[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3223, KEEP OUR WATERFRONTS WORKING ACT OF 2007; H.R. 5451,
COASTAL ZONE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008; H.R. 5452, COASTAL STATE
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROMOTION ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 5453, COASTAL STATE
CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ACT OF 2008.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, February 28, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-957 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Bill Sali, Idaho
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, February 28, 2008...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California,............................................. 6
PPrepared statement of................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, Hon. Thomas H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine............................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Bailey, Robert, State of Oregon's Representative to the
Coastal States Organization, and Manager, Oregon Department
of Land Conservation & Development......................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Connors, Jim, Senior Planner, Maine State Planning Office,
Maine Working Waterfront Coalition......................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Dunnigan, John H., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Prepared statement of......... 13
Elefant, Carolyn, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel, Ocean
Renewable Energy Coalition................................. 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Kennedy, David, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Oral statement
of......................................................... 11
Kooser, Jaime C., Ph.D., President, National Estuarine
Research Reserves Association.............................. 24
Lujan, Evangeline, Director, Guam Coastal Management Program
Administrator, All-Island Group............................ 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Stokes, Robert, Chairman of the Board, Restore America's
Estuaries.................................................. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Additional materials supplied:
Blum, Frank, Executive Director, South Carolina Seafood
Alliance, Letter submitted for the record.................. 69
Cowperthwaite, Hugh, Fisheries Project Director, Coastal
Enterprises Inc., Letter submitted for the record.......... 70
De Luca, Michael P., on behalf of the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Association, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 71
Hale, Lynne, on behalf of The Nature Conservancy, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 80
Lydecker, Ryck, Assistant Vice President for Government
Affairs, Boat Owners Association of The United States...... 5
Lyons, Hon. Burley L., Mayor, Town of Edisto Beach, South
Carolina, Letter to Congressman James E. Clyburn submitted
for the record............................................. 84
Stedman, Bruce J., Executive Director, Marine Fish
Conservation Network, Letter submitted for the record...... 86
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3223, KEEP OUR WATERFRONTS WORKING ACT OF
2007; H.R. 5451, COASTAL ZONE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008; H.R. 5452,
COASTAL STATE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROMOTION ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 5453,
COASTAL STATE CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ACT OF 2008.
----------
Thursday, February 28, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Capps, Gilchrest,
and Wittman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A
DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans will now come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on four
bills that amend or reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management
Act--H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007;
H.R. 5451, the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008; H.R.
5452, the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008;
and H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of
2008.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the
Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements. And if
any other members have statements, I invite you to submit them
for the record.
The Subcommittee meets this morning to hear testimony
regarding legislation to reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone
Management Act. This hearing represents the Subcommittee's
first step under my leadership toward reauthorizing this
important marine conservation law, which was first enacted in
Congress in 1972.
Some people may question why, at this relatively late date
in the Congressional calendar, that this Subcommittee has
decided to take up reauthorization of the CZMA. Well, my answer
is simple. Pick up the newspaper. Only last week the press
reported the future withdrawal of coastal property insurance in
Florida, because the risk exposure to tropical storms has grown
far too expensive.
Also an article in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times reported
that coastal homes in Louisiana and Mississippi may need to be
rebuilt 20 feet off the ground to meet new FEMA flood insurance
standards.
In addition, the United Nations this week reported that
climate change, along with over-fishing and increased
pollution, are crippling our coastal regions; and that sea
level rise threatens the shores, and even the existence of some
islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Clearly from these accounts, it is no waste of time for
this committee to take up the CZMA. If anything, considering
the fact that the Congress last reauthorized the Act in 1996,
we have been neglectful in our oversight to determine if the
Act remains relevant to the coastal challenges that we face
today.
In that respect I commend my colleagues, Congresswoman Lois
Capps of California, Congressman Tom Allen of Maine, for
introducing their bills, H.R. 5452, H.R. 5453, and H.R. 3223,
respectively, that would address coastal climate change
adaptations, encourage sensible development of renewable ocean
energy, and preserve working waterfronts and water-dependent
commercial uses.
I must say, however, that I am disappointed with the
testimony provided by the Administration. It is one thing to be
critical of legislation. It is another thing altogether to be
critical of legislation without offering any new constructive
ideas.
But I am forever an optimist. Time does remain for this
Administration to redeem itself. And to that end, I hope that
we are able to work collaboratively, along with the
Subcommittee's Ranking Member, my good friend, Congressman
Henry Brown of South Carolina, and other members of this
Subcommittee to see what we might accomplish when we work
together to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Brown, the Ranking
Republican Member of this committee, for any statement that he
may have.
Mr. Brown.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this
morning to hear testimony regarding legislation to reauthorize or amend
the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This hearing represents the
Subcommittee's first step under my leadership toward reauthorizing this
important marine conservation law, which was first enacted by Congress
in 1972.
