[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COASTAL AMERICA PROGRAM AND THE TRANSFER OF NOAA PROPERTY TO THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
October 3, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-156
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
82-116 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 3, 2002.................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement of............... 1
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam,
Prepared statement of...................................... 4
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Connaughton, James L., Chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality.................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Corrigan, Dr. Robert A., President, San Francisco State
University................................................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Gudes, Scott B., Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE COASTAL AMERICA PROGRAM, AND ON THE TRANSFER
OF CERTAIN NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
PROPERTY TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
----------
Thursday, October 3, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think Ms. Woolsey is on her way, so we
will wait a couple minutes. We have a vote at 10:15 and
probably will have a lot of extraneous votes.
[recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come to order. I think what
we may do is begin and we can listen a little bit to Ms.
Woolsey here, and I can also listen to her on the floor and she
can submit her statement for the record. But we are here to
talk about how we can better promote Coastal America's
interagency programs and coordinate all them so the impact from
all this study--oh, there is Ms. Woolsey. That should look
interesting in the record. We start off, oh, there is Ms.
Woolsey. Why don't you come up because we are going to have a
vote in 10 minutes. So give your testimony and we will move to
Mr. Connaughton and then Mr. Gudes.
But Lynn why don't you come up and we will start with you.
There are two parts of the hearing, one is to protect
agricultural land in California, as I understand. And the other
is to develop a system, the intergovernmental agencies can work
more efficiently to promote and protect and restore the
Nation's coast lines.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland
Today the Subcommittee is hearing testimony on proposed legislation
to solve a funding glitch that has delayed administrative funding for
Coastal America, and on H.R. 5498, a bill to transfer certain National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) property to the
University of California System.
Coastal America promotes interagency cooperation on environmental
restoration projects. Unfortunately, prohibitions on Federal agencies
receiving and expending funds from other agencies without explicit
statutory authority has threatened program operations this year. I
understand that stopgap measures have been put in place to allow the
program to continue, but I look forward to hearing from the
Administration regarding a permanent solution. I also look forward to
hearing how Coastal America will mesh with the Estuarine Habitat
Restoration Council established under legislation that I introduced in
the 106th Congress.
Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman Miller have introduced
legislation to direct the Secretary of Commerce to transfer certain
property now owned by NOAA to the University of California System. I
look forward hearing from the bill's sponsor this morning as well as
Dr. Corrigan and it is always good to hear from Scott Gudes.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Woolsey.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for letting
me do this before we go vote, because we are going to be on the
floor for a while.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who is being disruptive this morning?
Ms. Woolsey. Not me, Mr. Chairman. I am here. I am here
begging you to do something I need. Thank you for giving me
this opportunity. I am testifying in support of H.R. 5498, and
it is my bill to convey the NOAA facility in Tiburon,
California to the board of trustees of the California State
University system. This facility is on property in my
congressional district that NOAA has shared with San Francisco
State since 1977.
At that time, SFSU won approval to develop a field station
and marine laboratory dedicated to the study of San Francisco
Bay. The SFSU part of this property became the Romberg Tiburon
Center for Environmental Studies. It is really beautiful. It is
the off-campus marine and estuary research and teaching
facility for the university. The coastline where the NOAA
facility and the Romberg Center are situated are one of the
largest and most urbanized estuaries in the United States, San
Francisco Bay. Unfortunately as an ecosystem, the San Francisco
Bay has suffered extensively from human development as you can
imagine, because you know your own bay.
I visited the Romberg Tiburon Center, and I have seen
firsthand the excellent work that they do and the Center's
research stands at the forefront of understanding how human
development affects the ecosystem. Research, however, is not
the main purpose of the Center. It is, first and foremost, an
educational facility which is unique to this area in that it
provides education for an urban student body about the issues
of urban aquatic environments.
Due to its success, the Romberg Center now faces
significant problems because it is a rundown facility and it
lacks space for a growing education and research program that
is very, very popular in our area and nationwide actually.
The facility that NOAA has vacated includes access to the
waterfront, a boat ramp and dock, and this is crucial to the
work of the Romberg Tiburon Center. My legislation codifies
what has been a long time cooperative working arrangement
between NOAA and the Tiburon Center that gives students and
researchers direct access to the Bay. If San Francisco State
University had to go through the usual channels to acquire the
NOAA facility, it would take 3 to 5 years. So we are hoping
that we can shorten that and that we would have a guarantee
that SFSU could get the facility in the end and get it through
this Committee with something you are going to do this
afternoon, actually.
The communities in my district that are closest to the
Center, Tiburon and Belvedere, very much want the Romberg
Tiburon Center to acquire the NOAA facility, and they strongly
support my legislation. The Romberg Tiburon Center has been a
good neighbor to these and other nearby Marin County
communities and they are unanimous in their desire to make sure
that the educational and research use of the property is
continued. Dr. Robert Corrigan, President of San Francisco
State University, will be on your next panel and he will tell
you a lot more about the project than I am today. Again, I
thank you for hearing me and for the opportunity to speak and I
hope for your support in this regard.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Woolsey.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Statement of Lynn Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 5498, my bill to convey the NOAA facility in Tiburon, California
to the Board of Trustees of California State University.
This NOAA facility is on property in my congressional district that
NOAA has shared with San Francisco State University since 1977. At that
time, SFSU was given approval to develop a field station and marine
laboratory on the property, dedicated to the study of the San Francisco
Bay.
The SFSU part of this property became the ``Romberg Tiburon Center
for Environmental Studies'', the off-campus marine and estuarine
research and teaching facility for SFSU.
The coastline where the NOAA facility and the Romberg Tiburon
Center are situated is one of the largest and most urbanized estuaries
in the United States - San Francisco Bay. Unfortunately, as an eco-
system, the San Francisco Bay has suffered extensively from human
development.
I've visited the Romberg Tiburon Center and have seen first-hand
their excellent work.
The Romberg Tiburon Center's research stands at the forefront of
understanding on how human development affects an eco-system.
Research, however, is not the main purpose of the Romberg Tiburon
Center. It is, first and foremost, an educational facility which is
unique to this area, providing education for an urban student body
about the issues of urban aquatic environments.
Due to its success, the Romberg Tiburon Center now faces
significant problems due to run down facilities and lack of space for a
growing education and research program.
The facility that NOAA has vacated includes access to the
waterfront, a boat ramp and dock, which is crucial to the work of the
Romberg Tiburon Center.
My legislation codifies what has been a long-time cooperative
working arrangement between NOAA and the Romberg Tiburon Center that
gives students and researchers direct access to the bay.
If San Francisco State University had to go through the usual
channels to acquire this facility, it would take from three to five
years to complete the process and there would still be no guarantee
that SFSU would get the facility in the end.
The communities in my district that are closest to the Center,
Tiburon and Belvedere, very much want the Romberg Tiburon Center to
acquire the NOAA facility and they strongly support my legislation. The
Romberg Tiburon Center has been a good neighbor to these and other
nearby Marin county communities and they are unanimous in their desire
to continue the educational and research use of this property.
Dr. Robert Corrigan, President of San Francisco State University,
on the next panel, will discuss more about the need for this
legislation.
Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak and I am,
of course, happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I think that is an excellent idea. Sets a
precedent and example that can be done in other parts of the
country, including the Chesapeake Bay, where there are some
facilities that are in a transition period.
