress. I am the Director of the Office of Project 

Management and Permitting for the Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources. Our office is responsible for the implementation of the 

Alaska Coastal Management Program, the ACMP. 

Since 1997 the State of Alaska has relied on continued program 

approval and funding provided by the CZMA through NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Overall, the Alaska program has been successful in providing the State and our 

local districts with funding and guidance to implement a program 

that achieves a balance between economic development and the 

protection of coastal uses and resources. However, after more than 

25 years of implementing a coastal program, we felt many aspects 

of the ACMP needed updating to better achieve this balance. 

Since 2003, Alaska has been restructuring and amending the 

ACMP to refocus our program to meet the unique and specific 

needs of Alaska. We are currently working with OCRM to gain approval of our amended program. 

Through our membership with the Coastal States Organization, 

Alaska is very aware of the problems and the situations that are 

prevalent in other coastal States, territories, and trust properties, 

and their requirement for a higher level of protection, restoration, 

enhancement, or creation of coastal wetlands, coral reefs, marshes, 

and barrier islands. 

However, the majority of the other coastal States are at the opposite end of the spectrum from Alaska. Where other States are striving to protect, preserve, restore, or enhance remaining areas of undeveloped shoreline or restore previously disturbed shoreline areas, 

Alaska has yet to develop 1 percent of our more than 44,500 miles 

of shoreline. The vast majority of this shoreline is extremely remote 

and accessible only by boat or aircraft. 

In addition to having over twice the length of shoreline of all the 

other coastal States combined, Alaska is the Nation’s only Arctic 

State, with environmental issues more akin to Russia and Canada 

than other coastal States. Alaska is the largest ocean State in the 

country. Alaska occupies 20 percent of the Nation’s land base, contains half the Nation’s wetlands and 40 percent of the Nation’s surface water. Alaska’s proven and unexplored natural resources are 

greater than any other State. Alaska’s oceans and coastal watersheds produce 25 percent of the Nation’s oil, over 50 percent of the 

Nation’s seafood, and over 50 percent of the Nation’s minerals. 

60 

Because of the vast differences between Alaska and other States, 

Federal programs often do not adapt to Alaska even though those 

programs may very well meet the needs of other States. Federal 

flexibility in State collaboration to balance national policies with 

local conditions is needed for successful resource management. 

Alaska supports the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act and supports the overall goals of CZMA, but reiterates 

that provisions be made to accommodate Alaska’s unique geographic setting, cultural diversity, expansive coastal shorelines, 

and her great potential for natural resource development to ultimately support State and national interests. 

One of the best examples of the need to make accommodations 

for Alaska is the requirement for the Federal effects test. Under 

CZMA effects are not just environmental effects, but include effects 

on coastal uses. Federal consistency determinations would be required for a Federal activity hundreds of miles inland of our coastal 

zone boundaries that cumulatively and indirectly affect coastal 

uses. 

Alaska does not advocate removal of the Federal effects test, as 

the State has an interest in ensuring that inland Federal activities 

that have a foreseeable significant effect on coastal uses and resources are reviewed for consistency with Alaska’s coastal management program. But Alaska does advocate subjecting itself to a 

modified effects test whereby the definition of ‘‘effects’’ was revised 

to include only the impacts that directly and significantly affect the 

uses and resources of a coastal zone. 

In conclusion, we believe that Alaska’s coastal management program through the Coastal Zone Management Act is a worthwhile 

and valuable program. However, there is an increased need for 

Federal flexibility in order to improve the performance, especially 

considering Alaska’s unique setting. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify and we are eager 

to work with you and your staffs to make CZMA work for Alaska 

and the Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jeffress follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL JEFFRESS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROJECT

MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Honorable Chair and Committee Members thank you for this opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. My name is Bill 

Jeffress; I am the Director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting with 

the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Our office is responsible for the implementation of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, ‘‘ACMP.’’ 

Since 1977, the State of Alaska has relied on continued program approval and 

funding provided by the CZMA through NOAA’s Office of Coastal and Resource 

Management, or ‘‘OCRM,’’ to assist with the cooperative implementation of Alaska’s 

coastal management program. We are proud of Alaska’s program, which we feel successfully achieves the delicate balance between economic development in coastal regions and the protection of coastal uses and resources, and we are grateful for the 

Federal funding provided through the CZMA for Alaska and its local coastal districts to operate our program effectively. However, after more than twenty-five years 

of implementing the ACMP, we recently determined that many aspects of the program had to be updated to improve the program’s efficiency, allowing project applicants to timely obtain permits for responsible economic development while maintaining protection of our coastal uses and resources. Therefore, since 2003, Alaska 

has dedicated incalculable hours amending the ACMP to improve and streamline 

the program in order to meet the unique and specific needs of Alaska today and into 

61 

the future. We are currently working with OCRM to obtain Federal approval of our 

amended program. 

Through our membership and participation in the Coastal States Organization, 

Alaska is very aware of the positions of other coastal states, territories, and trust 

properties, who require the highest level of ‘‘protection, restoration, enhancement, 

or creation of coastal wetlands, coral reefs, marshes, and barrier islands.’’ However, 

Alaska is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the majority of other coastal 

states. Where other states are striving to protect, preserve, restore, or enhance remaining areas of undeveloped shoreline or restore previously disturbed shoreline 

areas after centuries of development, Alaska has yet to develop even 1 percent of 

our more than 44,900 miles of shoreline. Development is rendered all the more difficult since the vast majority of this shoreline is extremely remote and is accessible 

only by boat or aircraft. 

In addition to having over twice the length of shoreline of all the other coastal 

states combined, Alaska is the Nation’s only arctic state, making its environmental 

issues more akin to Russia, Sweden, Norway, Greenland and Canada than to other 

U.S. states. Alaska is also the largest ocean state in the country, bordered by the 

North Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea. Alaska 

occupies 20 percent of the Nation’s land base, contains half of the Nation’s wetlands, 

and 40 percent of the Nation’s surface water. 

Alaska’s proven yet unexplored natural resources are greater than any other 

state. Alaska’s oceans and coastal watershed produce 25 percent of the Nation’s oil, 

over 50 percent of the Nation’s seafood, and a large percentage of the Nation’s minerals from several world class mines. In short, Alaska is a fundamentally unique 

territory, with dramatically different, often divergent, goals and impediments than 

any other coastal state. 

Because of the vast difference between Alaska and other states, Federal programs 

that very well meet the needs of other states often do not adapt to Alaska. National 

goals sometimes are at odds with what makes sense for Alaska. Federal flexibility 

to balance national policies with local conditions is required to properly and effectively manage our coastal and other resources. Indeed, Alaska has a long history 

of working successfully in collaboration with Federal and local jurisdictions on ocean 

and coastal issues. From joint State and Federal oil and gas lease sales in the Beaufort Sea, to the continuing work with OCRM for the approval of the requested 

amendment of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Alaska has a great deal 

of experience in the benefits of intergovernmental coordination for managing ocean, 

coastal, and watershed resources. 

Alaska supports the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act with 

the same clear direction that motivated the Congress to originally pass this legislation, which was ‘‘to encourage and assist the [coastal] states to achieve 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 need for compatible economic development.’’ Alaska supports the overall goals of the CZMA. However, we 

request that provisions be made to accommodate Alaska’s unique geographic setting, 

cultural diversity, expansive yet underdeveloped coastal shoreline, and our great potential for natural resource development to ultimately support both State and National interests. 

An excellent example of the need for legislative accommodation for Alaska is the 

application of the CZMA’s Federal ‘‘effects test.’’ Under this test, every Federal 

agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use 

or natural resource of the coastal zone is subject to a state consistency review. But 

because under the CZMA regulations, ‘‘effects’’ are so broadly defined to include not 

just environmental effects, but secondary, cumulative, indirect and remote effects on 

coastal uses, a Federal consistency determination would be required for a Federal 

activity hundreds of miles inland that cumulatively and indirectly affect the coast. 

This potentially onerous requirement could stymie or impede development in a manner presumably never anticipated by the drafters of the regulatory language. 

Alaska does not advocate removal of the Federal effects test, as the State has a 

keen interest in ensuring that inland Federal activities that have a foreseeable, significant effect on coastal uses and resources are reviewed for consistency with Alaska’s coastal management program. But Alaska does advocate subjecting itself, and 

any other similarly unique geographical state, to a ‘‘modified effects test,’’ whereby 

the definition of ‘‘effects’’ was revised to include only impacts that ‘‘directly and significantly affect the uses or resources of the coastal zone.’’ 

In conclusion we believe that the Alaska Coastal Management Program, operated 

under the approval and oversight of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, is 

a worthwhile and valuable program. However, in order to improve its performance 

and efficacy, there is a vital need for flexibility in the application of the CZMA to 

62 

Alaska’s coastal management program, which manages our nation’s most uniquely 

immense and diverse coastline. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this Committee. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much. We appreciate all of your 

testimony and we will move along because I know we have a vote 

at noon. 

The first question I would like to pose to the panel gets to the 

essence of the problems we have had in reauthorizing the Coastal 

Zone Management Act—and these issues are pending this week as 

well in the Energy Committee. The consistency requirement has 

been one of the powerful tools in the Coastal Zone Management Act 

for respecting States’ rights and governing Federal actions as well 

off State shores. 

Now, Mr. Fry, you said that the process has worked well for the 

most part; is that correct? So what are we limiting it to? We have 

heard about the 14 appeals, for example. What are we discussing 

here? Is there not a way of addressing this problem without undercutting the consistency requirements altogether and also respecting—going beyond just the issue of States’ rights—that there is a 

regional part to all of this? The regional element is also important, 

certainly in my State of Maine and the Gulf of Maine, as Dr. Hudson will tell you and Senator Nelson referred to. In the Gulf of 

Mexico, for example, the implications for decisions made by one 

state can impact his state, and the same is true for my home State 

of Maine. 

So is there not a way of addressing these questions without keeping this open-ended and discarding it for the most part? 

Mr. FRY. Yes, I think there are ways to do that. Our suggestion 

really relates to this appeal process. As has been talked about, you 

have got those thousands of cases where the CZMA consistency 

works, but in those 14 to 17 cases that come up, what has increasingly occurred is that the time frame for those appeals has continued to increase and increase. It started off being about a year, and 

now the average time seems to be much greater than a year. The 

last one of these went about 50 months without a decision ever 

having been reached. 

What we are saying is, do not leave the openers in there; do not 

allow the decisionmakers at the end of the game to not make a decision. We are not trying to cut the States out of the process in any 

way. The States get to participate all the way through the appeal, 

to the appeal process. They are involved. There is no indication on 

our behalf that they should be taken out of it. We are only suggesting that we come to a conclusion of the process. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, would you think that 270 days was an unwarranted period of time to make that decision in the appeal process? 

Mr. FRY. We would certainly like to see it be shorter. But if you 

have anything that ends, that would be good. 