Some people may question why, at this relatively late date in the
congressional calendar, this subcommittee has decided to take up
reauthorization of the CZMA. My answer is simple: pick up the
newspaper.
Only last week the press reported the future withdrawal of coastal
property insurance in Florida because the risk exposure to tropical
storms has grown too expensive. Also, an article in Tuesday's Los
Angeles Times reported that coastal homes in Louisiana and Mississippi
may need to be rebuilt 20-feet off the ground to meet new Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance standards.
In addition, the United Nations (UN) this week reported that
climate change, along with overfishing and increased pollution, are
crippling our coastal regions, and that sea level rise threatens the
shores and even the existence of some islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Clearly, from these accounts it is no waste of time for this
committee to take up the CZMA. If anything, considering the fact that
the Congress last reauthorized the Act in 1996, we have been neglectful
in our oversight to determine if the Act remains relevant to the
coastal challenges we face today.
In that respect, I commend my colleagues, Congresswoman Lois Capps
of California and Congressman Tom Allen of Maine, for introducing their
bills, H.R. 5452, H.R. 5453 and H.R. 3223, respectively, that would
address coastal climate change adaptation, encourage sensible
development of renewable ocean energy, and preserve working waterfronts
and water-dependent commercial uses.
I must say, however, that I am disappointed with the testimony
provided by the Administration. It is one thing to be critical of
legislation; it is another thing altogether, to be critical of
legislation without offering any new constructive ideas. But I am
forever an optimist. Time does remain for this Administration to redeem
itself. To that end, I hope that we are able to work collaboratively
along with the subcommittee's Ranking Member, my good friend,
Congressman Henry Brown of South Carolina, and the other members of
this Subcommittee to see what we might accomplish--when we work
together--to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Today we will hear
testimony on four bills. And of the four bills before us today,
I suspect I like your bill the best of the four.
The Coastal Zone Management Act has not been reauthorized
since the 105th Congress. Part of the reason for this is that
Members have tried to attach controversial amendments or
controversial new programs to the Act.
I am pleased that you have not done so with your bill. And
while I may have concerns on the authorization level, I applaud
you for introducing this legislation as a clean
reauthorization. I urge you to move the bill as is, and resist
the temptation to add new programs to this Act.
Madame Chairwoman, two of these bills, H.R. 5442 and H.R.
5453, look very familiar. Both of these bills, although in
slightly different forms, were included in H.R. 2337, the
Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007. I had
problems with those provisions then, and I continue to have
problems with these bills.
Madame Chairwoman, while I agree with the general theme of
keeping our working waterfront bill, I am concerned that this
Federal legislation might be viewed as interfering and meddling
with local zoning decisions.
There is no question that those participating in water-
related activities in the coastal zone needs access, and that
as coastal property values rise, the cost of creating or
maintaining this access becomes more difficult. We should
certainly provide Federal assistance to local and state
authorities for making these important decisions. However, I
don't think we want the heavy hand of the Federal government to
be seen as making these decisions for the local and state
authorities.
I represent a significant portion of coastal South
Carolina, and I think we have been able to balance the users'
needs along the coast. We have a vibrant port in Charleston. We
have incredible opportunities for recreation and commercial
fishermen. We have beaches with public access. We have marinas
for sailors and boaters, and we have homes with beautiful
coastal views.
Certainly Federal money for helping decision-makers would
be welcome, but substituting the judgment of these decision-
makers with Federal mandates or requirements is not the answer.
I look forward to working with the proponents of this
legislature to make sure that we are offering a carrot without
any strings attached.
Again, I look forward to hearing today's testimony on all
four of the bills. I look forward to working with the
Chairwoman on making these bills better, if the Subcommittee
decides to move them forward.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, today, we will hear testimony on
four bills: H.R. 3223 (the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007),
H.R. 5451 (the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008), H.R. 5452
(the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008), and H.R.
5453 (the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008). I look
forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses on all four of
these bills.
Madam Chairwoman, of the four bills before us today, I suspect I
like your bill the best of the four. The Coastal Zone Management Act
has not been reauthorized since the 105th Congress. Part of the reason
for this is that Members have tried to attach controversial amendments
or controversial new programs to the Act. I am pleased that you have
not done so with your bill and while I may have concerns about the
authorization levels, I applaud you for introducing this legislation as
a clean reauthorization. I urge you to move the bill as is and resist
the temptation to add new programs to this Act.
Madam Chairwoman, two of these bills, H.R. 5442 and H.R. 5453 look
very familiar. Both of these bills, although in slightly different
forms, were included in H.R. 2337, the Energy Policy Reform and
Revitalization Act of 2007. I had problems with those provisions then
and I continue to have concerns with these bills.