So we wish you all the best and I think we may mark that up
this afternoon with the full Committee. Thank you for your
interest.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Of course, it is excellent legislation
because it comes from our friend, Lynn Woolsey. But more
importantly, for all the reasons you have outlined, it is
important and certainly we appreciate the speed with which we
are taking this legislation, and I have a statement to enter in
the record in support as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert Underwood, a Delegate to Congress from Guam
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin first by saying how pleased I
am to be able to join you at this morning's hearing.
Allow me also to welcome our colleague, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.
On behalf of Congresswoman Woolsey, let me say that I appreciate that
you have chosen to expedite the committee's consideration of her bill,
H.R. 5498.
Congresswoman Woolsey has worked tirelessly in preparing this
legislation to convey the former National Marine Fisheries Service
property in Tiburon, California to San Francisco State University, and
I look forward to hearing her views.
Frankly, I was surprised to read in Dr. Corrigan's written
statement that the Romberg Tiburon Center is the only academic research
facility located on San Francisco Bay. Also impressive is the
sophisticated level of marine and estuarine research supported by the
Center. It would appear that the Center's national and international
recognition as a major center for scientific research is well-deserved.
It's future appears equally bright and ambitious.
But aside from the significant benefits of enhancing the
capabilities of this acclaimed research institution to support
environmental research and restoration activities in San Francisco Bay,
we should not overlook the fact that the Tiburon site has been in
public ownership for nearly a century. For virtually that entire span,
the Tiburon site has supported a wide array of water-dependent
activities such as commercial fishing, naval operations, scientific and
applied research, and marine-related education and public outreach.
In my view, the conveyance proposed in HR 5498 makes eminent good
most sense. This legislation offers a win-win situation for San
Francisco State University and for NOAA who will still have open access
to the property and use of one building for equipment storage.
Furthermore, all questions of title and liability are settled, and
any private property ``takings'' concern is irrelevant. Moreover, this
conveyance is vastly superior to the alternative scenario of the
General Services Administration's excess property process.
Mr. Chairman, I support HR 5498, and even though little time
remains this Congress, I hope to be able to work collaboratively with
you and with Congresswoman Woolsey to find a way to move this
legislation to a successful conclusion before the Congress adjourns
this year. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Anything further, Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. I just think if we could do it this afternoon,
it would make a big difference to San Francisco State
University and to the community that I represent.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I don't think that will be a
problem. We will do our best and look forward to the success of
this venture to help educate young urban people about the
importance of people living in harmony with nature's bounty.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I would
ask you to come out and visit the Center.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would very much like to. I think what we
will do now since we have a vote underway, we will take a short
recess because I guess I can be back here in less than 10
minutes and I will know better what the vote schedule is. We
will take a short recess and I will be right back.
[recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Hearing will come to order. Thank you for
your patience once again.
And Mr. Connaughton you may begin sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES CONNAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Connaughton. I think I need to begin expressing my
pleasure to be here, in particular as a Baltimore boy and as an
avid sailor and an avid beachcomber. I envy you your district.
It is one of the finest places up and down the eastern
seaboard, and it must be great to be representing that area.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is a splendid challenge.
Mr. Connaughton. I can imagine. I am also pleased to be
here with Scott Gudes from NOAA, who has certainly been a great
participant and enthusiastic supporter of Coastal America's
effort with its counterparts at NOAA. It was just a year ago
that I convened the first meeting of the Coastal America
principles under President Bush's administration.
And shortly thereafter, we were celebrating the 10th
anniversary of the Coastal America's program. It was a program
that was conceived by a handful of individuals 10 years ago,
now 11 years ago, and has survived in its sort of wonderful
coordinating form and produced great results in a remarkably
efficient way. So it is a real jewel. And its longevity is a
testament to its success and the level of interest across the
administration to sustaining the program.
I was particularly impressed by the high level commitment,
not just to the Federal level of this program, but more
importantly, the regional level to this program as providing
the glue to coordinated actions and the glue to providing
innovative solutions to challenging coastal problems.
Last fall, I had the good pleasure of presenting some
partnership awards to the Maine Coastal Wetlands Restoration
Team, which consists of government officials and the Maine
Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership, which is the
nongovernmental side, and again to be in that setting--I have
done several since--and see the remarkable collaboration and
sort of results-oriented kind of conversations that produces
these results against the kind of thing we need to be
replicating over and over and over again are these teams of
local interested parties coming together and owning the
outcome.
And that was a prime example. That team had restored 300
acres of wetlands at 11 sites. And I personally helped them
break ground at their next project site, which was the
Scarborough Marsh. The corporate wetlands restoration component
of that was really quite consequential as well and they were,
you know, were there as a real partner in getting the job done
and again banking the results.
If you take the public side and you add the nonpublic side,
there are currently 104 companies and 54 nongovernmental
organizations who participate in the Coastal America program.
So it is a program that is readily accessible. And with those
kinds of numbers of participation, again, it is a real example
of the kind of glue or magnetism that these results or
partnerships can produce. This Subcommittee had asked how
Coastal America's activities would be coordinated with similar
activities undertaken pursuant to the estuary restoration act
of 2000 which I know Mr. Chairman you were strongly a key
player in.
Obviously, as you know, the process of deciding the
restoration of environmental activities is not complete through
the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. But certainly we are
looking at the extent to which the Coastal America's framework
can be a useful tool to help accomplish the objectives of the
Act. There are many tools across government, but this is one
that can be an important contributor.
Second the Subcommittee asked how many acres have been
restored by Coastal America's projects and what the costs of
such restoration has been. First, as you are aware, Mr.
Chairman, Coastal America is a tool that facilitates the work
of numerous agencies. So it draws upon their statutory
authorities and their budgets and helps link them together to
produce a collective and coordinated action. It has been
difficult to roll it all up into one number, but I can give you
a flavor for the performance metrics. First more than 600
projects have been initiated.
The size of the projects range from 1 to 60,000 acres. 50
projects alone produced 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands,
restored and protected; 42 dam removals, 29 of which have
opened over 3,000 miles of river. The cost of running the
Coastal America's coordination effort has been between 200- and
$300,000. It is really cheap for the coordination function that
is provided. And then, of course, the agency budgets, we are
talking about harnessing over $100 million of agency budget
that is through their appropriated programs.
Finally, the Subcommittee had asked how CEQ resolved the
fiscal year 2002 interagency funding problem. We resolved it
with the lawyers getting together and lining up the CEQ
management fund process to conform with the law to enable us to
receive the money to allow NOAA to administer it. I just--I can
tell you today we settled that. The funds are getting into the
program and we look forward to the next 10 years at Coastal
America.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Right on the mark.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connaughton follows:]
Statement of James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Underwood and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality. I am also Chairman of the Coastal America Principals Group,
the governance body for the Coastal America Partnership.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today to discuss Coastal America. Coastal America can provide useful
insights for the Subcommittee as it contemplates how to increase the
effectiveness of programs that involve multiple agencies. I am pleased
to share this panel with Mr. Scott Gudes from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
I have taken an active interest in the Coastal America Partnership
during my tenure as Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality
and the Coastal America Principals Group. Last December, I had the
opportunity to present partnership awards to the Maine Coastal Wetlands
Team and the Maine Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP)
which had restored 300 acres of wetlands at 11 sites, and I personally
helped them break the ground at their next project site, Scarborough
Marsh. Last May, I had the opportunity to participate in a fish release
ceremony celebrating the completion of a series of fishways on the
Cooper River which flows through Camden New Jersey. I have seen how
Coastal America partners combine their resources, expertise and
authorities. For example, one of the most valuable military
contributions to the partnership has been the use of military training
exercises to accomplish environmental restoration objectives.