Senator SNOWE. Ms. Chasis, could you respond to Mr. Fry’s comments? What can we do to make it more predictable? What would 

you support? 

Ms. CHASIS. Right. I think that the way it is structured in the 

proposed NOAA rule makes some sense, where it has 270 days for 

submission of briefs and information. Remember that the issues on 

63 

appeal are new; they are de novo. In other words, the question is, 

does the—the Secretary is deciding whether the activity that the 

State has objected to is consistent with the purposes of the CZMA 

or is needed in the interest of national security. That is the first 

time those questions are addressed. 

So there is a need to allow time to submit information on that. 

What the proposed rule does, which the Senate energy bill as I understand it that will be marked up tomorrow does not do, is the 

proposed rule does allow an extension of that 270 days to permit 

the Secretary to receive the final environmental impact statement 

on the project or the biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act, or by the mutual agreement of the parties. 

We think those are important caveats. The project cannot go forward in any event until there is a final EIS or biological opinion, 

so having that reopener or allowing for that to occur would not— 

should not delay the project. So we think that that approach is 

preferable to what we understand is in the Senate energy bill. 

Senator SNOWE. I see. Would that be offered as an amendment? 

Ms. CHASIS. I think it is in the energy mark, in the bill that is 

in the mark. 

Senator SNOWE. The Chairman’s mark. 

Dr. Hudson, would you like to respond? 

Dr. HUDSON. Well, the council does not—as you know, it is a deliberative body, but it is not a decisionmaking body, and we have 

survived for more than 15 years because we have—well, there are 

certain things we cannot talk about. We cannot talk about fish, for 

example. However, we end up talking about fish by stimulating research into where young lobsters breed on the coast of Maine, or 

trying to understand ecosystems on the bottom of the ocean in the 

Gulf, and therefore we try to assist the ultimate Federal and State 

decisionmakers by gathering information and providing a forum 

where people can talk about difficult issues, knowing that there is 

not a decision that is pending in an hour or 2 hours or 270 days. 

My experience with the council is that these kinds of formal forums that bring together resource people, primarily from State 

agencies and Federal agencies—there are only a handful of us who 

do not belong to those kinds of organizations who participate—and 

my experience is that it is a good place to try to gain consensus 

on issues without worrying about how many tons of cod can be 

caught this year. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Jeffress. 

Mr. JEFFRESS. I think any time we can bring certainty to the 

process by picking a date specific is good. But I think what we need 

to do is look earlier into the process. As Senator Stevens mentioned, a lot of these processes should be rolled into one review, 

and by the time you get to the point for an appeal most of the efforts have been exhausted in coming to a compromise. 

In Alaska, one of the reasons for the establishment of the Office 

of Project Management and Permitting was to do just that, is to get 

the qualified people to sit at the table with the Federal agencies 

and with industry and develop a process where it was all-inclusive, 

where we were not waiting at the last minute for NMFS to come 

up with their EFH evaluation or Endangered Species, and the consistency determination was part of the NEPA analysis. This way 

64 

all of these issues were out on the table first and you did not have 

to go to court to restart the NEPA process or to initiate it to begin 

with after a consistency determination. 

We are finding it is very effective with MOUs with MMS and 

some of the other Federal agencies to become part of the NEPA 

analysis and roll the consistency analysis into this. We have had 

a couple occasions where we have actually done consistency analysis on the preferred alternative after NEPA was complete and it 

was inconsistent with the local enforceable policy. 

That really puts industry and government behind the eight ball. 

So by being established or part of the team early on, we have been 

able to circumvent some of these problems that are facing industry 

and government planning. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Chairman Stevens. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am sort of stymied by this because under 

the CZMA the State makes a plan and submits it to the Federal 

agency for approval. I have got to assume that that is worked out 

with the Federal agency, there is approval of a plan. Then along 

comes an application to do something either by a non–State entity 

or by a State entity or a Federal entity and someone raises a question of consistency with the plan. At the same time that happens, 

as Mr. Jeffress mentions, we have a wetlands determination, we 

have an Endangered Species Act determination, we have a NEPA 

determination, all of which start about the same time, but they go 

on independently of CZMA. 

As a consequence, we end up, as we did in the Alaska oil pipeline, with Congress taking 4 years to finally reach a conclusion that 

the applicant to build the pipeline had complied with all of those 

acts and a court could not—no court could review that decision. 

That was the final pipeline act decision and it was a 50–50 vote, 

broken by the Vice President. 

Now, that was a cause celebre. But we are talking about now 

routine things within each State. Normally the State is taking the 

position that it wants to do something and the Federal agency is 

saying, you cannot do it, or some non–Federal agency is saying that 

is inconsistent with the plan that the Secretary has already approved. 

I think that we have to find some way to bring these together 

and find a way to get a panel, so that if there is an objection under 

wetlands, or if you bring in Endangered Species and NEPA and 

CZMA, any one of them triggers a panel that says: Look, let us listen to the objection, let us take into account everything, but it is 

going to be decided in a framework of time that everybody has got 

to work within. 

I do not know yet whether the Congress is ready to do that, but 

very clearly a lot, Ms. Chasis, is going to depend on organizations 

such as yours. The environmental organizations are the ones that 

are primarily demanding these consistency actions, that are holding up a final decision on development of oil and gas or energy considerations about 4 years on the average. 

Ms. CHASIS. May I respond? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

65 

Ms. CHASIS. With the consistency provisions, it is the States that 

make the determination. We cannot—the environmental groups 

may advocate for a particular position, but it is really a question 

of is the State objecting to the applicant’s project. The State cannot 

do that arbitrarily. It has to be looking at the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That is only under CZMA. 

Ms. CHASIS. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. You go right at the other objections that are 

equally time-consuming. What I am saying is we ought to find a 

way to take and review consistency with applicable Federal laws to 

oil and gas development, particularly to gas development, within a 

period of time that is reasonable and yet explores the whole, so it 

gives everybody a chance to be heard, but gets a decision made. 

I think—I do not know about Maine. The Maine gas facility is 

going to be on Indian land as I understand it, but the State may 

well be in a position to object to that, or someone else will object 

to it under one of these acts, and how long is it going to take? 

We are in—I am being redundant, but I have spent too much 

time studying the problem of the natural gas shortage in the 

United States and I have come to the plain conclusion that if we 

do not have the facilities for taking the LNG ashore it is going to 

go ashore somewhere else, because there is just so much of that 

available in the world and we are going to be competing not only 

in price, but for quantity. We have to have these facilities. We have 

to have them in place by 2015. 

So I think this Congress has the duty to find some way to cut 

through this and say, OK—I am not asking to repeal the Endangered Species Act, to repeal the Wetlands Act, or to change CZMA 

or to change NEPA in any way. All I am saying is let us make all 

reviews simultaneous and get a decision. If the decision is you cannot build in Maine, we will have to go somewhere else. 

Now, I like the suggestion that was made previously by Ms. 

Cooksey, and that is maybe we should find some way to decide, to 

take a look at a whole region at a time and get everyone to agree 

where is the best place to locate these gas facilities on the Northeast coast, the Southeast coast, the Gulf coast, California or the 

West Coast, or Alaska. I do not think Alaska is going to need one. 

We are going to be in a position of moving gas out of Alaska, not 

bringing it to Alaska. 

But I do think, Senator Snowe, it is going to be this committee’s 

role to try and find some way to put these things together. I intend 

to write that letter to Senator Domenici and see if the Energy Committee will cooperate with us to try and find a way for both committees to come to the conclusion of how to do this—how to expedite the review of any application to bring liquefied natural gas 

ashore. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Fry, the industry wants the final authority on State objections to move from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of 

the Interior. There have been only 14 State appeals related to the 

outer continental shelf oil and gas activity. The Secretary of ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
66 

merce has sided with the States in only seven, seven of these. It 

seems to me the system is working pretty good, so why should— 

why should we make the change and not continue it as is with the 

Secretary of Commerce? 

Mr. FRY. Senator, we do understand that that is a controversial 

suggestion. The reason we raise it is that we feel like that because 

these appeals now have gotten so long and so drug out over a period of time—and it is because the Secretary of Commerce continues to say, I do not have enough information. Well, the information is available at the Department of the Interior. They have 

worked this issue. They have worked it from day one with the 

States, working on consistency. The States have made their ideas 

known. They have worked with the EPA, they have worked with 

NMFS on different permits, all of which relate to the consistency 

determination. 

We think the expertise is at the Department of Interior to decide 

what the record needs to be and also it has a better ability to go 

ahead and make a decision based on the fact that the expertise 

rests there. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It does not seem like the system is broken. 

There are so many other problems associated with decisions about 

drilling. Do you get a hint that maybe some of the limitations on 

drilling in the outer continental shelf might be lifted in the energy 

bill? 

Mr. FRY. Well, we have for years—our association was formed to 

deal with the question of access, both economic access and physical 

access, to our oceans for the development of energy projects. We 

have continued to advocate for some sort of lifting of the moratorium. That is not to suggest that we think you should be drilling 

everywhere all the time. We also think that the industry has 

shown an incredible ability to produce vast amounts of energy for 

this country in a safe and environmentally productive way. The 

technology has advanced so far over the last 10 to 20 years that 

now this is the NASA of the next century. The work that is going 

on, the kinds of development that are taking place, where satellites 

are involved, where computers are involved, where you can drill 

into 10,000 feet of water and into incredible depths within the 

crust of the Earth, and even look and see what you are doing while 

you are doing it. 

That kind of technology allows us to produce this energy in a 

safe way that it does not affect the environment. We think that the 

paradigm that we have lived in of moratoria is not the best way 

to make decisions. We ought to be making them on good science 

and on good information. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you think all of this can be done without affecting the ecology of the oceans? We see man’s effect on coral 

reefs and things like that, a diminution of fish stocks. All kinds of 

things are happening out there and we cannot afford to ignore 

what the effects of man’s intervention into nature’s structure. 

I particularly am one of those who is concerned—listen, I know 

that we have got tremendous problems with energy, but there are 

some other ways to solve these problems. I have never heard—I 

have rarely heard the word ‘‘conservation’’ used in this country. We 

do not see the oil companies, the car companies, people rushing to 

67 

do the things that seem to come naturally in some other countries 

in terms of better CAFE standards and all those. 

I am preaching to Dr. Hudson and Ms. Chasis here, and perhaps 

Mr. Jeffress. 

Dr. Hudson, I am very interested in ocean and coastal education 

and I am currently developing some coastal education legislation 

that would engage traditionally underrepresented groups. Now, in 

your programs in Maine do you have an initiative that targets the 

Native American groups as well in terms of educating them about 

what appropriate use might be? 

Dr. HUDSON. Senator Lautenberg, we are starting one. We have 

had a couple meetings in the last month with education folks in the 

Penobscot Indian Nation and they are coming down to our place on 

June 1st. We are going to see how we can help them achieve the 

stated goals of some legislation that passed in Maine last year that 

said that every child shall have some experience—it did not say 

specifically where—K–12—in understanding the history and culture of Native peoples in the State. 