Madam Chairwoman, while I agree with the general theme of the Keep
Our Working Waterfronts bill, I am concerned that this Federal
legislation might be viewed as interfering or meddling with local
zoning decisions.
There is no question that those participating in water-related
activities in the coastal zone need access and that as coastal property
value rise, the cost of creating or maintaining this access becomes
more difficult. We should certainly provide Federal assistance to local
and state authorities for making these important decisions; however, I
don't think we want the heavy hand of the Federal government to be seen
as making these decisions for the local and state authorities.
I represent a significant portion of coastal South Carolina and I
think we have been able to balance the users' needs along the coast. We
have a vibrant port in Charleston, we have incredible opportunities for
recreational and commercial fishermen, we have beaches with public
access, we have marinas for sailors and boaters, and we have homes with
beautiful coastal views. Certainly Federal money for helping decision
makers would be welcome, but substituting the judgment of these
decision makers with Federal mandates or requirements is not the
answer.
I look forward to working with the proponents of this legislation
to make sure that we are offering a carrot without any strings
attached.
Again, I look forward to hearing today's testimony on all four of
the bills and look forward to working with the Chairwoman on making
these bills better if the Subcommittee decides to move them forward.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, for
his opening statements.
And now I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
record a statement in support of H.R. 3223, the Keep Our
Waterfronts Working Act, submitted on behalf of the Boat Owners
Association of the United States.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The letter submitted for the record by the Boat Owners
Association of The United States follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to recognize a member of our
Subcommittee who has just arrived, Congresswoman Lois Capps,
the State of California.
STATEMENT OF LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I am happy to
submit a statement, which I do have prepared for the record.
And I just want to thank you for holding this very important
hearing.
[The statement submitted for the record by Mrs. Capps
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo.
Coastal issues have been in the spotlight over the last several
years as the nation has paid increased attention to our oceans and
marine resources:
We've had two national commissions make recommendations
for transforming the way we manage, study, and protect our coastal
areas.
And just yesterday--the Joint Ocean Commission released
its annual report card on the nation's progress toward implementing
these recommendations.
More than half of all Americans live along our coasts,
which require a better understanding of how people and our oceans
interact.
And the impacts of global warming, coastal development
and pollution, and energy project siting require new approaches to
ocean and coastal governance.
But in light of these challenges, Congress last reauthorized the
Coastal Zone Management Act--the law that governs important aspects of
our coastal resources--in 1999, and the current authorization expired
almost four years ago.
I'm glad the subcommittee has turned its attention to this
successful Act and decided to advance these important bills which
contribute strongly to it.
First, I want to offer my support for the Coastal Zone
Reauthorization Act.
The CZMA is a model for state and federal partnerships.
It gives coastal states the necessary resources to balance the
protection of its needs with development, recreation, environmental
preservation, fishing and other uses of the coastal zone.
As the committee works to develop a reauthorization measure, I want
to express my hope that it retain states' rights through federal
consistency, and continue our strong commitment to the protection,
enjoyment and responsible management of our coast.
Another bill under consideration today, the Keep Our Waterfronts
Working Act, has been advanced due to the hard work of our colleague
Tom Allen.
Working waterfronts are areas that provide coastal access to
support commercial and recreational fishing and a host of other water-
dependent coastal businesses.
These areas are the cultural and economic heart of coastal
communities, like Morro Bay in my district.
Unfortunately, the loss of working waterfront is resulting in
additional pressure on their fragile economies and coastal access.
This legislation seeks to remedy that problem by helping coastal
states plan for the future of these communities by investing in the
preservation and expansion of working waterfront.
Finally, I'd like to mention two bills I have introduced that would
establish new grant programs under the CZMA.
The purpose of the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act is
to encourage coastal states to classify offshore areas for appropriate
renewable energy, like wave and wind projects.
This type of advanced planning will expedite state consistency
certifications for future projects and eliminate conflicts between
state and federal governments.
Similarly, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act recognizes
the lead role of the States in coastal planning.
It would provide them with incentives to prevent, plan, and prepare
for the impacts of global warming, such as sea level rise, increased
erosion, and habitat changes.
In my view, the CZMA is one of the best federal statutes that can
foster adaptation to global warming at the state and local levels.
Collectively, these bills take significant steps toward restoring
sound stewardship to the management of our coastal areas.
And importantly they are consistent with the recommendations from
the recently completed NOAA-CSO ``visioning'' process on the future of
the CZMA.
In closing, Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for holding this
hearing on an issue that is so very important to us all.
I look forward to working with you, coastal states and other
stakeholders to reauthorize the CZMA and advance these bills to
strengthen the Act before the 110th Congress adjourns.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from California. Thank
you again, Mr. Brown, our Ranking Member, for his opening
statements. And I would now like to recognize our first
witness, a colleague from the State of Maine, the Hon.