Last week, Coastal America presented an award to an Army Reserve
unit that removed a dam in Plymouth, Massachusetts, thereby restoring
anadromous fish spawning habitat while receiving important mission-
critical training experience.
Coastal America began in 1992 as key executive branch officials
decided how best to implement President Bush's wetlands policies. The
core responsible agencies--NOAA, EPA, Corps of Engineers, and Fish and
Wildlife Service--recognized the need for a coordinating mechanism
among Federal agencies working on wetlands issues.
Ten years later, Coastal America has established a successful track
record and is distinguished by:
National MOU with shared goals and objectives
Nine Regional teams supported by a national structure
Flexible regional approach to meet local needs
Effective leveraging of resources
Combined existing program authorities
Inclusive process (Federal/State/local/Tribal/private)
Voluntary involvement
Action focus with on-the-ground projects
Well-established awards program
Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers network
Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership
The Administration is emphasizing five basic themes in carrying out
our environmental management responsibilities:
1. Stewardship--ensuring that responsibility of caring for the
resources is vested in those interests that are close to the resources
2. Innovation--identifying new management and regulatory solutions
to existing environmental challenges
3. Science-based decision-making--ensuring that policy and
management decisions are based on the best available science
4. Federalism--focus on partnerships and collaboration with State
and local interests
5. Compliance--assuring that environmental compliance is
integrated into decisions
The Coastal America track record establishes it as a model for
success on each of these themes.
This Administration has focused on fish, wetlands, water and
watersheds. Fish protection is a difficult interagency policy issue and
an Administration priority. Wetlands are vital to preserving and
enhancing water quality and wetland ecosystem restoration and
protection is also a priority for preserving wildlife habitat and
support services. The Administration is also focusing on assessments of
water and watersheds and we will continue to establish direction in
this policy area over the next two years. Each of these goals should be
addressed and managed comprehensively and that requires a multi-agency
approach that transcends individual agency responsibilities. The
Administration is looking for ways to replicate the success of Coastal
America in a broader context to address these issues.
These issues are complex and interrelated. Often, individual
agencies are only authorized to take incremental approaches. But we
think that in most cases, authorities and resources are sufficient, if
they can be deployed more strategically.
To be effective, collaborative strategies must integrate technical
and managerial capabilities and resources of Federal partners with
those of State, Tribal, local, and nongovernmental organizations to
identify and solve specific local problems. These collaborative
endeavors must be united by the principles of sustainable development.
Further, effective natural resource management strategies must be
developed within an ecosystem and watershed context.
The following criteria for ensuring successful collaborative
governance were developed by the Coastal America Principals in 2002.
The criteria are applicable to any organized collaborative enterprise.
To be successful, the collaborative arrangement:
Must allow and provide for individual missions of the
different programs to be maintained in their entirety.
Must increase coordination among the programs.
Must increase efficiency (which is similar to, but
different than, increased coordination).
Must provide for accountability (collectively and by
agency) to be maintained, and expectations to be met.
Should be transparent and easily understood by the all
stakeholders.
Should encourage a collaborative approach between
Federal, State, Tribal and local entities.
Coastal America exhibits these criteria as it operates through a
local-regional-national structure that is composed of:
Principals Group--Assistant Secretaries of the partnering
departments. Meet periodically to set policy direction for
collaboration.
National Implementation Team--Larger group of senior
managers from the partner agencies. Meet monthly to address policy
conflicts and provide support to the Regional Teams.
Regional Implementation Teams--This is the core of
Coastal America. Nine teams covering all domestic coastal areas,
including the Upper Mississippi and Great Lakes. Comprised of senior
regional officials of the partner agencies. As the primary operating
units for interagency consultation and action, they identify regional
issues, develop strategies, and select and prioritize projects. They
are advocates for the projects with their headquarters counterparts.
They communicate, build relationships, synthesize information and look
for ways to break down barriers that could prevent collaboration.
Project Teams--Locally-based groups comprised of Federal,
State, Tribal and local organizations. They are established as needed
to implement projects. The Regional Implementation Teams spawn and
support the project teams.
The Added Value
Coastal America provides an established mechanism and process that
allows the agencies to plan and act strategically and employ their
resources and authorities in concert to achieve more effective results
quicker. Participants in Coastal America enjoy the following benefits:
Ready mechanisms and processes for addressing complex
ecological issues.
Quicker implementation of projects that cross
jurisdictional lines.
Mechanism to focus national attention and encourage
support for innovative solutions that may require removal of
programmatic or regulatory barriers.
Mechanism for involving private sector in restoration and
protection efforts (Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership).
Effective means for increasing public understanding of
coastal processes, issues, and needs (Coastal Ecosystem Learning
Centers).
The Coastal America experience is unique and is an excellent model
for effective collaboration within the Federal government. This
partnership focuses complex and diverse interests on collaborative,
comprehensive solutions to which several agencies may each contribute.
It is the nature of collaborative efforts that each of the partners
makes a contribution to the whole, thus providing for a more
comprehensive solution.
I would like to turn now to the questions posed by the Subcommittee
in my invitation letter. First, you asked how Coastal America's
environmental restoration activities would be coordinated with
activities of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council, the estuary
habitat restoration strategy and the estuary habitat projects
authorized by the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000.
The coordination mechanisms have not yet been fully developed,
because there has not yet been funding for projects under the Estuary
Restoration Act of 2000. The Administration is continuing to examine
the options for implementing the Act, and I assure the Subcommittee
that coordination will be considered.
The Subcommittee asked how many acres have been restored by Coastal
America projects since the program's inception and what the costs have
been. We do not have a complete accounting of the cumulative acres
restored or the dollars spent. Participating agencies report those
accomplishments and expenditures for which they are responsible.
Implicit in the development of such a shared system is the need to
settle on common terms and definitions along with common performance
measures. The Administration is now moving forward to develop common
performance measures for work processes that are common to multiple
federal agencies. OMB is providing leadership to the Executive Branch
agencies through the budget process. In April of this year, OMB
Director Mitch Daniels provided the first draft guidance for shared
performance measures for wetlands. These have served to foster
discussion among the participating agencies. We foresee the development
of shared measures in the near future.
Although I cannot report to you today a specific number of acres of
wetlands that has been restored over the ten years that Coastal America
has been in operation, I can apprise you that more than 600 separate
projects have been initiated through Coastal America. These projects
include wetland restoration, dam removal, species protection and
pollution mitigation. These projects range in size from 1 to 60,000
acres.
As to cost, Coastal America is a program that operates with minimal
funding from several Federal agencies. In Fiscal Year 2002, Coastal
America's budget was $282,000. In Fiscal Year 2001, it was $192,000; in
Fiscal Year 2000, it was $135,000. The recent increase represents the
increased support being given to Coastal America by this
Administration.
Lastly, the Subcommittee asked how CEQ is resolving the fiscal year
2002 interagency funding problems faced by Coastal America. The Council
on Environmental Quality has statutory authority to receive payments
from agencies to finance Federal interagency environmental projects and
task forces, such as Coastal America. Because of issues regarding
NOAA's authority to accept interagency financing for Coastal America,
CEQ agreed to create a management fund pursuant to its statutory
authority to finance Federal interagency environmental projects and
task forces. However, CEQ did not want to issue a new charter for a
Coastal America Task Force without having promulgated management fund
regulations with amendments to allow continued administration of the
Coastal America Program by NOAA. These regulations were mandated by
statute in 1984 and had not been promulgated as of 2002. Thus, we
worked with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of
Administration to (1) finalize the amended regulations; and (2)
finalize the Coastal America management fund charter, in that order. We
were successful, and I have adopted the amended regulations and
executed a Coastal America management fund charter.