We were very pleased when they reached out to us and we are 

happy to see where it goes. At this point, it is such an early stage 

that I cannot give you any more information than that. But I would 

be happy to make sure that you or people in your office get some 

reports as they come out. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Jeffress, when you talk about the uninhabited coastline up 

in Alaska, I am an Alaskophile. I love the State and the beautiful 

country and the birds and the fish and all that. I have been up 

there too few times, but whenever I have gone up I have gone up 

with my son. In our family we think nature is really important and 

we like to play with it and work with it and try to protect it. 

But the prospect that 1 percent of the coastline being used, but 

you cannot get there from here, as you said—but it is one beautiful 

place and we hope that it will continue to be protected and that 

some day we will make certain, Mr. Fry, that the possibilities of 

an Exxon Valdez cannot happen. But so far we know it can happen 

and we have to be wary of it. 

Thanks. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

I thank our panelists. I wish we had more time to further explore 

these issues, but you have been very helpful today in your testimony and your input as we start to focus on some of the issues 

that have made it difficult to secure a reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Perhaps it is possible this year. 

But I thank you and we will be following up with each of you. 

The record will remain open for 2 weeks for any additional comments and testimony. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Thank you Madam Chairman. I would also like to recognize you and Senator 

Kerry for your past work in protecting our coast and for your work this Congress 

on S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. 

As a Senator from California, a state that values and cherishes its coast, the 

Coastal Zone Management Act is of upmost importance to the people of California. 

Indeed, few other places on earth depend on the coast as does California. 

More than 21 million Californians live in coastal counties—roughly 64 percent of 

the State’s population. The California coast encompasses three National Parks and 

four National Marine Sanctuaries. It is home to dozens of threatened and endangered species, including the Short Tailed Albatross, California Gnatcatcher, sea otters, Chinook & Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Guadalupe fur seal, and several species of whales. The natural treasure that is the California coast draws tourists by 

the millions and accounts for $51 billion dollars annually for the State’s economy. 

In 2000, people spent over $2.2 billion on recreational fishing off our coasts. In 

short, Mr. Chairman, the protection of California’s coast is not just an environmental necessity, it’s an economic necessity. 

The CZMA is one of the most important tools states have to protect their coasts. 

It represents a unique and carefully crafted partnership between coastal states and 

the Federal Government. Through this partnership, the CZMA has given states and 

local coastal governments a meaningful voice in Federal actions and decisions that 

directly affect the environmental quality of their local communities. 

The heart of the Act is the ‘‘Federal Consistency’’ provision—the requirement that 

Federal agency activities that impact the coastal zone be consistent with the state’s 

Federally approved Coastal Management Program. The Consistency provision gives 

communities assurance—assurance that Federal actions that do not comply with a 

state’s coastal program will not go forward. 

Madam Chairman, this Act is a model of Federal-state cooperation—in an era 

where we are being constantly told by some political leaders that we must respect 

states’ rights, it would be wrong to undermine such a law. 

Yet despite this, there are proposals floating around to change the CZMA’s essential protections. Some are proposing giving veto power over a state’s Consistency appeals on Outer Continental Shelf issues to the Secretary of the Interior. As few 

things constitute more of a threat to the well-being and health of the California 

coast than offshore oil and gas drilling, such a change would be disastrous to my 

state. 

The House Energy Bill also contains provisions that would put states at a major 

disadvantage during the appeals process by closing the appeal record just 120 days 

after an appeal is filed—a time frame far too short for our states. 

In February of this year, I was proud to work in a bipartisan fashion with my 

colleague, Senator Dole, by sending a letter to key Senate Energy Committee members, asking them to avoid attempts to weaken the state moratoria on offshore drilling. 

Madam Chairman, we should be celebrating the partnership that this Act creates, 

not undermining it. This Committee needs to be vigilant of attempts to weaken the 

protections of the CZMA. I am grateful that the Snowe-Kerry reauthorization bill 

does not weaken the CZMA. 

As Members of the United States Senate, let’s reassure the states that the Federal Government will keep its promise to coastal states—let’s move forward with a 

reauthorized CZMA that will keep the model partnership alive and our coasts protected. 

70 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE

ASSOCIATION (NERRA) 

Introduction 

Since 1987, NERRA has been 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 26 (soon to be 

27) regionally-based programs representing diverse estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the United States and its territories. Through a state-Federal 

partnership codified in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), reserves play a 

critical role in national efforts to sustain healthy estuaries and coastal communities. 

National Estuarine Research Reserves support science-based coastal management 

through long-term research, monitoring, education, and stewardship. 

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. 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, 26 estuaries have been designated as 

part of the reserve system including Alaska and Puerto Rico, with an additional site 

in Texas 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, including: (1) training to promote informed environmental decision-making; (2) a national monitoring program for estuaries is maintained; and 

(3) education opportunities are provided to students and the public. With these key 

elements, the reserve system is in the unique position of serving the national interest while responding to local needs. 

In addition, the reserve system is poised to help carry out the recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission recommended that effective policies be based on unbiased, credible, and up-to-date scientific information. 

The Commission stated that this will require a significant investment in coastal and 

ocean research and monitoring and the ability to translate scientific findings into 

useful information products for coastal decision makers. The reserve system not only 

conducts scientific research and estuarine monitoring, but provides training opportunities to help inform coastal decision making. The Commission also recommended 

that there is an urgent need to strengthen the Nation’s coastal and ocean literacy, 

including improving decision makers’ understanding of the coasts and oceans, preparing a new generation of leaders on ocean issues, and cultivating a broad public 

stewardship ethic. Through the NERRS education and training programs, the system is well-suited to meet these goals. 

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. 

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 for 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 has 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. 

71 

• 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 Training Program target individuals involved in local planning and management. Training activities provide science-based information on 

topics responsive to local needs such as polluted runoff, watershed management, 

water supply, and restoration science. 

Education and Training 

Coastal Training Program 

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, the 

NERRS has developed the Coastal Training Program to fill this need. 

The Coastal Training Program provides 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 

reserves. 

The Coastal Training Program 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. Coastal Training Program participants 

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 Coastal Training Program 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 Coastal 

Training Program 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. 

K–12 Estuarine Education Program 

During 2004, reserves engaged over 80,000 students in K–12 education programs, 

and 3,000 teachers in professional development programs. EstuaryLive alone—an 

annual interactive virtual field trip designed to increase students understanding 

about estuaries—engaged 13,600 students and teachers during the broadcast. As 

recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, there is an urgent need to 

strengthen the Nation’s coastal and ocean literacy. With a coordinated network of 

educators, the NERRS is positioned to increase public awareness about estuaries 

and coastal systems. Building on site-based education efforts, the NERRS is developing a system-wide K–12 education program. This program would allow the reserve 

system to network more efficiently across the country, generate and disseminate 

educational products that use data generated by ocean observing systems to the K– 

12 community, share and exchange resources, and enhance efforts to incorporate 

ocean and coastal science into local curricula. 

72 

Research and Monitoring 

Graduate Research Fellowship 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 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 these management needs. 

The NERRS is addressing the first need through the Graduate Research Fellowship program where students across the Nation compete to work on priority needs 

of the coastal management community. 

Up to fifty-two 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. 

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. 

System-wide Monitoring Program 

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 United States. In 1995, the NERRS established the System-wide Monitoring 

Program. This program is designed to identify short-term variability and long-term 

trends and changes in coastal ecosystems, including locations that span the range 

of coastal environments from estuaries and coastal waters to watersheds. The program focuses efforts on three critical areas: estuarine water quality; estuarine biodiversity; and estuarine land use and habitat change. 

The System-wide Monitoring Program provides valuable long-term data on water 

quality and weather at frequent time intervals. Coastal managers use this monitoring data to make informed decisions on local and regional issues, such as ‘‘nodischarge’’ zones for boats and measuring the success of restoration projects. Periodic syntheses of data are expected to serve as one of the mechanisms by which 

coastal managers can inform their decision-making responsibilities. In addition to 

serving regional research and coastal management needs, the System-wide Monitoring Program is designed to enhance the value and vision of the 26 reserves as 

a system of national references sites. 

Future efforts will focus on the expansion of biological monitoring at all reserves 

and tracking habitat and land use changes through remote sensing techniques. Expansion of the SWMP effort is aimed at adding to the current system of environmental observations made at reserves. This will be addressed through spatial expansion of the monitoring system, and the addition of new monitoring parameters 

such as nutrients. When fully implemented, the System-wide Monitoring Program 

will provide valuable long-term, integrated data on water quality, weather, biota, 

land use, and habitat change within the National Estuarine Research Reserves. 

All numerical data sets collected by the System-wide Monitoring Program are 

compiled, subjected to a rigorous quality assurance protocol, and the database and 

associated metadata are submitted to the NERRS Centralized Data Management 

Office at the University of South Carolina Belle W. Baruch Institute of Marine and 

Coastal Sciences. Following final quality assurance, the Centralized Data Management Office disseminates all system-wide data and summary statistics over the 

World Wide Web (http://inlet.geol.sc.edu/nerrscdmo.html) where researchers, coastal managers, and educators readily access the information. 

The water quality and meteorological monitoring components of the System-wide 

Monitoring Program have been recognized as a fundamental backbone element in 

the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) framework, and the reserve system is currently developing and testing near real time data delivery systems that include real time data quality control. 

73 

Resource Stewardship 

In addition to research, monitoring, education, and training, reserves are developing resource stewardship and coastal restoration programs that address both sitespecific and watershed-scale information needs. 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 eradication of exotic 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. 

Partnerships 

The NERRS enjoy a strong relationship with its Federal partner, the National 

Ocean Service at NOAA. The state-Federal partnership, a hallmark of the NERRS, 

is strong. NOAA has been increasing its service to the NERRS, especially training, 

materials, and assistance with site profiles from the Coastal Service Center, and 

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 Reserve 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 Reserve 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 Reserve, 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. 

Reauthorization of the CZMA 

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 reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

NERRA fully supports that S. 360, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005, better reflects the mission of the reserve system as a network of 

protected areas established for long-term research, education, and stewardship. We 

want to ensure that the final language provides adequate authority for NERRS’ research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship programs. 

We would respectfully request that the Committee include language in the Congressional Findings section of the bill that specifically addresses the purpose and 

need for a national system of estuarine research reserves. Such language should express that the reserve system will provide for protection of essential estuarine resources, as well as for a network of state-based reserves that will serve as platforms 

for coastal stewardship best-practices, monitoring, research, education, and training 

to improve coastal management and to help translate science and inform coastal decision makers and the public. 

We also suggest that NERRA’s vision of having a reserve in every coastal and 

Great Lakes state be incorporated into the bill, rather than only the current requirement that a reserve contribute to the biogeographical and typological balance of the 

reserve system. While it is important that new reserves contribute to the biogeographic representation of the system, having a reserve in every coastal and 

74 

Great Lakes state would provide the coastal training, education, research, and monitoring opportunities the reserve system offers to each state and each state’s coastal 

program. 