Congressman Tom Allen.
Thank you for being here this morning, Congressman. And you
may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS H. ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking
Member Brown. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today on my bill, H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts
Working Act.
In Maine we have 5300 miles of coastline, but only 20 miles
remain as working waterfronts. Those 20 miles of working
waterfronts provide more than $750 million in state revenue
each year, and support 35,000 jobs. More than half of those 20
miles, however, are privately held properties, where access is
restricted, and the permission of the owner is required for
use.
Critical rights of waterfront access are often steeped in
tradition, and not written in the law. These privately held
access points are extremely vulnerable to sale for non-working
waterfront-related uses, and this trend really threatens both
our economy in Maine and in other states, and a coastal way of
life.
The situation is very similar around the country's 88,000
miles of coastline, from Alaska down to California, and from
Texas around to Maine. Fish houses are being replaced by
waterfront condominiums, and public wharfs are being replaced
by private docks.
Development pressures and rising property values are
profoundly changing the nature of our coasts and shorelines.
Working waterfronts provide water access to support both
commercial and recreational fishing, and a host of other
support industries, such as ice, bait, and processing. And
certainly in the State of Maine, those shoreside industries are
very much threatened by residential development that eats up
our working waterfront.
Since colonial times, the fishing industry has been the
cultural heart of many coastal communities in Maine. But in
Maine, as in most coastal states, fish stocks and the fisheries
that depend on them do fluctuate over time.
For example, right now groundfish is really, the
groundfishing industry is really in significant trouble, but
our lobster fishery is healthy. So when an industry, the
fishing industry struggles, the shoreside infrastructure does,
as well.
This is not just the commercial fishermen's issue. Lack of
waterfront access affects swimmers, casual boaters, beachgoers
and weekend anglers. One hundred and 22 million people go to
the beach every year, 95 million take to the water in some kind
of boat, and 80 million go fishing. All of these users are
competing for a small and diminishing resource.
Around the country states are realizing the need to protect
these valuable assets. Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi,
and Louisiana, to name a few, have commissioned reports and
inventories of working waterfronts left in their states. These
reports have found a decrease in working waterfronts, and
states are developing approaches to prevent future loss.
The issue is really poised for national legislation to
assist states and give them much-needed resources to help them
out. The Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act would provide
assistance and resources to the coastal states. The objective
of this legislation is to preserve access to coastal waters for
commercial fishing operations and other water-dependent
coastal-related businesses.
Congressman Brown, we hope this is not the heavy hand of
the Federal government; this is a partnership, it is designed
to be a partnership, and here is how it would work.
The Act would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
to establish a competitive matching grant program administered
through the Department of Commerce. Coastal states would apply
for matching grants to purchase title or development rights to
working waterfront, which is defined as land that provides
access to coastal waters for water-dependent commercial
activities.
To become eligible for the grant program, a coastal state
would have to develop a comprehensive working waterfront plan.
States with an approved plan would become eligible to apply for
working waterfront matching grants under an expedited funding
process. And projects funded by the grant program would be
required to provide for expansion or improvement of public
access to coastal waters at or in the vicinity of the working
waterfront, except for those industrial working waterfront
access points, such as commercial fishing piers, where the
coastal state determines that public access would be a safety
hazard.
The bill also provides for technical assistance to states
for the development and revision of comprehensive working
waterfront plans. We are at a critical point here. We have to
preserve our working waterfronts to protect the economic and
cultural value they bring to our communities, and pass this
heritage on to future generations. We have to ensure that our
coasts retain the special quality that has characterized the
life along our shores.
And I hope, as the Subcommittee works on reauthorizing the
CZMA, that it will consider the need for working waterfront
legislation.
I look forward to working with the Subcommittee, and I
thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom Allen, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Maine
Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on my legislation H.R. 3223 the Keep Our
Waterfronts Working Act.
There are 5,300 miles of coast line in Maine yet only 20 miles
remain as working waterfronts. These 20 miles of working waterfront
provide more than $750 million in state revenue each year and support
35,000 jobs.
More than half of these 20 miles are privately held properties
where access is restricted and owner permission is required for use.
Critical rights of waterfront access are often steeped in tradition,
not written into law. These privately held access points are extremely
vulnerable to sale for non-working waterfront related uses which
threatening both the economy and a way of life.
This situation is echoed around the country's 88,000 miles of coast
line from Alaska down to California and Texas around to Maine. Fish
houses are being replaced by waterfront condominiums, and public wharfs
are being replaced by private docks.
Development pressures and rising property values are profoundly
changing the nature of our coasts and shorelines.
Working waterfronts provide water access to support both commercial
and recreational fishing and a host of other support industries such as
ice, bait, and processing.