As a result of this work, a Coastal America management fund has
been created in full accord with the new regulations. We have a budget
in place for Coastal America's immediate needs, and three agencies are
in the process of transferring funds to this management fund for
Coastal America.
Thank-you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Gudes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS
AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee members,
Subcommittee staff, thank you for the opportunity to appear
here today to testify on Coastal America and the transfer of
the NOAA property at Tiburon, California to San Francisco
State. As always, we appreciate your strong support for our
programs and for all our environmental programs, estuary
programs across the country.
And actually, today is kind of significant. We are going to
be leaving here to take part in estuary live, which is going to
connect school kids across the country and talk about the
importance of estuaries. And this weekend is National Estuaries
Day. As Chairman Connaughton just said, the Coastal America
partnership was established to protect, preserve and restore
coastal watersheds by integrating Federal actions with State
local and tribal governments and nongovernmental efforts. At
NOAA, we are an enthusiastic partner in this program. We are
one of 12 agencies. Coastal America is a very effective way--it
is a mechanism and one of the ways that our agency has worked
on restoring habitat, restoring fisheries, improving estuarian
area.
And in fact, Virginia Tippee, the executive director is a
NOAA alumni. So we are pretty proud of that, and somebody who
comes to the job all the time showing a lot of caring,
dedication to the importance of our environment and estuarian
areas and the importance of habitat restoration. In your letter
to NOAA, you asked a few questions. Chairman Connaughton
covered a few of those, but let me cover a few you asked. The
first question concerns if we think additional statutory
authority will be needed to accept and expend funds for Coastal
America.
My answer is that knowing the Department of Commerce have,
in fact, been concerned regarding interagency financing issues
for Coastal America since the partnership was set up back about
1994. And that is because there is an annual appropriations
provision--I think it is section 610 of the Treasury
appropriations bill, and it is commonly called, I quote, the
"anti-pass-the-hat provision." and it restricts Coastal
America's ability to obtain contributions from partner
agencies.
It basically says you can't augment an appropriation by
going to other agencies without specific authority, which is
why you are considering this issue. So as a result of this
restriction in fiscal year 2002, frankly, NOAA found itself
unable to disburse distributions for Coastal America, and as a
result, we worked with the Chairman and his staff, and they
were very helpful in coming forward and having the Council on
Environmental Quality manage the interagency contributions for
Coastal America using the management fund authority. But I
think, as the Chairman said, CEQ has noted and all of us feel
at NOAA and the other agencies that we should continue to seek
legislation that allows us to go back to the process where we
would be able to go back and collect agency contributions and
support them from NOAA. So that is the legislation before you.
Your second question asked what authorities does NOAA use
or enter into cooperative agreements and general contracts and
grants. Could we use additional authorities? I would say that
NOAA, because of its broad range of programs--it is
interesting. We are probably so diverse eclectic agency, but we
don't have any single authority that we use for entering into
cooperative agreements, contracts, grants, to carry out our
programs.
For example, just take NOAA's national ocean service. We
rely on the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Coast and Geodetic Survey
Act, and several other acts to try to do business on a regular
basis with our different partners.
So each of NOAA's multiple authorities has its own
requirements. Some authorities allow us to enter into
agreements with other Federal agencies, while others allow a
broad range of partners. These authorities also differ as to
whether NOAA may transfer and receive funds from other parties
for services. So we believe that clarifying and updating the
agency's current authority to enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts and grants and other arrangements will
enable us to work more efficiently with private sector partners
and to keep pace with evolving responsibilities.
Your third and fourth question were about coordination
between Coastal America and the activities authorized by the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Act of 2000, the number of wetlands
restored and the projects in which Chairman Connaughton just
covered.
I guess I would like to note, first of all, that I sit on
the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council, and am fairly well
versed in the activities that it has been following, and that
these programs are particularly important to me that I have
taken part in. In fact last week, I was doing an Oyster
Restoration Project out at Kent Narrows at the Horse Head
Environmental area.
Coastal America is an important part of these programs. It
is an important part of the number of tools and relationships,
and I think it is something, as the Chairman said, that the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Council will take a look at as a
mechanism and the way of doing business. Regarding the
Subcommittee's draft bill on Coastal America, NOAA generally
supports the legislation obviously to accept and expend funds
for other Federal agencies as I mentioned. There is a small
technical change we proposed.
And finally you asked about the Tiburon land conveyance and
an opportunity to commit--to comment on representative
Woolsey's draft legislation to authorize the transfer of the
former NOAA lab at Tiburon. The Tiburon lab, I think as you
know, has been used for some 40 years. And in 2000, we moved
down the coast to the Santa Cruz site where we are co-located
with the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Some of this property was disposed in 1978 through the
regular 49 Property Act disposal procedures. A minor portion of
the property is still needed by NOAA as a storage facility for
our fishery service. And we intend to work with the Committee
staff to better understand the implications of the proposed
transfer and ensure that Federal assets are put to their best
needs in meeting the needs of NOAA and San Francisco State as
this moves through the legislative process. And I agree with
all the comments that the Congresswoman made before.
So in conclusion, once again, we appreciate the opportunity
to be here and we are very proud members of the Coastal America
team.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gudes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Statement of Scott Gudes, Deputy under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
I. INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to appear before you to testify on Coastal America and the
transfer of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
property to the Board of Trustees of the California State University. I
will speak first to the specific questions regarding Coastal America
outlined in your letter of invitation to this hearing.
As you know, the Coastal America Partnership was established to
protect, preserve and restore our coastal watersheds by integrating
Federal actions with State, local and tribal government and non-
governmental efforts to address specific problems with coastal
resources. NOAA, located within the Department of Commerce, serves as
one of the 12 Federal partners in the Coastal America Partnership. This
Partnership formalized by a Memorandum of Understanding, includes other
Federal environmental /resource agencies with coastal stewardship
responsibilities (Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the
Interior), infrastructure agencies (Departments of Agriculture, Energy,
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development), the Military (Army,
Navy, Air Force), the State Department and the Executive Office of the
President. Our participation in Coastal America is one of a number of
mechanisms and partnerships in which we work to restore habitat and
fisheries, and improve estuarine areas.
Over the last decade, the Coastal America Partnership has
implemented hundreds of projects including:
Wetland restoration using dredged material, to restore
habitats to their natural conditions;
Anadromous fish restoration by removing derelict dams and
installing fish ladders;
Endangered species protection such as a Right whale-
sighting alert system to eliminate ship strikes;
Erosion controls on river banks and dune areas; and,
Non-point source pollution control programs on farms to
reduce nutrient runoff.
Coastal America uses several mechanisms to encourage collaboration
between the government, non-governmental organizations and the private
sector.
INTER-AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS: The Partnership strives to creatively
combine the resources and expertise of the different partner agencies
to accomplish shared objectives.
COASTAL ECOSYSTEM LEARNING CENTERS: The learning center network was
established to raise public awareness of, and increase public
involvement in, coastal restoration and protection efforts. To date, 15
marine education institutions and aquaria have been designated as
Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers of excellence. Through this network,
the Partnership reaches 14 million people per year.
CORPORATE WETLANDS RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: To involve the private
sector more effectively, Coastal America established the voluntary
national corporate partnership in 1999. Through this program,
corporations join forces with federal and state agencies to restore
wetlands and other aquatic habitat.