With respect to the authorization of appropriations section, NERRA recommends 

that for grants under section 315, the bill include a reauthorization beginning at 

$22 million and increasing by $1 million per year to accommodate new sites, expansion of products and services, and cost of living increases. An authorization at this 

level would allow the NERRS to add new reserves into the system, enabling us to 

work toward our vision of having a reserve in every coastal and Great Lakes state, 

and would allow the NERRS to expand core programs or more fully develop them, 

such as the K–12 Estuarine Education Program. 

NERRA endorses incorporation of funding for construction projects into the reauthorization measure, as stated in S. 360, but would ask the Committee to include 

acquisition projects as well. This would better reflect our current appropriations, 

which have been to support both construction and acquisition projects. 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 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 priority land 

and water areas for watershed management. 

Conclusion 

NERRA is very supportive of S. 360 and appreciates the Committee’s interest in 

reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act. NERRA is ready to work with you 

in any way to support passage of S. 360. We would be pleased to provide further 

information or answer any questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact the NERRA Executive Director, Angela Corridore (acorridore@sso.org or 202– 

508–3836), with any questions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

THOMAS KITSOS, PH.D. 

OCS Environmental Reviews 

Question. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s recommendation 24–2 states 

that the MMS should conduct routine environmental monitoring as part of an expansion of its environmental studies program. Specifically, the Commission recommends conducting long term environmental research and monitoring at selected 

OCS sites. This type of monitoring could provide valuable information on the long 

term and cumulative impacts of oil and gas development. How could NOAA work 

with MMS on these activities, considering NOAA’s responsibility for conservation 

and management of habitats and living marine resources? 

Answer. NOAA provides environmental reviews through the Minerals Management Service’s decision-making process for oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), pursuant to NOAA’s responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSFCMA). For the most part, environmental reviews conducted 

by NOAA, and those conducted by the coastal States under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) occur simultaneously. 

When the Minerals Management Service (MMS) proposes a lease sale or deems 

submitted an exploration plan (EP) or development and production plan (DPP) for 

Alaska or the Pacific, or a Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) 

for the Gulf of Mexico, for OCS oil and gas activities under the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), MMS: 

• initiates review under the OCSLA; 

• begins NEPA compliance; 

• sends the EP, DPP, or DOCD to the applicable coastal State(s) for the State’s 

review under the OCSLA and the six-month CZMA Federal consistency review; 

and 

• may also initiate formal or informal consultations under the ESA, NMSA, and 

MSFCMA (for Essential Fish Habitat or EFH), if required. 

Additionally, MMS works with NOAA to ensure animals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) are appropriately considered. NOAA provides 

substantive review and assistance under these statutes, when appropriate. 

75 

In order to improve the environmental review process and make it more efficient, 

NOAA could become involved earlier in the process, providing comments as NEPA 

documents are being drafted. Early engagement could ensure smooth coordination 

among the various NOAA offices that are responsible for reviewing proposals. These 

or similar procedures would allow agencies to address areas of potential conflict 

early in the process. Our experience with deepwater ports demonstrates that early 

involvement and internal coordination can work, but does require additional effort 

and resources. 

Below are brief descriptions of two of NOAA’s programs and how they relate to 

MMS responsibilities: 

CZMA Review 

For EPs, the OCSLA requires MMS to make its decision whether to approve an 

EP within 30 days of receiving it. MMS deems a plan submitted when all information is received from the applicant and MMS does not identify any deficiencies 

(under MMS regulations, MMS has 10 working days after receipt of an EP to determine whether additional information is needed). Within that 30-day period, MMS 

completes its Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA and makes a decision on the EP. During the 30-day period MMS initiates compliance with other Federal mandates under CZMA, ESA, MMPA, etc., and NOAA and the States provide 

input within the time frames established under those statutes. The OCSLA 30-day 

period does not provide time to complete the State CZMA review process. Therefore, 

the States’ CZMA review is based on the ‘‘application to drill,’’ which is a permit 

described in the EP. The Minerals Management Service does not authorize any drilling until the CZMA process is complete. 

The process for EPs under all statutes (except CZMA appeal to the Secretary of 

Commerce) is generally completed within 6 months from when MMS deems an EP 

submitted. For example, once MMS deems an EP submitted, MMS sends the EP 

and accompanying information to the State within 2 working days to meet OCSLA 

requirements and to avoid delay in the CZMA process. MMS sends the EA to the 

State when the EA is completed or, in the Gulf, forwards it upon request. Because 

the State receives the EA within a very short period (10–30 days) after the start 

of the six-month CZMA review period, the CZMA process is not delayed unnecessarily. 

For DPPs and DOCDs, MMS has more time to respond to the applicant and comply with the OCSLA, NEPA, CZMA, ESA, MMPA, and other relevant statutes. MMS 

and State agencies have developed procedures to coordinate and streamline State 

review of EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs. NOAA, working closely with the Department of 

Interior, has proposed amending the CZMA Federal consistency regulations to provide a reasonable and definitive deadline for determining CZMA appeals. 

MSFCMA Essential Fish Habitat Reviews 

Under the general goal of government streamlining and more specifically in response to Administration efforts to streamline the review of energy projects, the National Marine Fisheries Service combines environmental reviews, merges documents, overlaps review periods, and conducts programmatic analyses so that 

NOAA’s reviews are combined and occur in a timely manner. NOAA’s Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) reviews are one of our more visible mandates. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service estimates that approximately 99 percent of the roughly 50,000 

EFH consultations completed under NOAA’s EFH guidelines were conducted within 

the time frames established by other Federal statutes and met private sector expectations. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

DR. WALTER D. CRUICKSHANK

OCS Monitoring and Review 

Question 1. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s recommendation 24–2 states 

that the MMS should conduct routine environmental monitoring as part of an expansion of its environmental studies program. Specifically, the Commission recommends conducting long term environmental research and monitoring at selected 

Outer Continental Shelf sites. This type of monitoring could provide valuable information on the long term and cumulative impacts of oil and gas development. Does 

the Administration have any plans to implement this recommendation? 

Answer. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) believes that the Commission’s recommendation regarding long-term environmental research and monitoring 

at selected Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sites is reasonable. It should be noted 

76 

that MMS has conducted and participated in numerous research and monitoring efforts at OCS sites, and in some cases obtains regular reports from industry of certain environmental conditions at OCS production sites. To meet the increased demand for environmental information, the MMS environmental studies program has 

aggressively sought opportunities to leverage its available resources through 

partnering. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to focus about $2.5 million annually to meet some of the biological research needs of the MMS. The MMS also has 

created research partnerships with universities in Louisiana and Alaska, leveraging 

Federal funds on a one-to-one basis amounting to over $3.0 million per year. In addition, MMS partners with other Federal agencies including National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) on research projects when common interests exist, and recently has accomplished a number of its research objectives 

through leveraging opportunities under the auspices of the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP). During the past couple of years MMS has used its annual 

$17 million environmental studies program budget to leverage research amounting 

to $22 to $24 million annually. 

Some of MMS’s ongoing, long-term monitoring activities include: 

• Long-term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks. This 20-year 

effort is continuing in an area of the Gulf of Mexico with significant oil and gas 

activities. It is now being conducted cooperatively with NOAA and is designed 

to detect any subtle, chronic effects from natural and anthropogenic activities 

that could potentially endanger community integrity. To date, no significant 

long-term changes have been detected in Flower Garden Banks coral reef populations, total coral cover, or coral diversity. The live coral cover of greater than 

50 percent at the Flower Garden Banks is one of the highest among U.S. reefs. 

• Monitoring the Distribution of Arctic Whales. This project has conducted aerial 

surveys of the fall migration of bowhead whales each year since 1987 to provide 

an objective area-wide context for management interpretation of bowhead migrations and site-specific study results. 

• Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area (ANIMIDA and 

its continuation, cANIMIDA). This study, initiated in 1999, gathers long-term 

site-specific monitoring data that will provide a basis of continuity and consistency in evaluation of effects from recent OCS oil and gas development and production in the Beaufort Sea. Priority monitoring issues have been determined 

through public and interagency comment, and coordinated with lessees and 

other organizations. 

• MARINe (Multi-Agency Rocky-Intertidal Network Monitoring Study). This 

study provides for the monitoring of rocky intertidal sites along the mainland 

of Southern California adjacent to oil and gas activity and is a joint monitoring 

program with 23 Federal, state, local agencies, and private organizations. It has 

been ongoing since 1991. 

• The Alaskan Frozen-Tissue Collection and Associated Electronic Database: A 

Resource for Marine Biotechnology. Tissues from marine mammals and other 

specimens of the Beaufort Sea, Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait, and other planning 

areas have been collected since 1993. This effort ensures a long-term systematic 

record of frozen tissues from Alaska’s marine ecosystems. 

• Archiving and Curating OCS Biological Specimens by the Smithsonian Institution. Through this ongoing project, which started in 1979, the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, provides for the long-term reliable maintenance of invertebrate collections from MMS offshore studies. This 

provides MMS with a biological quality assurance for information collected in 

support of decisions made in the OCS natural gas and oil program. The OCS 

specimens represent one of the most extensive collections of marine invertebrates from U.S. continental shelves and slopes in terms of geographic coverage, 

number of taxonomic groups, sampling density, and associated data collected 

concomitantly with the specimens. Hundreds of new species have been discovered as a result of MMS research projects and this collection contains those 

‘‘type’’ specimens. In addition to the establishment of a long-term record of invertebrates and reliable maintenance, the Smithsonian provides ready access to 

these specimens by qualified investigators and distributes excess materials to 

other qualified museums and teaching collections. 

Question 2. Does the MMS do economic analysis of not only the benefits of oil and 

gas revenue, but also the economic benefits of alternative uses of the OCS when it 

considers a lease proposal? 

77 

Answer. As part of the development process of the 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing 

Program, MMS is required to consider a ‘‘No Action’’ alternative. As part of this 

analysis, MMS does estimate the amount and percentage of alternative sources of 

energy the economy would have to adopt if the 5-year oil and gas program were not 

implemented and its proposed lease sales were not held. In other words, energy alternatives are considered at the 5-year programmatic national level rather than for 

a specific lease or set of leases. 

Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare 

and maintain a schedule of proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales determined to 

‘‘best meet the national energy needs for the 5-year period following its approval 

and re-approval.’’ Preparation and approval of a 5-year oil and gas program must 

be based on a consideration of principles and factors specified in section 18. In compliance with section 18, the MMS performs a cost-benefit or ‘‘net benefits’’ analysis 

of the value of all available resources in the proposed final program. Section 18 requires the Secretary consider ‘‘other uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, 

navigation or proposed sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, and other anticipated uses of the resources and space of the outer Continental Shelf.’’ The analysis 

examines the benefits to society associated with OCS oil and natural gas production 

commensurate with the accompanying costs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

SARAH W. COOKSEY

Federal Financial Support 

Question 1. Ms. Cooksey, what is the appropriate level of Federal funding that 

coastal states need to properly and effectively implement their Coastal Zone Management programs? Do the funding authorization numbers in S. 360 meet those 

needs? 