More and more coastal land is being developed for private
residential use, increasing pressure on industrial, recreational, and
public access infrastructure. Without dock space the whole marine
industry collapses, including support businesses like diesel mechanics,
welders, shipbuilding and seafood processing.
Since colonial times, the fishing industry has been the cultural
heart of many coastal communities in Maine. But in Maine, as in most
coastal states, fish stocks and the fisheries that depend on them tend
to fluctuate.
For example, our lobster fishery at the moment is healthy but our
groundfish industry is struggling. When the industry struggles, so does
the shore side infrastructure. With good management practices, we can
reasonably hope that the fish stocks will rebound.
However, the loss of working waterfront will likely be permanent.
This is not just a commercial fishermen's issue; lack of waterfront
access impacts swimmers, casual boaters, beachgoers, and weekend
anglers. 122 million people go to the beach every year, 95 million take
to the water in some kind of boat, and 80 million go fishing. All these
users are competing for a small, diminishing resource.
Around the country, states are realizing the need to protect these
valuable assets. Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana,
to name a few, have commissioned reports and inventories of working
waterfronts left in their states. These reports have found a decrease
in working waterfronts, and states are developing approaches to prevent
future loss.
The issue is poised for national legislation to assist states and
give them much needed assistance and resources.
The Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act would provide assistance and
resources to Coastal States. The objective of this legislation is to
preserve access to coastal waters for commercial fishing operations and
other water-dependent coastal-related businesses.
The act would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to
establish a competitive matching grant program administered through the
Department of Commerce.
Coastal states would apply for matching grants to purchase title or
development rights to Working Waterfront, defined as land that provides
access to coastal waters for water-dependent commercial activities.
To become eligible for the grant program, a coastal state would
develop a comprehensive Working Waterfront Plan.
States with an approved plan would become eligible to apply for
Working Waterfront matching grants under an expedited funding process.
Projects funded by the Grant Program would be required to provide
for expansion or improvement of public access to coastal waters at or
in the vicinity of the Working Waterfront, except for industrial
working waterfront access points such as commercial fishing piers where
the coastal state determines that public access would be a safety
hazard.
The bill also provides for technical assistance to States for the
development and revision of comprehensive Working Waterfront Plans.
We must preserve access to our working waterfronts, protect the
economic and cultural value they bring our communities and pass this
heritage to future generations. We must make sure that our coasts will
always retain the special quality of life that our working waterfronts
help to create.
I hope that as the subcommittee works on reauthorizing the CZMA,
that it will consider the need for working waterfront legislation. I
look forward to working with the subcommittee, and I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Congressman Allen, for your
statement. And it clearly spells out the necessity in
improving, protecting, and expanding commercial coastal access,
at a time when access is threatened from private residential
development and other activities.
I want to thank you very much for appearing before the
Subcommittee. I know you have a busy schedule, but you are
welcome to join us on the dais if you do have the time.
Mr. Allen. Well, as you said, Madame Chair, I do have a
very busy schedule. And I will leave it to you to work through
this.
But I want to help in any way I can, and my staff is
available, as well. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. I understand. I understand. Thank you for
your statement.
And the Chair would now like to recognize the Hon. Wayne
Gilchrest from the State of Maryland, the former Chairman of
this Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
Mr. Gilchrest, would you like to make some statements?
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Tom Allen has a good piece of
legislation, so we will see what we can do for the rest of this
session to work on it, make it a reliable source of access to
coastal areas by local people needing that reliable access.
And the Coastal Zone Management Act is up for, I guess,
reauthorization.
Ms. Bordallo. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. We didn't do it the last couple of years.
But I would like to work with you, Madame Chairman, and the
other members of the committee, to see that this bill gets not
only reauthorized, but reenergized, to help protect America's
coastal areas.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I thank my colleague, Mr. Wayne
Gilchrest, who certainly we will welcome your input. You have
the experience on this committee.
I now recognize the second panel of witnesses. Would they
please step forward and take their seats?
Our witnesses on this panel include Mr. David Kennedy,
Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Mr. Robert Bailey, Chairman of the Reauthorization Committee at
the Coastal States Organization; Dr. Jaime Kooser, President of
the National Estuarine Research Reserves Association; and my
friend from Guam, Ms. Evangeline Lujan, the Guam Coastal
Management Program Administrator, and Director of the All-
Island Group.
I would like to welcome Mr. Kennedy and thank him for
appearing before the Subcommittee on short notice.
Unfortunately, NOAA's initial witness, Mr. Jack Dunnigan,
suffered the loss of his father and has, of course, gone back
to California to be with his family. And I know everyone on the
Committee joins me in extending our deepest sympathies to Mr.
Dunnigan. Our thoughts are with him during this difficult and
sad time.