As part of my testimony today, I would like to submit to you a copy
of the Coastal America report entitled ``A Decade of Commitment to
Protecting, Preserving and Restoring America's Coastal Heritage.'' This
report highlights many of the accomplishments of the Partnership since
its inception. It is available online at www.coastalamerica.gov
II. SPECIFIC COMMITTEE QUESTIONS REGARDING COASTAL AMERICA
In your letter of invitation to Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret) the NOAA Administrator, you requested that
NOAA address the following specific questions:
Why after 8 years of accepting and expending funds from other Federal
agencies for Coastal America activities has NOAA determined
that it now needs additional statutory authority to accept and
expend such funds?
NOAA has been concerned regarding interagency financing issues for
Coastal America since the Partnership was established in 1994. An
annual appropriations provision that applies to all Federal agencies
(currently Pub. L. 107-67, Sec. 610 (2001)) restricts Coastal America's
ability to obtain contributions from partner agencies for Coastal
America operations. Because of this restriction, NOAA was unable to
obtain contributions for Coastal America activities from the partner
agencies, even though those agencies indicated that fiscal year 2002
funds were available for such contributions. As a result for fiscal
year 2003, NOAA requested for the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to manage interagency contributions for Coastal America
using CEQ's Management Fund authority, which provides specific
authority for interagency financing. However, CEQ has indicated that
NOAA should continue to pursue legislation to allow NOAA to manage
Coastal America operations on a permanent basis.
The Coastal America program provides a model for interagency
collaboration on environmental projects, and based on similar problems
encountered by other NOAA programs, NOAA encourages the Subcommittee to
consider the broader need for NOAA-wide authorities to facilitate the
success of such collaborative efforts and initiatives.
What authorities does NOAA use to enter into cooperative agreements,
contracts and grants to carry out the agency's programs? Are
additional authorities necessary to effectively implement
programs other than Coastal America?
NOAA, because of its broad range of programs, does not have one
single authority for entering into cooperative agreements, contracts,
and grants to carry out the agency's programs. For example, the
programs represented by just one NOAA line office, the National Ocean
Service (NOS), rely on various provisions of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Coast and
Geodetic Survey Act, along with other statutes. In addition, NOS also
uses the Economy Act and the Department of Commerce's authorities for
joint projects and special studies.
Each of these authorities has its own special requirements. Some
authorities allow NOAA to only enter into agreements with other Federal
agencies while others allow NOAA to enter into agreements with Federal
and State agencies. Other statutes allow a broad range of possible
partners. These authorities also differ as to whether NOAA may transfer
funds to the other party for services received or receive funds for
services NOAA provides to the other party. Some are silent on the
ability to transfer funds and therefore are interpreted to mean that
only general collaborative agreements without funding requirements are
permitted. Despite NOAA's many different programmatic authorities,
there are from time to time projects within NOAA's mission that might
not fit easily into the existing authorities for the purpose of
transferring funds. This broad choice of authorities has led to some
administrative problems and confusion within program offices.
You have asked if additional authorities are necessary to
effectively implement programs other than Coastal America. NOAA
believes that clarifying and updating NOAA's current authority to enter
into cooperative agreements, contracts, grants, resource-sharing
agreements, and joint and cooperative institutes with a single NOAA-
wide authority for these purposes will enable NOAA to work efficiently
with public and private partners and to keep pace with its evolving
responsibilities.
How will Coastal America's environmental restoration activities be
coordinated with the activities of the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Council, the estuary habitat restoration strategy,
and the estuary habitat projects authorized by the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Act of 2000?
A major goal of the Estuary Restoration Act is to promote
coordination of restoration activities among Federal agencies and with
the private sector. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council (composed
of the Army, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency) has developed a
national strategy for restoration of estuarine habitat. This strategy
provides a framework for improving ongoing restoration activities and
for planning future restoration that will maximize benefits for
estuarine habitat on a national scale. Coastal America and the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Council will coordinate closely on implementing the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Act. For example, estuary restoration
projects recommended by the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council that
are also approved by the Coastal America Regional Implementation Teams
will be eligible to participate in the Corporate Wetlands Restoration
Partnership, through which they can obtain non-federal match. Coastal
America can also help to obtain military assistance for qualified
projects, through the Innovative Readiness Training Program and other
programs. In addition, Coastal America's Coastal Ecosystem Learning
Centers can educate the public about the value of estuaries and the
need to restore them.
Most of the agencies that are members of the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Council are also members of Coastal America. NOAA shares a
common theme with Coastal America: apply a grass-roots approach to
restoration by actively engaging communities in on-the-ground-
restoration of fishery habitats around the nation. NOAA Fisheries''
Community-based Restoration Program (CRP), administered through the
Restoration Center, actively supports NOAA's participation in Coastal
America restoration activities. Additionally, NOAA staff from the
Restoration Center and the National Ocean Service's Office of Response
and Restoration, provide support for me, as the NOAA principal serving
on the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council, as well as support for the
estuary habitat restoration workgroup. This workgroup is responsible
for overseeing the implementation of the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Act of 2000. It was this workgroup that developed the restoration
strategy as required by the Act. NOAA has provided substantial support
for the Estuary Habitat Restoration Act as well as to Coastal America
and its restoration activities. I anticipate that these strong ties
between NOAA and Coastal America will continue, and I would recommend
that we reinforce these interactions by providing specific
opportunities for collaborative restoration projects, as defined in the
estuary habitat restoration strategy, through NOAA's Restoration Center
and the Office of Response and Restoration.
What are the cumulative number of acres restored by Coastal America
projects since the program's inception? How much money has been
spent on these projects and by which agencies?
Through the Coastal America Partnership, over 600 projects have
been carried out in 26 states, 2 territories, and the District of
Columbia. The partnership process has restored thousands of acres of
aquatic habitats and opened several thousands of miles of riverine
habitat for spawning fish. One of the problems in trying to develop
summary metrics nationwide is that each agency tabulates its own data
for their programs, using their own individual methodologies. At NOAA,
we are working on developing a database to track the progress of the
restoration projects funded under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Act.
The database will initially include projects funded by NOAA programs
and will then be populated with projects funded by other agencies. We
expect to have an initial version of the database by May 2003. This
database will serve to document nation-wide success in restoring
estuarine habitats.
Specific Comments on the Draft Bill for Coastal America
In general, NOAA supports the provisions in this draft bill that
would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to accept and expend funds
from other Federal agencies to carry out activities of the Coastal
America program along with authorizing appropriations for Coastal
America administrative functions. NOAA offers one specific comment on
this draft bill under Section 1(a) - Definitions. The term ``Coastal
America activities'' refers to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
dated July 12, 1994. NOAA suggests that because the Coastal America
partners are currently in the process of drafting a new MOU, this
definition should include a reference in addition to the 1994 MOU that
states, ``any amendments or replacements thereto.
III. NOAA TIBURON LAND CONVEYANCE
NOAA appreciates the opportunity to comment on Representative
Woolsey's draft legislation to authorize the transfer of the NOAA-owned
Tiburon Laboratory in Tiburon, California to San Francisco State
University. The Tiburon Lab has been used for research for nearly 40
years, but the facility no longer meets current and future research
needs for the agency. In 2000, the Tiburon facility was vacated upon
completion of NOAA's new laboratory located down the coast with the
University of California Santa Cruz, although a minor portion of the
property is still needed as a storage facility for NMFS research
activities, NOAA intends to work with the Committee staff to better
understand the implications of the proposed transfer and ensure that
Federal assets are put to their best use in meeting the needs of NOAA
and SFSU as it moves through the legislative process.
