- REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

[Senate Hearing 109-1100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-243 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
___________________________________________________________________________
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, [email protected].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 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

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

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 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 percent 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 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.
[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.

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.
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 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 management. 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 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 testify 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 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 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,

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.
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.
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:

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
incentive-based 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 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.

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 percent
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 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:

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
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 twelve-town 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 ecosystem-based 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.
______

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
______

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 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.
We urge the Committee to consider amending the CZMA or
passing companion legislation to provide additional support for
State-regional 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 former-Chair 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 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 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.

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 Delaware 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 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 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 Mexico, 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.
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:]

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection Appeal Months
Consistency Appeals Company State Date Filed Elapsed Decision Date Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-OCS 0203 Union CA 11/17/82 12/17/82 23 11/9/84 Granted
Exploration Plan
Santa Rosa Exxon CA 7/26/83 8/26/83 15 11/14/84 Denied
Exploration Plan
Santa Ynez Exxon CA 6/23/83 7/22/83 16 11/18/84 Partial
Development and Decision; 6/87
Production Plan Agreement
P-OCS 0505 Gulf/Chevron CA 2/14/85 3/13/85 9 12/23/85 Granted
Exploration Plan
NPDES Permit* Korea Drilling CA 11/14/86 12/12/86 25 1/19/89 Granted
Co.
P-OCS 0512 Texaco CA 2/23/88 3/23/88 14 5/19/89 Granted
Exploration Plan
P-OCS 0522 Conoco CA 6/9/88 6/29/88 39 9/23/91 Withdrawn
Exploration Plan
P-OCS 0525 Chevron CA 6/9/88 7/1/88 28 10/29/90 Denied
Exploration Plan
Pulley Ridge Blocks Unocal FL 11/22/88 12/21/88 49 1/7/93 Denied
629 630 Exploration
Plan
Pulley Ridge Blocks Mobil FL 12/16/88 1/11/89 48 1/7/93 Denied
799 Exploration
Plan
Galahad Prospect Amoco AK 3/6/89 4/3/89 15 7/20/90 Granted
Exploration Plan
Manteo Prospect Mobil NC 7/17/90 7/27/90 50 9/2/94 Denied
NPDES Permit
Manteo Prospect Mobil NC 11/19/90 12/6/90 45 9/2/94 Denied
Block 467
Exploration Plan
Diamond/Emerald Texaco AK 11/9/90 12/7/90 3 Withdrawn 3/91 Agreement
Prospects
Exploration Plan
Destin Dome Block 97 Chevron FL 2/26/91 3/11/91 22 1/8/93 Granted
Exploration Plan
Pensacola Block 889 Mobil FL 4/6/92 4/29/92 38 6/20/95 Granted
Supplemental
Exploration Plan
Destin Dome Block 56 Chevron FL 2/17/98 3/9/98 50 Withdrawn Reached
Unit Agreement 5/
02; Executed
Agreement 7/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

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.)

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.
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 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?
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
open-ended 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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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, 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 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 growth-management 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).
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 Association 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 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 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.
Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 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 targeted 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 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
foundations 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 Commerce 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 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.]
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.
______

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.

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.
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 long-term
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 ``no-discharge'' 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.
Resource Stewardship
In addition to research, monitoring, education, and training,
reserves are developing resource stewardship and coastal restoration
programs that address both site-specific 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
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 ([email protected] 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.
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 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?
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 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 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)
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 Territories 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.
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.

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 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 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.
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 programs 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.
______

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 ecosystem-based 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
______

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 non-point 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).

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