Mr. Kennedy, thank you again for being here. And you may
now begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OCEAN AND
COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and members of
the committee. As you have mentioned, I am David Kennedy,
Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Management within NOAA.
And our thoughts are all with Jack, and it is certainly not a
problem at all for me to step in. And hopefully I can represent
him appropriately here.
So thank you for the opportunity to testify on the future
of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the bills before the
committee today.
The Coastal Zone Management Act has served as a cornerstone
for national coastal policy for more than 30 years. When
enacted in 1972, it was the first attempt to balance multiple
national interests along the coast.
The CZMA recognizes and attempts to balance national
objectives for development and conservation of coastal and
ocean areas with the interests of the state, in governing near-
shore activities and land use.
While the CZMA has served as a cornerstone for national
coastal policy, it has become apparent that the evolving
challenges we face in coastal management will require changes
in our approach. We need to anticipate the problems the Nation
will face in the next 30 years, and promote changes in
management approaches.
These approaches should incorporate principles of ecosystem
and adaptive management, and focus on effective implementation
at the local level, where most of the decisions that
cumulatively affect coastal resources occur.
In addition, we need to create new mechanisms to include
the public and private sectors to help address the challenges
we face today.
So in July of 2006, NOAA and the Coastal States
Organization embarked on a partnership effort to envision the
future of coastal and ocean management. The process sought
input from a variety of stakeholders. Following this process,
NOAA and CSO developed a set of four cornerstones to consider
when drafting legislative proposals for the CZMA.
Using these cornerstones as a foundation, NOAA has begun an
internal dialogue regarding what concepts to include in a CZMA
reauthorization proposal. While our internal discussions are
still in the early stages, I would like to share with you four
main concepts that we are considering.
First, clear and focused goals. A reauthorized CZMA should
continue to address a comprehensive set of issues, and could
additionally focus on two distinct priorities. Priorities that
we have in mind, at least at the moment, is sustaining healthy
coastal ecosystems, one of the major issues that we heard in
all of our discussions around the country, and increasing
coastal community resiliency.
Two, periodic coastal assessments. CZMA requires each
participating state to develop a program with adequate policies
to manage coastal resources, but does not require periodic
assessments of coastal conditions, or updating of state
programs.
Periodic assessments of the conditions of natural, social,
cultural, historical, and economic resources could help direct
planning and resource management activities at the state,
regional, and national level.
Three, outcome-based planning and measurable objectives.
Today the CZMA requires participating states to have programs,
but not action-oriented plans and measurable objectives.
Strategic and targeted plans could be prepared by each state,
and approved by NOAA, as a requirement for funding. Plans would
include measurable objectives to help monitor state progress in
achieving the goals of CZMA. National objectives would be
established as a foundation for state programs and plans.
And then finally, coordinated and strategic Federal agency
involvement. We think this is extremely critical. Currently
under CZMA, NOAA and other Federal agencies have a limited role
in coastal management, with no responsibility for substantive
outcomes. Research and technical assistance at the Federal
level are not specifically tied to implementation of CZMA.
In order to supplement the existing Federal role, a
national-level integrated coastal and ocean management program
should be created under the Secretary of Commerce. The primary
objective of the national program would be to serve as the
coordinator of the delivery of the Federal government's diverse
expertise, and serve as a conduit for moving research to
operations through the development of targeted products,
services, and related technical assistance.
The Subcommittee has also requested the Administration
views on three bills, each of which would make separate
amendments to the CZMA. Comments on each provision are provided
in our written statement.
But in general, the Administration does not support an ad
hoc approach to amending the CZMA, because it contradicts the
underlying premises of both ocean commissions and the U.S.
Ocean Plan to pursue an integrated and coordinated approach to
coastal and ocean management.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
NOAA looks forward to working with you on reauthorizing this
important Act, and we will be happy to answer any questions at
the appropriate time.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:]
Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Committee. I
am John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and
Coastal Zone Management for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
future of the Coastal Zone Management Act and H.R. 5451, as well as
H.R. 3223, H.R. 5452 and H.R. 5453.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) has served as a cornerstone
for national coastal policy for more than 30 years. When enacted in
1972, it was the first attempt to balance multiple national interests
along the coast. The CZMA created an innovative intergovernmental
partnership that has been of great benefit to the nation, the states,
and the public. The CZMA recognizes and balances national objectives
for development and conservation of coastal and ocean areas with the
historical interests and role of the states in governing near shore
development and land use. Under the CZMA, federally-approved state
coastal management programs are provided assistance to coordinate their
environmental resource management programs, and to promote sustainable
coastal development and long-term conservation objectives. The CZMA
also authorized the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
State Coastal Management Programs
Thirty-four of the 35 eligible coastal states, commonwealths, and
territories are implementing federally-approved coastal management
programs. NOAA is working with the final eligible coastal state,
Illinois, to approve its coastal management program. Through the CZMA,
NOAA provides funding for developing and implementing these programs,
and provides technical assistance on best practices for addressing
important coastal management issues. Funding for the coastal zone
management program is allocated to eligible coastal states based on
shoreline mileage and coastal population. This funding is required to
be matched on a dollar for dollar basis, yet many states far exceed
this match requirement and are able to leverage additional state
resources using CZMA dollars. For example, the Maine Coastal Program
has been successful in matching state dollars to federal dollars at a
ratio of more than 5:1. In past years this ratio has been as high as
11:1.