IV. CONCLUSION
Our Nation's coastal resources face a myriad of challenges such as
habitat destruction, polluted runoff, and coastal hazards. Coastal
America serves as a catalyst for interagency partnerships to address
these challenges and mitigate their effects at the local, regional, and
national level. The Coastal America Partnership is an excellent example
of government and private sector collaboration and coordination, and
one that could be reinforced by our Nation's leaders through this
proposed legislation. NOAA appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in
these issues and the opportunity to provide our thoughts on these
pieces of draft legislation. We look forward to working with the
Subcommittee as these bills are introduced.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Just a couple of quick questions. We then
need to create some type of statutory authority that is
clarifying existing language that causes some problems with
making the connection between the funding as far as different
agencies are concerned. So right now, you are operating on a
very thin thread that is difficult to maneuver and you need
clear, specific language to give you the authority to continue
what you are doing now.
Mr. Connaughton. The short answer is yes. And the
President--we submitted legislation to do that and I know we
have been talking with the Committee about how to do that. It
is a very narrow, simple fix and it would resolve some of the
machinations we have to go through to keep the program moving.
We have the legal authority to do what we are doing, but it
requires a lot of bureaucracy that takes away the resources
from the program.
Mr. Gilchrest. We would certainly like to do that because
there are enough encumbrances along the way that make it
difficult, not only between bureaucracy between different
agencies, but the permitting process, the confusion that
creates on the ground with the local government or local
sponsors. So anything we can do to expedite that and make it
more efficient to work cleanly, we will certainly help out with
that part of the process.
What I would like to ask very briefly is a regional
district issue question that I have that, based on what you are
talking about, as far as working with interagencies to restore
estuary habitat. Much of the Delmarva Peninsula is estuary and
very few, if any, rivers on the Delmarva Peninsula are real
rivers. They are tidal basins and they go way up with that
tidal. And there are a few dams out there that were probably
useful in the 1940's or 1950's providing power for tomato
plants et cetera, but those tomato plants are gone, the dams
remain. They have a little lake where people can paddle around
in.
But I think the restoration of the original--if I could use
that term ecosystem--would be beneficial. There is an ongoing
process now that has just gotten started via USDA. The
conservation title section G called the Delmarva Peninsula
conservation corridor where we are working with the Department
of Agriculture to create an agricultural corridor, but to
create a forestry corridor based on the hydrology for wildlife.
There are a number of little projects that Scott is familiar
with as far as what NOAA is working on. And even the U.S.
Geological is involved in some of that along with some local
governments.
So what I would like to do at a time in the not-too-distant
future, either meet all of you--and Scott, there are some
projects that NOAA is not involved in and that I would like you
get involved with and the Corps of Engineers is involved. But
based on USDA, U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of Engineers,
NOAA, a whole host of State and local people involved in the
process, since we have this package called the conservation
corridor for the Delmarva Peninsula, it seems these agencies
could get together and coordinate their activities.
Tomorrow the Corps of Engineers is visiting with me at one
of these sites called Urieville Lake, which is a freshwater
lake, but it is dammed and the title part is something called
Morgan Creek. That if the dam wasn't there, it would come up
and create a tidal marsh with a pretty nice habitat. And I
would like to go over some of those things so we could get the
local planning and zoning person and the designated
environmental director for the county--and many counties have
those positions now--to coordinate how these activities can be
undertaken with a collaborative effort, not the least of which
are funding problems for local governments. So I look forward
to doing that.
And Scott, the transfer, you know, I think is an excellent
idea, and for the university to take part in that, we would
like to expedite that as well. So if you have any comment on
any of that.
Mr. Connaughton. First of all, what you are talking about
is very exiting and it is consistent with what we are working
hard to do in the Bush administration--Coastal America helps to
do this as well--to knit together related funding streams and
related actors and look at an entire area that can be addressed
and knit the sources together.
So that sounds very exciting and to the extent that I can
put some push behind that I would like to be able to do that. I
appreciate you highlighting the conservation title of the farm
bill. I think that was a signature--the largest greatest
achievement of the Congress from the environmental side. And it
is incentive-based, performance-based and private stewardship
based. It has all the right elements, and we look forward to
making this project an example of the success of that title.
Mr. Gudes. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States, and
as I said before, for NOAA, this is sort of our backyard for
our headquarters, and it has special meaning for us. Speaking
on NOAA itself, we definitely would like to do everything we
can to take part in the effort you mentioned on restoration.
And as a member of Coastal America, I totally agree with Jim
that that is what Coastal America is all about, to try to bring
these different partners and different agencies, including the
private sector.
So I think in total, we could help do that. And then on the
land transfer, I think it has a lot of important aspects. I
would say that NOAA is not an independent agency, and I can't
speak in total, but for NOAA, we don't have any opposition to
the legislation that you are putting together, the proposed
transfer, but I do think there are some issues that the agency
or the administration ought to come back and ask about in terms
of the specifics of the transfer.
Mr. Gilchrest. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Gentleman
from New Jersey.
Mr. Saxton. First of all, I apologize for being late and if
I ask a question that has already been discussed in detail, I
apologize and you can just tell me that. One of the issues that
I have been very interested in over the years, particularly
since the Republicans took over the Congress--glad they did--
but one of the mistakes I think we made when we took over the
Congress was to diffuse the responsibility for policymaking
decisions in the Congress that has to do with coastal areas.
We had a Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and I was
proud to be a member of it and it was a very active Committee
and it dealt with coastal issues. When we took over, that
policymaking activity was diffused to this Committee, to the
Transportation Committee, to the Armed Services Committee, et
cetera, which I thought was kind of a move in the wrong
direction.
I see this Coastal America initiative is apparently an
effort to consolidate policy in the administration,
policymaking decisions which are made by the administration
into a coherent group, body that deals with coastal issues. So
I guess we kind of go around in circles and I am wondering if
you could talk about the Coastal America initiative and how you
see it playing out and how you see it--what the advantages of
it might be and the part that obviously you will play in it.
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you, Congressman. Let me begin at
the top which is the struggle from a policy development and
execution standpoint how you organize your activities. Coastal
America is an implementing tool of coordinated action with
respect to specific projects. So it is--it is at the second
level of action in response to specific needs. And what it
does, and the advantage of this kind of tool is it works within
the mission of each of the contributing Federal agencies, and
then State and private sector.
It works within the mission of the Corps of Engineers, the
mission of the Army, the mission of NOAA, the mission of
whatever the relevant agencies are with respect to the
particular problem at hand and then draws from them their
resources and their statutory mandates to execute a particular
solution.
So what is great about it is incredibly low cost and
incredibly effective at going after very specific issues. So
that is at the operational level. At the higher policy level,
we recognize the issue you raised with respect to how Congress
has organized itself, and obviously the Oceans Commission is
underway right now looking at these institutional structural
issues how we set and then execute policy with respect to ocean
and coastal areas.
At the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House,
we have had a dedicated associate director to these issues so
that we could look across the agencies and maintain sort of at
least a direction that is coordinating these policies, and we
are actually--we are changing--we are changing the portfolio of
that spot a little bit by making it coastal, agricultural and
public resources because we are recognizing with a lot of these
estuary issues in particular, marrying up the agricultural
interests with the estuary interests, with the public resources
interests, that is a tighter portfolio and a better coordinated
portfolio for us to keep pushing coordinated policy through the
administration.
We at the administration have to deal with the same kind of
silos you are suggesting we have in Congress, with, you know,
agencies with very specific missions, and they are all sharing
the coastal process. I look forward to what the Oceans
Commission has to say. I challenge them to be challenging but
realistic about what we can do in further coordinating.