Answer. The appropriate funding levels for the CZMA should be increased to more 

closely reflect the substantial national interest and goals set out in the CZMA to 

protect and enhance the Nation’s coastal and ocean resources, as well as to provide 

incentives through matching-grants for the administration and implementation of 

CZMA programs. The final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy noted 

that funding for CZMA is a ‘‘significant concern’’. Overall funding and the $2 million 

cap on state administrative and enhancement grants in effect since 1992 ‘hampers 

program implementation, limiting the states’ ability to effectively carry out important program functions... .’’ 

As I noted in my oral remarks and written testimony, the Ocean Commission report documents the significant national benefits of well-planned and managed coastal resources and communities, as well as the increasing challenges that are facing 

coastal management programs. These include increasing population density and development pressure; habitat fragmentation; user conflicts; coastal storms and coastal hazards; travel, tourism, and the growth of secondary homes; mandates to develop coastal nonpoint pollution programs; and emerging demand for use of offshore 

waters including aquaculture, alternative energy, sand mining, and marine protected areas. 

State-based coastal programs provide an essential, integrated programmatic and 

planning approach to assure that these diverse factors and issues are considered in 

managing coastal and ocean resources. Current CZMA funding has not kept pace 

with the demand on administration and implementation of these programs. In addition demand is growing for support of coastal communities to enhance capacity to 

make the complex growth management decisions necessary to assure that natural 

and economic resources are preserved and increased for the benefit of this and future generations. 

The Ocean Commission report specifically recommended the following increases 

from current levels for CZM-related programs: $35 million in the first year, and $95 

million annually thereafter for CZM program grants; $20 million in the first year 

and $60 million annually thereafter for integrated coastal and watershed management; $35 million in the first year and $70 million thereafter for coastal land conservation grants. In addition, the Commission noted the need to provide incentives 

for improved regional, ecosystem-based ocean management that builds on current 

state ocean management efforts under the CZMA, as well as regional initiatives. 

The CZMA includes authority to provide grants for development of more comprehensive state ocean management plans and pilots projects to enhance regional ecosystem-based ocean management. 

The Commission also recognized the need for increased funding for state-based regional resource assessments and information programs to inform coastal and ocean 

78 

management decisions recommending $9.75 million in year one and $36.75 million 

thereafter for regional assessments and information programs. It should be noted 

that these funds are the minimum that is necessary to assure that the programs, 

policies, and plans are in place to guide well-planned, prosperous communities and 

productive coastal ecosystems, and to provide that key coastal and ocean management projects and best practices are implemented. The Ocean Commission also recommends that an Ocean Policy Trust Fund be established beginning at $500 million 

annually and increasing to $1 billion annually in the third year for more comprehensive implementation of state, territorial, and tribal ocean and coastal responsibilities. 

The funding recommendations in S. 360 substantially track the recommendations 

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The increases provided—if actually funded—will provide for distribution of grants to all states on an equitable basis thereby 

relieving the artificial constraints of the ‘‘cap’’ on program administrative and enhancement grants under sections 306 and 309. Clarification of authorities under 

306A will encourage the use of more funding for restoration and waterfront revitalization projects. The new funding provided for Coastal Community grants will provide much needed support for projects and activities ‘‘on-the-ground’’ in coastal communities, including funding for improved management of nonpoint pollution. 

As recommended in my written testimony, we suggest that the final version of 

S. 360 be amended to increase funding authorized for grants to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to $22 million in the first year increasing thereafter 

to provide necessary support for system-wide monitoring, coastal training, and other 

program initiatives. Finally, we recommend that funding be provided under section 

308 of the Act for regional pilot projects and under section 310 to support regional 

resource assessment and information programs. It is our understanding that authorization for coastal land conservation will be provided separately under a proposed 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. 

OCS Regulatory Process 

Question 2. Are coastal states finding problems with any lack of predictability and 

clarity in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy development? If so, what may be 

some reasonable ways to enhance this regulatory clarity from the perspective of 

coastal states? 

Answer. The current CZMA consistency process provides an excellent framework 

for coordinating offshore Federal activities and permitted activities to assure that 

they are consistent with applicable state policies. Coordination between and under 

the CZMA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act has worked well for many 

years. Several states, including Louisiana and Alaska, have also entered into MOUs 

with the Minerals Management Service to further clarify and coordinate project review. It is my understanding that these have worked well and should be encouraged 

in other states and with other agencies as needed. 

Amendments to the CZMA consistency regulations, which would further clarify coordination and provide predictability, have inexplicably been held up in internal 

OMB review for several years. Many of the problems that do arise result from the 

lack of familiarity of the Federal agencies and permit applicants with the applicable 

state requirements and consistency process. In addition, the Federal agencies and 

applicants often fail to consult with the states and to incorporate these policies early 

enough into the Federal planning process. There seems to be a misperception in 

some Federal agencies that the CZMA requirements are extraneous, additional state 

requirements when, in fact, they are part of a Federally approved CZM program and 

should be included as an integral part of any Federal proposal. Because all applicable, enforceable policies must be identified in a state’s Federally approved CZMA 

plan, it is not clear what the real concern is with ‘‘clarity and predictability.’’ (In 

some cases, those objecting may simply disagree with the outcome.) NOAA provides 

periodic consistency training workshops for other Federal agencies and interested 

parties. Support for these educational and agency training efforts should be increased. 

Concerns about the lack of predictability have been raised primarily with regard 

to the CZMA consistency appeal time frames. These are beyond control of the states 

and are managed by the Secretary of Commerce. The vast majority of consistency 

decisions and the appeal are processed without any significant concerns. The proposed consistency regulations provide a more certain deadline for development of 

the appeals record and decision by the Secretary. This timeline is designed to assure 

the availability of full record on appeal for the Secretary and to avoid project delay. 

Unlike offshore oil and gas development for which there is a comprehensive management regime under the OCSLA, there is considerable uncertainty regarding proposal for offshore siting renewable energy facilities such as wind farms, as well as 

79 

citing of LNG facilities. Currently, there is no Federal-state coordinated management framework to review these and other emerging offshore energy related activities. Many states are concerned that the current permit-by-permit, project-by-project 

approach to these proposals under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and/ 

or the Natural Gas Act do not adequately protect state interests and prerogatives, 

fail to adequately consider regional ecosystem needs or comprehensive consideration 

of alternatives, and fail to include adequate environmental safeguards. The states 

would like to work with the Federal agencies and Congress to develop a comprehensive management regime for these and other energy related activities that address 

these state concerns, set out a more predictable process and that do not preempt 

current state authority. 

OCS Resource Development 

Question 3. Ms. Cooksey, how do coastal states view the challenges inherent in 

developing offshore energy? What can we do to better address the concerns of coastal states? 

Answer. I think it is fair to say that states, like the Nation at large, are not of 

one mind regarding the challenges of developing offshore energy. Those challenges 

are complex and include numerous policy, technical, legal, economic, cultural, and 

social questions which can vary state to state. While Louisiana and Texas have long 

supported offshore energy development, New Jersey, Maine, and Florida do not have 

the same approach. All those states agree, however, on the importance of state review. There are significant national interests relating to offshore energy production 

as well as to its transportation and distribution which have disproportionate impact 

on coastal states. There are also substantial national and state interests and benefits generated by managing productive fisheries, assuring conservation of critical 

marine resources and supporting travel and tourism and economic development that 

depends on healthy marine ecosystems that may or may not be compatible with offshore energy development. 

As I noted in the answer to the previous question, there is agreement among 

coastal states that they have significant sovereign and economic interests in the development of offshore energy both within and potentially affecting state waters, and 

on the Outer Continental Shelf off their shorelines. These principles are well established in the CZMA, OCSLA, and Deepwater Port Act, and should form the baseline 

for the Federal Government in working with the states to address the current challenges of offshore energy development. In addressing the challenges of offshore energy development, states share the view that there is a need to protect state interests and prerogatives, provide for comprehensive consideration of alternatives, and 

consideration of environmental safeguards including a management regime. For 

many years and through several Administrations and Congresses there has been 

agreement that areas such as those in the Gulf of Mexico would be available for 

offshore energy development, while other areas would be set aside for moratoria. 

While not everyone may agree with this framework, it does currently reflect the 

closest thing we have to a national consensus. As noted above, demand for renewable energy and other energy related purposes are giving rise to new challenges and 

it is important that Congress and the Administration work closely to develop a common framework for addressing these challenges. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

SARAH CHASIS

Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Question 1. Ms. Chasis, do you have other ideas for incentive-based programs that 

would help control nonpoint source pollution? 

Answer. Yes. We support the following recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) and the Pew Ocean Commission (POC): 

• USDA should align its conservation programs and funding with other programs 

aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution, such as those of EPA and NOAA. 

(USCOP) 

• Congress should provide authority under the Clean Water Act and other applicable laws for Federal agencies to establish enforceable management measures 

for nonpoint sources of pollution and impose financial disincentives related to 

programs that result in water quality degradation if a state persistently fails 

to make meaningful progress in meeting water quality standards on its own. 

(USCOP) 

• Congress should link receipt of agricultural and other Federal subsidies to compliance with the Clean Water Act. (POC) 

80 

Cooperation in Governance 

Question 2. Ms. Chasis, do you have other ideas for incentive-based programs that 

would help improve interstate and interjurisdictional coordination? 

Answer. Yes. It would be very helpful to have incentive-based programs that encourage regional ocean governance frameworks that would: 

• Undertake regional ecosystem assessments to guide management decisions; 

• Identify priority problems within regions and assess the capacity of existing 

governance mechanisms to address those problems; 

• Develop a strategic plan that takes an adaptive, ecosystem-based management 

approach to solving the priority problems; 

• Identify short and long-term goals, responsibilities for taking actions to achieve 

those goals, and the necessary resources. 

• Representatives of Federal, state, and tribal governments should be encouraged 

to participate in such regional governance frameworks and to develop and implement the strategic plan using existing legal authorities. 

• Federal agencies should be encouraged to identify opportunities to better coordinate and integrate their existing programs or activities to more efficiently and 

effectively support implementation of such plans. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

DR. W. DONALD HUDSON, JR., PH.D. 

Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Question 1. What are the effects of inconsistent and declining Federal funding on 

Maine’s coastal program? How serious of a problem is it? 

Answer. Maine has experienced a decline in both CZMA Section 306 base program 

funds and Section 310 Coastal NonPoint Implementation Funds. For Section 306, 

a funding reduction of 60K for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 resulted in: 

(a) the elimination of a contract position that coordinated citizen water quality monitoring programs, (b) cuts in education and outreach project funds, and (c) belt-tightening with respect to ‘‘all other’’ program expenses including professional development and presentation of Maine’s work at national conferences. Further cuts in Section 306 funds would necessitate cuts in CZM positions and/or elimination of entire 

program focus areas. 