State programs address a wide range of national objectives,
including:
Maintaining and restoring the natural beach and dune
systems for protection from erosion and storms,
Ensuring appropriate coastal development,
Protecting and restoring ecologically important coastal
habitats,
Controlling nonpoint source pollution,
Improving public access and recreational opportunities in
coastal areas,
Enhancing public awareness through education and
outreach, and
Revitalizing local waterfronts.
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System
Under the CZMA's estuarine research reserve program, the states--
often in partnership with academia and federal agencies--implement
research and education programs to better understand complex coastal
processes and share this information with coastal decision makers at
the federal, state, and local levels. Critical, long-term research
takes place at the 27 federally designated National Estuarine Research
Reserves (Reserves) in 22 coastal states and commonwealths. Connecticut
and Wisconsin are currently working to develop new Reserves. The
Reserves play an important role in meeting the U.S. Ocean Action Plan's
goal to ``expand our scientific knowledge of oceans, coasts and Great
Lakes.''
Reserves currently protect over one million acres of estuarine
lands and waters, and Reserve programs conduct important research,
monitoring, education, and stewardship activities within coastal
watersheds. The Reserves have developed 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 108 water-quality monitoring stations and 27 weather stations.
The system provides important environmental data in support of the
Integrated Ocean Observing System identified in the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan. The Reserve system also supports a fellowship program, training
up to 54 graduate students each year in estuarine science. This
fellowship program not only facilitates important research, but also
encourages the development of the next generation of scientists to
sustain the workforce necessary to meet the nation's future coastal
research and management needs.
Factors Impacting the Future of Coastal Management
While the CZMA has served as a cornerstone for national coastal
policy for more than 30 years, it has become apparent that the evolving
nature of the challenges we face in coastal management will require
changes in our approach. As federal partners with the states, we need
to position ourselves to take greater leadership on coastal issues by
anticipating the problems the nation will face in the next thirty years
and by identifying and promoting needed changes in management
approaches.
Coastal management issues in the next 30 years are likely to be
different, or in a very different context, from the last 30 years due
to:
Unanticipated effects and dynamics resulting from climate
change,
Globalization, which will result in changes to the
nation's energy, transportation, communications and manufacturing
infrastructure,
New technologies, and
The changing demographics of coastal communities (greater
in number and density, older, more ethnically diverse, and wealthier
with a greater economic disparity between those who live on the coast
and those who do not).
With greater competition for coastal resources, coastal decision-
making, resource allocations, and risk acceptability will become even
more complex. To address these complexities, new management approaches
are needed to incorporate principles of ecosystem and adaptive
management.
Achieving management objectives requires more effective
implementation at the local level, where most of the decisions that
cumulatively affect coastal resources occur. These objectives can be
reached by:
Building and enhancing local planning capacity for growth
management,
Incorporating natural resource planning and protection
tools into local planning processes, and
Making data and information more accessible and usable
for local decision-makers.
Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management
In July 2006, NOAA and the Coastal States Organization (CSO)
embarked on an effort to envision the future of coastal and ocean
management. The process sought input from stakeholders, coastal
management professionals, experts from multiple disciplines, NOAA, and
other federal agencies. The response and engagement from across the
country was encouraging as hundreds of people shared ideas about how we
as a nation can become better stewards of our coasts. Participants
exhibited much enthusiasm about new and innovative ways to protect and
manage our coastal and ocean resources. They also were clear that a
major effort is warranted to meet these challenges.
What We Heard
Managing growth and development in coastal areas was the
most frequently identified challenge; water quality ranked second.
Local governments were identified as primary partners for
addressing growth pressures.
Climate change was the top emerging issue.
Federal interagency coordination was stated to be
ineffective, as states often have to meet different requirements from
different agencies for similar programs such as water quality
monitoring. The state resource managers also stated that access to
assistance is inefficient and confusing.
What We Concluded
Following the stakeholder process, NOAA and CSO developed a set of
four cornerstones and 13 principles that we agreed to consider in
drafting our respective legislative proposals for reauthorizing the
CZMA. They are intended to reflect both what we heard as well as
important concepts that both organizations agreed should be the basis
for a new integrated coastal and ocean statute.