One final note, we had an extensive conversation about
these issues not just at the national level but the
international level at the recent world summit on sustainable
development. And it was well recognized that understanding our
coastal and estuary issues in its more rudimentary economic
terms and the terms--and the need for education--you know,
looking at economic policy, educational policy and then--then
sort of the policies relating to environment and natural
resource protection--integrating those together is probably one
of the most dramatic things we can do to advance--to make real
progress on these very, very complicated issues. All too often
they occur in their silos, and we would like to harness the
strength of economic growth and harness the strength of good
education to producing better outcomes.
Mr. Gudes. A little bit of philosophical comment. I think
speaking for my boss, Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, he is a
big believer and this Committee is a big believer in general in
mechanisms that bring different partners together who have like
missions or doing like work on behalf of the American
taxpayers. EPA has a national estuary program. We have a
national estuary research reserve, for example Jacques Cousteau
Reserve. Those two programs should be linked better together. I
think all those things makes sense. I know that this
Subcommittee has pushed forward the coordination role of the
National Ocean Partnership Program.
When we talked about ocean exploration a year ago, 2 years
ago, I think one of the questions I got from the Subcommittee
is OK, that is great, but how does this relate back to NSF's
program, the Navy's program. I think those are the right
questions. I think in the current budget environment which we
will be in for quite sometime, those are absolutely the right
questions. We have to look and make sure that there is not
duplication and that we are really expedientially putting
together a program so that it makes sense.
I view Coastal America as one of those types of mechanisms
that deals with an array of restoration efforts. So to go back
to back to my example at the NERR site in New Jersey, it may be
that the local community comes forward for community base
restoration project. Coastal America might be a good mechanism
to come in and see if the Corps of Engineers wants to
participate in that or the Interior Department or one of their
programs.
So I think that these various mechanisms and Coastal
America is a very good one are a way to really marshal the
resources of different agencies and to have them work as one
Federal Government, which you expect of us and your
constituents expect of us.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you Mr. Saxton. We have no further
questions. We appreciate--this was short, but very excellent to
coordinate of all what we need to do. We wish you well in your
endeavors and we will talk further about this as we begin to
develop clarifying language. Thank you very much. We have one
more witness, Dr. Robert Corrigan, President of San Francisco
State University.
Mr. Saxton. [presiding.] Dr. Corrigan, the floor is yours.
Thank you for being here. We appreciate it very much, and Mr.
Gilchrest had a meeting on the Senate side that he had to run
off to so I am it.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. CORRIGAN, PRESIDENT, SAN FRANCISCO STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Corrigan. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here
earlier, but I was testifying on the cost of education in
another Committee and could just get here. And I am sorry I
wasn't here to hear Ms. Woolsey's comments, because I
understand they were quite good. I do appreciate the
opportunity to speak about the importance of this land
conveyance to both the Romberg Tiburon Center and the San
Francisco State University, and particularly want to thank Mrs.
Woolsey and Mr. Miller for introducing this legislation on our
behalf.
As I think you are aware, the Romberg Tiburon Center is an
off-campus marine laboratory that is operated by San Francisco
state University on the shores of San Francisco Bay. It is the
only academic research facility on the Bay which, as you are
aware, is one of the largest and complicated estuarian
environments. The center's research scientists train and mentor
students. A number of them are low income and underrepresented
students, and they conduct both basic and applied research
dealing with such subjects as environmental adaptation,
biological toxins and forces that threaten the globe's depleted
fisheries, often collaborating with colleagues from around the
world at the site itself.
Their research has contributed significantly to the
existing body of knowledge on estuary and environment. The
Romberg Tiburon Center, for example, has created the first
authoritative guide on wetland restoration and developed
recommendations for oil spill cleanups that are now in use by
the U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies throughout the country.
They regularly publish in prestigious journals and texts, and
currently all sources of Federal grants and State grants coming
in to people working in association with Tiburon are numbered
about $50 million in support last year.
For the past 24 years, San Francisco State University and
the National Marine Fisheries Service have worked together on
this 34-acre site. The Romberg Tiburon site occupies 23 acres
of the parcel, land that was conveyed to the university in 1978
through a public benefit conveyance for use as an environmental
research station. The National Marine Fisheries Service occupy
the remaining 11 acres from 1970 until the last year when it
was relocated. All of the parcels comprising this site are
interlocked as the maps we have given to you show.
So for the past 25 years, NOAA and the Romberg Tiburon
Center have shared access to roads, to parking and to boat
launch. After the National Marine Fisheries Service relocated,
the Center applied for and in October 2001 received a leased
permit from NOAA to use that property until the Federal excess
property disposal process could be triggered.
We provided you with the detailed history of the site, so
let me summarize only very briefly. It was in private hands
before 1904. It was purchased that year by the Navy for use as
a ship coaling station, the first of many military in
government uses. The Navy remained the owner until 1958 when
the property was transferred to the Department of Commerce, and
that began the environmental and marine oriented uses that come
with the Romberg Tiburon Center.
In the 1960's, the National Marines Fisheries Service
occupied the site, consolidated its operations to 11 acres of
the parcel in 1973. And in 1977 San Francisco State University
submitted its proposal. In the following year, the Romberg
Tiburon Center was established.
I would like to emphasize, if I could, members of the
Committee, how much the university has enjoyed and benefitted
from our relationship with NOAA and with the National Marines
Fisheries Services. Our organizations have operated with a
shared purpose to improve the life of the San Francisco Bay
through research and education. We have had an excellent
experience in working together and we fully expect to continue
our collaboration well into the future. This conveyance will
support the mission of the Romberg Tiburon Center in many ways.
The additional property will provide critically needed research
and educational space, increasing opportunities for onsite
training and research and collaborations with other agencies
and organizations.
And because the NMFS has been using its buildings for
marine research, the Romberg Tiburon Center will be able to use
these buildings in their current configuration. Another long-
term and very exciting commitment that the Romberg Tiburon
Center is making to research on the Bay is the pending
designation of the San Francisco Bay National Estuarian
Research Reserve, NERR. The Romberg Tiburon Center will be the
headquarters for this Federal-State partnership which will be
administered by NOAA and involve eight different State and
local agencies.
This National Research Reserve will promote collaborative
efforts on campus to restore degraded habitats, manage
resources and increase public knowledge and good stewardship of
these waters and will provide additional grant opportunities
for our scientists. And NOAA is likely to designate the
research reserve, I understand, in late 2002 or early 2003. Now
the Federal Government, Chair, has been the sites' landlord
since 1904. And to our knowledge there are no title disputes
concerning the 11-acre NOAA parcels. Further, NOAA has drafted
a preliminary surplus property report stating that there are no
known major hazardous or toxic materials or waste sites on that
property.
Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, for your consideration of legislation that will
rightly enhance the activities of the Romberg Tiburon Center
and turn the health of the San Francisco Bay and vital marine
environmentalists worldwide to a higher rate, and I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corrigan follows:]
Statement of Dr. Robert A. Corrigan, President, San Francisco State
University
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about the importance of the former
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) land conveyance to the
California State University Board of Trustees on behalf of the Romberg
Tiburon Center (RTC) and San Francisco State University. And thank you
to Mrs. Woolsey and Mr. Miller for introducing this legislation on our
behalf.