With respect to Section 310 Coastal Non Point Funds, Maine’s program for the 

fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 was cut by more than $400,000. Our coastal 

nonpoint program is now a skeleton program, staffed by a 0.5 FTE (Full-Time 

Equivalent) coastal watershed planner, with sufficient funding for only two implementation projects, the Clean Marina program (a) partnership with the Maine Marine Trades Association) and the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials Program. These cuts resulted in: (a) elimination of our local coastal nonpoint pollution 

grants and (b) reducing, by 2.2 FTE (at the Maine DEP), municipal technical assistance efforts for stormwater management. 

Our budget situation is dire. With Maine’s state budget crisis, it is not likely that 

coastal nonpoint pollution programs will receive additional state funding in the near 

term. Additional cuts in Federal funding for coastal nonpoint will all but eliminate 

our considerably decreased efforts. Nonpoint source pollution was cited by both the 

Pew Commission and the U.S. Ocean Commission as a pervasive source of the majority of pollutants to our coastal zone. Consistent, long-term funding for coastal 

nonpoint is necessary to: (a) form and build capacity with watershed groups; (b) 

monitor and survey to find sources of pollution; (c) fix pollution sources; (d) prevent 

additional NPS by working with towns on land use planning, regulation, enforcement and stormwater management; and (e) educating the public about NPS reduction efforts that they can employ on private lands. 

Question 2. My bill, S. 360, would authorize additional funding for nonpoint pollution control programs—would this alleviate the financial problems facing Maine? 

Answer. Yes, provided that additional funds for nonpoint were not a ‘‘zero sum 

game’’ that reduced funding for other CZM programs. 

Question 3. What else can we do to support state nonpoint pollution control efforts? 

Answer. Additional suggested strategies are as follows: 

• Remove the Penalty Provision in the current Section 6217 Program. Removing 

the penalty provision levels the playing field and permits those States and TerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
81 

ritories with unapproved programs to begin implementing their management 

strategies addressing coastal nonpoint source pollution. 

• Add more specific language into S. 360 that recognizes the importance of dealing with water quality, specifically nonpoint source pollution as it relates to 

land use changes and their impacts, with greater emphasis on the impacts of 

uncontrolled growth. 

• Consider implementation contained in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report specifically: 

—Recommendation 14-7. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should 

align its conservation programs and funding with other programs aimed at 

reducing nonpoint source pollution, such as those of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

—Recommendation 14-8. The National Ocean Council (NOC), working with 

states, should establish reduction of nonpoint source pollution in coastal watersheds as a national goal, with a particular focus on impaired watersheds. 

The NOC should then set specific, measurable objectives to meet human 

health- and ecosystem-based water quality standards. The NOC should ensure that all Federal nonpoint source pollution programs are coordinated to 

attain those objectives. 

—Recommendation 14-9. The National Ocean Council should strengthen efforts 

to address nonpoint source pollution by evaluating the nonpoint source pollution control programs established under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 

Reauthorization Amendments and under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act 

and making recommendations to Congress for improvements to these programs, including their possible consolidation. 

• Consider implementing the recommendations in the Pew Ocean Commission’s 

Report on Sprawl and Coastal Pollution regarding the management of growth 

as it relates to water quality specifically: 

—Acknowledge the role that Federal infrastructure and Federally funded infrastructure (roads, sewers, housing, government offices) has on local and regional growth patterns. Require that Federal efforts minimize land conversion 

and provide alternatives to automobile travel. 

—The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) could shift 

more funding from highway construction to land-use planning that promotes 

better travel patterns. 

—Incorporate a regional watershed approach into the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) process to minimize the impacts from new development. 

—Coordinate wastewater treatment facility funding with regional watershed 

planning efforts. 

—In National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting, an alternatives 

analysis is required to determine development scenarios that minimize the 

amount and nature of impacts on natural resources. The NEPA alternatives 

analysis provision should be rewritten to explicitly require that alternative 

land-use scenarios be analyzed when evaluating damage to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 

Coastal Community Grants Program 

Question 4. Could you please tell me what an enhanced Section 309 Community 

Grant Program would allow Maine to do to plan for a vibrant future for our coastal 

communities? 

Answer. Maine provides only about 2 percent of its CZM resources to communities 

in the form of local grants. This funding scenario has existed for more than 10 

years, due to competing demands for program priorities, reduced state budgets and 

capped Federal funding. The CZMA was established as a Federal-state-local partnership and an enhanced Section 309 grant program would allow Maine to renew 

its commitment to coastal towns. Coastal municipal officials and residents are currently overwhelmed at the quantity and timing of new development in their towns 

and the resultant impacts on traditional uses and culture. Most of the coastal towns 

in York County have building caps in place, housing prices are at an all time high, 

coastal access is insufficient and coastal habitats are being compromised. Local officials and citizens need to see local results to feel that the CZM program is relevant 

to them and that it warrants their support. With a bit of assistance, however, coastal towns like Brunswick, Maine become national leaders (recognized by NOAA) for 

their exemplary efforts at coastal watershed protection. 

82 

Specific areas of demonstrated need at the community level in Maine are waterfront revitalization and development of working waterfront strategies, watershed 

and coastal pollution plans, harbor management plans, regional open space and 

habitat protection plans, drinking water supply planning, and hazard mitigation 

planning. 

Question 5. Would the Coastal Community Grants language in my bill allow these 

community plans and goals to be achieved? 

Answer. The language in S. 360 is excellent as drafted. One concern however, is 

whether a new Coastal Community Grant program in Section 309 would require 

coastal community grant-funded projects to result in ‘‘program changes’’, e.g., 

changes to the states’ approved coastal management programs. Currently, Section 

309 funds are required to be focused on those projects that result in actual changes 

to coastal core laws and other formal aspects of approved coastal management programs. In Maine, we previously offered CZM grants to coastal municipalities to fund 

the development of comprehensive plans and land use ordinances, but learned that 

this was an ineligible activity unless Maine revised its entire approved program 

structure to incorporate local plans into our approved state plan. This might have 

caused an additional layer of Federal review of local plans and was not considered 

desirable for Maine. 

Another question would be whether another type of Section 309 assessment would 

be required to qualify for community grant funds. Currently, Section 309 funds are 

available to states that periodically complete a ‘‘309 assessment and strategy’’ and 

receive NOAA approval of same. The benefit of having a Coastal Community Grants 

program would be to be responsive to pressing local and regional needs. It might 

not always be possible to pre-identify those needs in an upfront strategy. Since 309 

assessment and strategies are required to be prepared every five years, it would be 

difficult to anticipate community needs in the out years. Therefore, flexibility should 

be a key ingredient as the guidance is developed for a new Section 309A program. 

Cooperation in Governance 

Question 6. What do you see as the role of the CZMA in fostering or contributing 

to regional governance of an area such as the Gulf of Maine? 

Answer. The CZMA and supporting state statutes in the NOAA approved Coastal 

Programs provide the statutory basis for regional governance. In the late 1980’s, 

when the Gulf of Maine Program was conceived, the CZMA had Section 310 that 

provided funding to the states on a competitive basis for regional initiatives. NOAA 

provided $30,000 in seed funds to start-up the Gulf of Maine Program. The absence 

of ‘‘regional initiative’’ funding has impeded other regions from advancing a regional 

agenda. It is timely and important for Congress to reinstate a specific regional initiatives section in the CZMA (with a specific appropriation) that both incubates regional efforts consistent with the goals espoused by the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy and supports national interests in ongoing interstate and international 

waterbodies. Within this section there should be a requirement of NOAA to foster 

interaction (e.g., a learning network as suggested in the recent Heinz Center ‘‘Innovations by Design’’) among regional efforts to accelerate the attainment of the results we seek. NOAA, as the Nation’s lead coastal and ocean agency, needs the capacity to assist and enable regional efforts. Most important would be staff skilled 

and familiar with regional efforts. 

Question 7. What other incentives could we consider to help sustain coastal state 

participation in this voluntary program? 

Answer. It is essential for Congress to create the flexibility with existing key Federal statutes that accommodates regional needs within a Federal framework. The 

present approach of national standards that apply equally everywhere is administratively simple but fails to appreciate the distinct regional differences. An approach 

that focuses on outcomes and allows the methods used to accomplish the outcomes 

to vary will enable this important shift. Federal agencies need to integrate their 

overlapping and conflicting coastal and ocean mandates within a specific ecosystem 

context. 

Question 8. How else can we encourage coastal states to work with their neighboring states in planning for coastal management? 

Answer. Key aspects of this approach include: 

• Overcoming historic differences that keep states from working with each other. 

• A clear (unvarnished) articulation of the issues that benefit from a regional 

(interstate) approach AND the costs of pursuing a fragmented/dysfunctional 

state-by-state approach. 

83 

• Technical assistance and training for state coastal managers on regional approaches. 

• Seed-funds for projects that address national interests in a regional context. 

• Working models of ecosystem-based management that can be adapted to specific 

areas. 

Preserving Working Waterfronts 

Question 9. What is the State of Maine doing under the CZMA program to counteract the disappearance of the working waterfront? 

Answer. Protecting working access to the coast and enhancing Maine’s ports and 

harbors is a key objective of the Maine Coastal Program. The State Planning Office 

has joined with others to form the Working Waterfront Coalition (WWC), a coalition 

of more than 90 organizations, agencies, and individuals dedicated to preserving the 

working waterfront. The Maine Coastal Program has been heavily involved in supporting the work of the coalition, providing funds for surveys and research on the 

status and trends in working access, supporting waterfront and harbor planning efforts of coastal towns, and participating in the development of new tax policy and 

public investment programs. 

Through the efforts of the WWC, tremendous strides have been made in raising 

public awareness of the issue of loss of access and in developing political support 

for new policy measures. With support from the Governor’s Office, the Maine Legislature is considering the creation of a fishing access program supported by public 

bonding funds to purchase ownership rights or easements on lands and facilities 

crucial to assuring working access to the sea. 

Question 10. What possible amendments to the CZMA would help the State combat this problem? 

Answer. Recently the question of a potential Federal role in protecting working 

waterfronts has been raised and discussed by the Working Waterfront Coalition. 

The WWC has already met with Senator Collin’s staff and received an inquiry from 

Representative Michaud’s office on this topic. From these discussions a number of 

opportunities have been identified: 

• Federal funding would be very helpful to combine with state funds for investments in securing fishing access rights and facilities; 

• opportunities exist to incorporate new or amended program elements into the 

re-authorization of the CZMA or the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and 

• a Fishing Legacy Program, modeled on the Forest Legacy Program, would be 

an appropriate vehicle to link state level efforts with Federal level support. Additional program or agency support is needed to carry out a state legacy program. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

THOMAS KITSOS, PH.D. 