The Romberg Tiburon Center is an off-campus marine laboratory
operated by San Francisco State University (SFSU). It lies outside the
town of Tiburon, California, on the shores of San Francisco Bay. It is
the only academic research facility located on the Bay, which is one of
the largest and most complex estuarine environments in the United
States. The Center's research scientists train and support students in
their laboratories, out in the field, and through collaborations with
fellow scientists at universities, institutions, and environmental
agencies throughout the world.
At the same time, the Center's scientists conduct basic and applied
research on what has been called ``the marine web of life,'' ranging
from microbes to mammals, and dealing with such subjects as
environmental adaptation, the impact of biological toxins, the effects
of nonnative creatures brought into the Bay from other parts of the
world, and forces that threaten the globe's depleted fisheries. Over
$4.5 million in federal and state grants are awarded to the scientists
at RTC annually in support of this cutting-edge and globally relevant
research.
Some of the Center's research highlights include creating the first
authoritative guide on wetland restoration; providing some of the first
scientific testimony on the effects of freshwater diversion in the San
Francisco Bay; conducting ground-breaking studies on how nutrients
cycle through the oceans, affecting biological life and mediating the
processes that lead to global warming; developing recommendations for
oil spill cleanups now in use by U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies;
and studying the long-term effects of farmland runoff (including
agricultural toxins) on the San Francisco Bay.
The research conducted at the Romberg Tiburon Center has
contributed significantly to the existing body of knowledge on
estuarine environments and has been published in a variety of highly
prestigious scientific journals and texts. RTC is known throughout the
national and international academic community as a major center for
scientific research, much of which is applicable to coastal and
estuarine systems worldwide, especially as the impact of human activity
continues to increase.
For the past 24 years, San Francisco State University and the
National Marine Fisheries Service have worked together on this 34-acre,
bayside site. The Romberg Tiburon Center occupies 23 acres of this
parcel, a site that was conveyed to the University through a public
benefit conveyance in 1978 for use as an environmental research
station. The National Marine Fisheries Service occupied the remaining
11 acres from 1970 until just last year, when the agency relocated to
Santa Cruz, California. All of the parcels comprising this property are
interlocked, as you can see from the maps provided, so for the past 25
years NOAA and RTC have shared access to roads, parking, and the boat
launch. Additionally, after the National Marine Fisheries Service
relocated to another site, RTC applied for a lease permit from NOAA to
utilize that property until the federal excess property disposal
process was triggered. The Center received that permit in October 2001.
Let me now give a brief history of the site: It first came into use
in 1877, when a packing plant to dry, process and ship codfish was
constructed there. In 1904, the Navy purchased the property for use as
a Navy ship coaling station. During construction of the Golden Gate
Bridge in the 1930's, the Roebling's Sons Company used the north
warehouse to reel cables for the bridge.
From 1931 to 1940, the Navy loaned the base to the state of
California, which established its first nautical training school (later
to become the California Maritime Academy). With the outbreak of World
War II, the U.S. Government re-appropriated the site for use by the
Navy, and the Maritime Academy relocated to its present site near
Vallejo.
During World War II, the Tiburon facility was used for the
construction of anti-submarine and anti-torpedo nets. This Navy Net
Depot was active until 1958, when its operation was terminated and the
property was transferred from the Navy to the Department of Commerce.
In the 1960's, the property became the National Marine Fisheries
Service's Southwest Fisheries Center, and in 1973, NMFS consolidated
its operations to 11 acres of the parcel. In 1977, San Francisco State
University submitted a proposal to develop a field station and marine
laboratory dedicated to the study of San Francisco Bay, and the
following year, the Romberg Tiburon Center was established on the
remaining 23 acres.
I would like to emphasize how much the University has enjoyed and
benefitted from our relationship with NOAA and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Our organizations have operated with a shared
purpose to improve the life of the San Francisco Bay through research
and education, and have complemented each other's mission throughout
the years. We have had an excellent experience in working together, and
we fully expect to continue collaborating with these agencies long into
the future.
This conveyance will support the mission of the Romberg Tiburon
Center in many ways. First and foremost, the Center is committed to
environmentally preserving and restoring the site, as it is one of the
few remaining bay front sites. RTC is dedicated to working on-site as a
keeper of the health and educator for the understanding of the bay.
Because this site has been used for marine research purposes since
1961, we feel that it is wholly appropriate for San Francisco State
University to maintain that proud tradition. The Romberg Tiburon Center
has developed a long-term Vision Plan to enhance its educational and
research programs. Use of the additional property would provide
critically needed research and educational space, and would provide
opportunities for more on-site training, research and collaborations
with other agencies and organizations. Because the National Marine
Fisheries Service had been using its buildings for research on fish and
other marine-related topics, the Romberg Tiburon Center is able to make
use of those buildings in their current configuration for our research
and teaching. All of the proposed activities in the Vision Plan are a
realization of the goals consistent with our current mission and are
compatible with NOAA's continued access to, and use of, their retained
property, building 86. Initial uses of the property will include live
animal aquaria and ship operations
Another long-term--and very exciting--commitment that RTC is making
to research on the Bay is the pending designation of the San Francisco
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. (NERR) This federal-state
partnership, administered by NOAA, involves eight state and local
agencies, including the California State Lands Commission, Department
of Water Resources, California Department of Parks and Recreation, East
Bay Regional Parks District, Coastal Commission, BCDC, the Solano Land
Trust, and Rush Ranch. The mission of the NERR is preserving bay front
and waterfront natural lands that present research opportunities. Thus,
the establishment of the San Francisco Bay NERR will not only
coordinate bay research, but will enable us to attract further research
money. It will promote partnership activities among these agencies in
their efforts to restore degraded habitats, manage resources
effectively, and increase public knowledge and good stewardship of
these waters. The Romberg Tiburon Center will be the headquarters for
this National Estuarine Research Reserve, working closely with three
other sites in Marin and Contra Costa Counties. The San Francisco Bay
NERR will have several educational and research staff, so additional
space is needed to accommodate this program. This Research Reserve is
likely to be designated by NOAA in late 2002 or early 2003.
To answer the remainder of the committee's specific questions, I am
attaching a fuller history of the Tiburon site, which details all of
the previous owners of the property and their uses of the site. As you
can see, the federal government has been the landlord since 1904, and
to our knowledge there are no title disputes concerning the 11-acre
NOAA parcels. With respect to encumbrances or liabilities associated
with the NMFS parcels, it is my understanding that NOAA has drafted a
preliminary surplus property report which states that there are no
known major hazardous or toxic materials or waste sites on the
property. I am attaching a copy of this document, which is titled
``Final phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report.'' It was
prepared for NOAA by Tetra Tech, EM, Inc., in August 2001.
Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, for giving consideration to this important legislation
that will greatly enhance the activities of the Romberg Tiburon Center,
and in turn the health of the San Francisco Bay and other vital marine
environments worldwide.
List of Romberg Tiburon Center partner organizations
Bodega Marine Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
California State University, Long Beach
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Naval Postgraduate School
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Lab
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
San Francisco Estuary Institute
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Stanford University
University of California, Davis
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of Georgia
University of Southern California
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
US Geological Survey, Menlo Park
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
______
Mr. Saxton. I don't know that we have any questions. This
seems to be a move that is very desirable and we are quite
familiar with the kinds of activities that you do, because all
of us sitting up here have been part of the process to create
the NERR on the east coast in my district, the Jacques Cousteau
National Estuary Research Reserve. And I am going there to meet
Mrs. Cousteau again and have a reunion of sorts, I suppose. So
I don't have any questions and we thank you for coming all the
way from San Francisco to share your thoughts with us and we
will proceed accordingly.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]