Ocean Observations 

Question 1. I am pleased to have been a cosponsor of the Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act, recently reported by this Committee. New Jersey hosts several key research facilities that will become part of the backbone of this ocean observing system, such as LEO–15, an underwater research lab. How will NOAA ensure that these pre-existing facilities remain operational, as they are now funded 

by individual grants to researchers? 

Answer. NOAA envisions working through an approved IOOS Regional Association certification process for including sub-regional observing networks and their capabilities into an integrated system. Pre-existing facilities such as LEO–15 and the 

underwater research lab would be important components of a certified Regional Association. In addition, the Jacques Cousteau Reserve in New Jersey participates in 

the System-Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) of the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System, which is also a national backbone component of IOOS. Annual 

funding through the reserve system sustains this monitoring program. Provided annual appropriations for the reserve system continue at the level of the President’s 

Request, the operational infrastructure of SWMP will be maintained at the Jacques 

Cousteau Reserve. 

Funding Equity 

Question 2. New Jersey has been receiving $2 million in Section 306 grants, which 

is the cap, for many years. As most states are also at the cap, the ultimate effect 

84 

is that population and coastline is essentially no longer taken into consideration. 

However, coastal populations are growing faster than inland populations. How do 

you propose that states take into account increasing coastal populations, increased 

coastal development, and increased use of coastal resources without adjusting the 

funding allocations or providing more funds? 

Answer. We agree the cap on Section 306 funding is an issue. We are also committed to the equitable distribution of funds. The underlying allocation formula, as 

described in the CZMA and regulations, provides a workable system for allocating 

funds, and does not require revision. NOAA’s ability to provide for the equitable distribution of funds to coastal states has been greatly constrained by the $2,000,000 

maximum per state cap on appropriated Section 306 funds, which has been imposed 

through annual appropriations acts. From 1992 to 2002, the total appropriation for 

Section 306/309 grants has doubled. During the same time period, the cap placed 

on Section 306 funding in the annual appropriations acts remained fixed at 

$2,000,000. Beginning in FY 2003, the appropriations language was modified to 

allow Section 306 grants to exceed $2,000,000 if ‘‘funds provided for ‘‘Coastal Zone 

Management Grants’’ exceed funds provided in the previous fiscal year. Provided 

further, that if funds provided for Coastal Zone Management Grants exceed funds 

provided in the previous fiscal year, then no State shall receive more than 5 percent 

or less than 1 percent of the additional funds.’’ This new language has yet to be 

applied in practice, as appropriations for Coastal Zone Management Grants have 

not increased from one year to the next since FY 2003. The best way to address 

the imbalances that developed over the past decade is to eliminate the cap as proposed by the President’s Budget in FY 2006 and prior years. 

NOAA is also committed to providing non-monetary assistance to help states manage the increasing pressures on their coastal areas. NOAA supports, and will continue to support, state management efforts through research on coastal issues, the 

provision of training and technical assistance, technical products, and management 

assistance. 

National Estuarine Research Reserves 

Question 3. One of the brightest parts of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) is the Estuarine Research Reserves, which conduct education, scientific research, and policy training. My State of New Jersey is fortunate to have the Jacques 

Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve. Will NOAA create new reserves 

even if no additional funding is provided? 

Answer. NOAA will work with states to designate new reserves only when additional funding is provided. About 10 years ago, NOAA instituted a policy of not accepting nominations for new reserves until the budget for the reserve system was 

at the level needed to operate the program effectively. Prior to that time, NOAA designated new reserves despite a lack of new resources, which had the negative effect 

of reducing funding for existing reserves. In 2001, with an increase in funding for 

the reserve system, NOAA decided to accept nominations for new reserves, consistent with the following policy: 

• NOAA is committed to completion of a system of reserves representing the diverse biogeographic and typological character of the estuaries of the United 

States and estuarine-like systems of the Great Lakes, consistent with available 

resources. 

• The first priority for use of NOAA funding is to support the operation of designated reserves, system-wide projects benefitting designated reserves and development of reserves in states that currently have a formal commitment from 

NOAA to proceed with the designation process. 

• Additional reserves (beyond the existing 26 designated and two proposed reserves) will be considered by NOAA only when: (a) sufficient funds are available 

to provide reserves continuing operations support after designation, and (b) sufficient Federal staff and resources are available to adequately support new designation and operation activities. 

• Priorities for accepting new nominations are: 

—First priority will be given to nominations that incorporate both a biogeographic region or sub-region and an estuary type not represented by existing or developing reserves (see NOAA regulations at 15 CFR 921). 

—Second priority will be given to nominations that incorporate either a biogeographic subregion or an estuary type not represented by existing or developing reserves. 

NOAA has been working with Texas on the designation of a new reserve. We anticipate designation of the proposed Mission Aransas Estuary Reserve in Texas by 

85 

the end of 2005. The President’s request for FY 2006 includes an increase of 

$575,000 for the new Texas Reserve and funding and an FTE for staff in NOAA’s 

Estuarine Reserves Division to work with Texas. NOAA has received requests from 

the Governors of Wisconsin and Connecticut to begin the reserve designation process. At this time, funding is not currently available to consider reserve site selection 

in these states. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

DR. WALTER D. CRUICKSHANK

Consistency Review: Alternative Energy 

Question. During the hearing, you mentioned that the Secretary of Interior should 

be given additional authority in Federal consistency appeals at least in part because 

the Nation lacks an overarching governance structure for outer continental shelf energy projects. You indicated that the suite of energy projects includes renewable energy projects in addition to oil and gas energy projects. In your opinion, if the Secretary of Interior did receive this new authority, would renewable energy appeals 

be a significant proportion of the total energy appeals the Department of Interior 

would review? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce have 

worked diligently on communicating and comprehending each other’s concerns over 

Federal consistency and how the existing Federal regulatory regime manages offshore and coastal activities. Dr. Cruickshank did not comment on the issue of increased authority for the Secretary of the Interior and the Department of the Interior is not seeking additional authority in Federal consistency appeals. 

The Administration is seeking authority for the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

alternative energy and energy-related activities on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). With this new authority, all OCS alternative energy projects would be subject to Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) review, as are all oil and gas activities presently. Affected States would review these projects for consistency with State 

CZM plans and any appeal of a State consistency decision would still go to the Secretary of Commerce. 

We believe it is speculative as to what percentage of future energy-related appeals 

will be for renewable energy projects. Given the small percentage overall of energy 

projects that are objected to by the States and reviewed by the Secretary of Commerce, the Department of the Interior would expect the percentage of appeals for 

renewable energy projects to also be low. The States presently review many types 

of energy projects under the CZMA such as OCS oil and gas projects, gas pipelines, 

onshore and offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, nuclear power plants and hydroelectric plants. The NOAA records indicate that of the thousands of energy 

projects reviewed by States under the CZMA since 1978, there have been only 20 

appeals to the Secretary of Commerce. The Department of the Interior will of course 

be available to provide Commerce with any assistance required to develop the Commerce Secretary’s decision record for CZMA appeals relating to energy and energy 

related activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

SARAH W. COOKSEY

Streamlining Appeals 

Question 1. The potential for combining Departmental review of appeals, rather 

than each permitting process occurring separately, was discussed at the hearing. In 

your opinion, are there potential drawbacks to this proposal for the States? 

Answer. Fundamentally states want to assure that the appeals process is fair to 

both sides, consistent with the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act, and 

preserves the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce include such information for 

the record on appeal as needed to address the national interest standard set out in 

the CZMA. Combining review of appeals and relying on the record developed by another agency such as FERC or MMS for their review purposes under other statutes 

could result in unnecessarily limiting the authority of the Secretary. The ultimate 

result could be more costly and time consuming litigation over the Secretary’s decisions rather than expediting final resolution of disputes. 

86 

Integrating Coastal and Watershed Management 

Question 2. What tools will states use to work towards integrating coastal and watershed management for a more regional approach to coastal problems? Are there 

any additional tools that states need for this effort? 

Answer. Under S. 360, states would have clearer authority and additional resources to address watershed issues affecting the coastal zone. States would have 

the flexibility and increased resources needed to make use of current tools under 

the CZMA such as special area management plans to integrate watershed, develop 

plans to protect critical coastal resources and areas of particular concern. The new 

coastal communities grants (309A) also provide much needed assistance for states 

that will be targeted to work at the community level to integrate watershed, coastal, 

and growth management planning to more effectively address land use and 

nonpoint pollution among other issues. The majority of states also have approved 

or conditionally approved coastal nonpoint pollution programs, many of which extend up the watershed. The funding that is available to the states under S. 360 will 

be available to states to reduce the cumulative and secondary effects of polluted 

runoff on the coastal zone. 

The U.S. Ocean Action Plan proposes that there be an interagency effort led by 

EPA and NOAA to support community-based workshops that improve integration of 

coastal and watershed management efforts. In additional to these targeted workshops, Congress should consider providing funding through CZMA section 308 to 

provide for regional pilot projects and ongoing support for innovate state-based efforts that integrate coastal and watershed management. As noted above the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy specifically supported a minimum of $20 million to 

support improved coastal watershed management. A more comprehensive look 

should be taken on how to use Department of Agriculture conservation funding and 

Department of Transportation Highway mitigation funds as an effective incentive 

for coastal watershed management initiatives. 

Education and the Estuarine Research Reserve System 

Question 3. I am very interested in improving ocean and coastal literacy in our 

country, and think the National Estuarine Research Reserve system can make a 

great contribution. Does the Reserve System plan to focus on bringing underrepresented groups into marine science or policy? 

Answer. NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is committed to bringing underrepresented groups into ocean and coastal science and policy. The NERRS has played a role in engaging underrepresented groups through the 

Environmental Cooperative Science Center, the NERRS Graduate Research Fellowship program, and K–12 and community education programs. 

The Environmental Cooperative Science Center (ECSC) was established in 2000 

through a cooperative agreement between NOAA and Florida A&M University, in 

collaboration with Delaware State University, Jackson State University, Morgan 

State University, South Carolina State University, and the University of Miami 

Rosenstiel School. The ECSC member institutions are all Minority Serving Institutions. The ECSC addresses ecological and management issues at five National Estuarine Research Reserves and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Partner 

National Estuarine Research Reserves include Grand Bay Reserve (Mississippi), 

Apalachicola Reserve (Florida), ACE Basin Reserve (South Carolina), Delaware Reserve, and the Chesapeake Bay Reserve (Maryland). The participating reserves are 

actively engaged with supporting undergraduate and graduate students from these 

Minority Serving Institutions in their field and laboratory research and often serve 

as research mentors for student research program development. On average, each 

reserve hosts between 15–20 research students annually, either through research 

projects associated with academic coursework or on an individual researcher basis 

through graduate programs. 

The NERRS Graduate Research Fellowship program provides master’s degree students and Ph.D. candidates with an opportunity to conduct research of local and national significance, within a National Estuarine Research Reserve, that focuses on 

enhancing coastal zone management. Students from Minority Serving Institutions 

have been encouraged to apply to this program. The NERRS are committed to promoting diversity within the Graduate Research Fellowship program and are sending 

information about the program to professors and directors of marine programs at 

Minority Serving Institutions. 

Some of the National Estuarine Research Reserves have played a particularly 

strong role in helping to bring underrepresented groups into ocean and coastal 

science and policy through their K–12 and community education programs. The 

Jacques Cousteau Reserve, in New Jersey, has partnered with the Mid-Atlantic 

Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence to develop science education proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:00 Jan 04, 2011 Jkt 063243 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\63243.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
87 

grams that promote participation from underrepresented groups. These programs 

employ criteria to recruit minority educators into science enrichment programs, and 

capitalize on minority scientists as mentors and role models for our youth. Minority 

mentors have been particularly effective in advancing ocean and coastal literacy 

through classroom-based applications and activities. 

The Tijuana Reserve in California has developed partnerships, programs, and materials specifically targeting underrepresented groups. Through a partnership with 

San Diego State University and a local elementary school, the Tijuana Reserve has 

provided opportunities for Hispanic students to visit the Tijuana Estuary. In addition, the reserve launched a high school summer internship that targets Hispanic 

students. 

The Elkhorn Slough Reserve has provided outreach into the Hispanic communities along the central California coast through the Multicultural Education on Resource Issues Threatening Oceans program (MERITO), a collaborative effort with 

State Parks and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. As part of this program, students learn about research and monitoring projects at the reserve. They 

also visit other wetland systems, local beach and dune restoration sites, municipal 

wastewater treatment plants, local water supply facilities, and a municipal recycling 

center. Through MERITO, the Elkhorn Slough Reserve developed a bilingual watershed curriculum that is being used in after-school programs. The reserve has also 

developed a number of partnerships to encourage underrepresented groups, as well 

as inner city youth, to seek ocean- and coastal-related careers. 

The NERRS hopes to play a stronger role in the future in fully engaging underrepresented groups, particularly if funding levels for NERRS education activities increased. With additional funding, the NERRS could increase Graduate Research 

Fellowship opportunities and provide additional programs and products aimed at 

bringing underrepresented groups into ocean and coastal science and policy. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

SARAH CHASIS

Streamlining the Consistency Appeals Process 

Question. The potential for combining Departmental review of appeals, rather 

than each permitting process occurring separately, was discussed at the hearing. In 

your opinion, are there potential drawbacks to this proposal for the States? 

Answer. Yes. If the appeals process is streamlined as the industry has requested, 

there is a danger that the states and the Secretary will be missing key information 

with which to evaluate (in the case of a state) or decide (in the case of the Secretary) 

the extent of environmental harm caused by a proposed project and, therefore, 

whether it is consistent with the CZMA. This is because the ‘‘streamlining’’ provision advocated by the oil and gas industry (and included in the Senate Energy bill) 

would not allow the timeline for Secretarial appeals to be extended, where necessary, to include the final Environmental Impact Statement or final Biological 

Opinion under the Endangered Species Act on the project. Since a project may not 

proceed without these final documents, there is no reason not to extend the appeal 

timeline to allow consideration of these important and highly relevant documents. 

Having the Final EIS and Biological Opinion is crucial to the Secretary’s evaluation 

of an appeal from a state’s objection to a project since the Secretary is supposed to 

be weighing the environmental impacts of the project against the national interests 

served by the project. Clearly these environmental documents are crucial to that decision. The streamlining process could thus work to the disadvantage of the states, 

the Secretary and the coastal environment. 

88 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Arlington, VA, June 10, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

On behalf of The Nature Conservancy, I am writing to urge the Committee to report legislation to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Both the 

President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan and the final report of the U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy recommended the reauthorization of the CZMA and highlight its importance in ensuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and 

ocean resources. 

The final report of the Ocean Commission recommended that CZMA reauthorization strengthen the planning and coordination capabilities of coastal states to address watershed and ocean planning; increase Federal financial, technical and institutional support for conservation and restoration of coastal habitats; and support regional and state research and information programs that support coastal resource 

assessments. This is a good start. 

The Conservancy supports movement toward an ecosystem approach to management of coastal and marine resources as the best way to conserve biological diversity. We see the partnership established between the states and the Federal Government under the Coastal Zone Management Act as important to implementing this 

approach to management, but stronger measures are needed: 

• Resources available to states under the CZMA are limited, particularly for many 

activities related to on-the-ground conservation. Authorization for the Coastal 

and Estuarine Land Conservation Program and increased resources to support 

the stewardship portion of the NERRS program should be included. 

• Improved coordination across jurisdictions is essential to manage on an ecosystem basis. The Act should foster partnerships among states and within states 

that address upstream issues impacting coastal and nearshore resources. 

• Most CZM programs lack policies and strategies for proactive management for 

the full extent of state waters. Guidelines should encourage states to engage in 

comprehensive planning for all state waters in coordination with adjacent states 

and relevant Federal agencies. 

• Guidelines governing state improvement grants are restrictive and may unfortunately tend to limit states’ ability to do the work necessary to move toward ecosystem-based management. Provisions of the CZMA governing grants to states 

should be modified to make it a more flexible, useful tool to stimulate innovative approaches to adaptive, ecosystem-based management as called for by the 

Commission and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. 

• The paucity of data to inform management is a perpetual challenge for coastal 

and marine resource managers. NOAH should seek to stimulate increased management-oriented research to support states as they move towards ecosystembased management. 

The Conservancy would like to work with you in the coming months on any necessary changes to S. 360 and to ensure its passage during the 109th Congress. 

Thank you for your efforts to enact this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

LYNNE ZEITLIN HALE, 

Director, Global Marine Initiative 

89 

SCHOOL OF MARINE AFFAIRS

Seattle, WA, May 23, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: S. 360 REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CZM ACT

Dear Senators Stevens and Inouye: 

I am writing to urge that you favorably consider S. 360, Reauthorization of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. As you know, this law was first adopted by Congress 

in 1972, has been reauthorized and amended at least six times since then, and has 

become an important part of the fabric of our environmental and resource management laws of the country. It is time to reauthorize the CZMA again in light of the 

findings and new directions provided by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

(USCOP). 

I have actively studied the development and implementation of the CZMA since 

1970. Between 1970 and 1975 I represented Louisiana on the Coastal States Organization when the law was first being debated in the Congress and in the early stages 

of implementation. I founded the Coastal Management journal in 1972 and published papers on all aspects of the implementation of the law through its many 

phases. In 1997 I led a group of six researchers investigating the effectiveness of 

the CZMA in meeting the goals set for it—and found that the CZM programs were 

effectively implementing the Act’s objectives. 

Most recently I served as one of the 16 Commissioners on the U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy. As you are aware the Commission studied all aspects of the Nation’s ocean and coastal policies. The coastal zone received a great deal of our attention—in fact, Part IV, consisting of chapters 9—13, deal with issues specific to the 

coastal zone—population growth, hazards, habitat, sediment and transportation. 

However, throughout the report the role of the states is recognized as crucial to the 

implementation of a great many of our recommendations. 

The CZM programs are the most effective governmental tool available within the 

states for helping to achieve many of the recommendations of the USCOP. For this 

reason it is important that the law be reauthorized and appropriately amended to 

allow an effective state role in national ocean policy. Here are some examples taken 

from the USCOP report of how the states can assist meeting our national ocean policy and management needs: 

State-level socio-economic characteristics must be produced and kept up-to-date 

to determine the value of coastal regions (USCOP Ch. 1 and 25). 

States must take the lead in considering voluntary, regional processes for ocean 

issues, and in developing regional ocean information programs (USCOP Ch. 5). 

States must interact closely with Federal agencies in formulating a coordinated 

offshore management regime (USCOP Ch. 6 and 9) that includes consideration 

of new uses such as marine aquaculture (USCOP Ch. 22) and wind energy 

(USCOP Ch. 24). 

State coastal programs must consider accelerating pressures due to population 

growth, and incorporate watershed management into program activities 

(USCOP Ch. 9). 

States must collect better data on hazard risks and losses, and upgrade mitigation planning (USCOP Ch. 10). 

State coastal programs must set goals for habitat restoration and undertake 

coastal and estuarine land conservation with Federal funding assistance 

(USCOP Ch. 11). 

States must be active in the shift toward comprehensive, watershed and ecosystem-based sediment management regimes (USCOP Ch. 12). 

State coastal programs are central in the efforts to improve response to nonpoint sources of pollution (USCOP Ch. 14). 

States are key players in the effort to reduce introduction of aquatic invasive 

species (USCOP Ch. 17). 

States should receive support for state-level coral reef management (USCOP 

Ch. 21). 

90 

States are critical partners in emerging integrated ocean observing systems and 

can help insure useful information products (USCOP Ch. 26). 

To achieve these goals the state coastal management programs need to be maintained and their level of funding increased. These programs have proven to be flexible and adaptive over the years, capable of responding to new issues that arise. In 

the 1970s the coastal programs were used to experiment with coastal energy impact 

assistance. In the 1980s they were used to establish waterfront restoration programs. In the 1980s and 1990s they have been effective in protecting natural resources such as wetlands and beaches. In the 1990s they were used to improve management of coastal non-point pollution sources. I believe they can be extremely helpful in our current efforts to focus on coastal watersheds and offshore zones—the new 

areas of interest and attention. 

Thank you very much for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

MARC J. HERSHMAN, 

Professor of Marine Affairs, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Washington; 

Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2001–2004). 

cc: Senators Olympia J. Snowe and Maria Cantwell, Tony McDonald, Coastal 

States Organization, and Admiral James Watkins, Chairman, U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy (2001–2004). 

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

Washington DC, May 24, 2005 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Ranking Member, 

Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators, 

On behalf of the American Planning Association (APA), I am writing to urge the 

Committee to support reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 

S. 360. APA applauds your leadership in bringing this important issue before the 

Senate Commerce Committee for a hearing. Both the President’s U.S. Ocean Action 

Plan and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Final Report recommended the reauthorization of CZMA and highlighted its importance in ensuring economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable coastal and ocean resources. 

CZMA reauthorization would strengthen the planning and coordination capabilities of coastal states to address watershed and ocean planning. The legislation 

would increase the ability of state and local officials to improve ocean resources and 

ecosystems by providing technical, institutional and financial support for better 

planning and management of coastal development and land use. APA strongly supports provisions in S. 360 to create a Coastal Community Program. These grants 

would help implement locally-devised strategies for improving coastal communities, 

benefiting local economies and the environment. 

APA represents more than 37,000 professional planners, local officials, and engaged citizens committed to good planning as a tool for creating communities of last 

value. Coastal planning and water policy issues are among APA’s top legislative priorities for the 109th Congress. As such, we strongly endorse S. 360 and pledge to 

work with you in advancing this important legislation and other key elements of 

ocean policy reform. 

Thank you for your leadership on behalf of coastal communities and providing a 

forum for discussion of CZMA reauthorization. 

Sincerely, 

W. PAUL FARMER, 

Executive Director and CEO 

Æ