The cornerstones identified through the visioning process are:
The CZMA should ensure the long term sustainability of
coastal resources and communities.
The CZMA should be goal driven and results oriented.
The CZMA should coordinate and align federal, state, and
local governments to address issues of national importance.
The National Coastal Management Program should remain a
voluntary partnership between the federal government and the states, in
which each bears responsibilities for achieving program goals.
These cornerstones provide a foundation for the development of more
detailed proposals for a reauthorized CZMA. Following the visioning
process, NOAA has begun an internal dialogue regarding what concepts to
include in a CZMA reauthorization proposal. While our internal
discussions are still in the early stages, I would like to share with
you some of the concepts we are considering.
TAKING COASTAL AND OCEAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO THE NEXT LEVEL: GOALS,
ASSESSMENTS, PLANS, AND MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
Clear, Focused Goals
The CZMA currently has a very broad scope, calling for the
development of programs to ``preserve, protect, develop, and where
possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal
zone for this and succeeding generations.'' A reauthorized CZMA should
continue to address a comprehensive set of issues, and could
additionally focus on two distinct national priorities: sustaining
healthy coastal ecosystems and increasing coastal community resilience.
Understanding Coastal Conditions: Periodic Coastal Assessments
The CZMA requires each participating state to develop a program
with adequate policies to manage coastal resources, but does not
require periodic assessments of coastal conditions or updating of state
programs. Periodic assessments of coastal trends and conditions of
natural, social, cultural, historical, and economic resources could
help to better direct planning and resource management activities at
the state, regional, and national levels. NOAA would work with the
states and other agencies to compile and prepare these coordinated
assessments.
To understand the true national status of our coastal and ocean
resources, we must also have a uniform understanding of what defines
the coastal area. Currently, each state coastal management program
develops its own boundaries based on the needs of the state's
enforceable policies. These range from the entire state or territory
(Delaware, Florida, Guam, and Rhode Island), to local units of
government (Maine, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin), to
certain physical features or a set distance from the shoreline
(California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Alabama). This has made it
difficult to develop a consistent set of indicators of the coastal
condition that can give a regional or national picture. It also has
caused confusion among federal agencies and the regulated community in
implementing the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. In an
effort to resolve these issues, each state's coastal planning area
would be based on uniform national criteria, and coastal watersheds and
the territorial sea would be included in state assessments and plans.
Outcome-Based Planning and Measurable Objectives
Today, the CZMA requires participating states to have ``programs,''
but not action-oriented plans and measurable objectives. State programs
must identify enforceable policies that address general areas
articulated in national guidance, but they are not required to set and
meet benchmarks or measurable objectives. This has hampered efforts to
demonstrate and articulate the success of state programs.
Strategic and targeted plans--developed at relevant scales and
designed to meet national objectives--would be prepared by each state
and approved by NOAA as a requirement for funding. Plans would include
measurable objectives to help monitor state progress in achieving the
goals of the CZMA. National objectives, such as protecting habitat and
making communities more resilient to coastal hazards and climate
change, would be established as a foundation for state programs. Each
state would then prepare a management plan that would include
strategies and measurable objectives to address the national
priorities.
Today, funding for coastal management is allocated according to a
formula that is driven by state coastal population and shoreline
mileage. While these variables are useful for calculating continued
support for operation of basic state programs, as coastal management
programs move forward the majority of funding would be awarded
competitively on the basis of achievement of national objectives.
Program performance measures, based on indicators developed through
state assessments, would also be used to guide funding.
Federal Agency Involvement
Currently under the CZMA, NOAA and other federal agencies have a
limited role in coastal management with no responsibility for
substantive outcomes. Research and technical assistance at the federal
level are not specifically tied to implementation of the CZMA. In order
to supplement the existing federal role, a national level integrated,
coastal and ocean management program would be created under the
Secretary of Commerce to provide additional leadership for our state
and local resource management partners and federal colleagues.
The primary objective of the national program would be to serve as
a coordinator for the delivery of the federal government's diverse
expertise to complement the expertise and knowledge available at the
state and local level. The program would coordinate and build upon
existing efforts, such as the National Sea Grant College Program,
Coastal Services Center and others while not preempting any existing
authorities of other agencies. It would integrate federal research and
technical capabilities, and serve as the conduit for moving research to
operations through the development of targeted products, services and
related technical assistance.
Program Coordination
Developing national goals and the more detailed objectives and
outcomes articulated in state plans would allow other NOAA programs and
centers to more effectively coordinate, align and contribute to these
efforts. The result could be a more integrated effort across NOAA to
help support the national and state goals for management of the
nation's valuable coastal resources. In addition, the National Marine
Protected Area System and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection
Program could be incorporated into the CZMA, and it could be required
that the plans for these programs be developed collaboratively with the
state coastal management plans.
Reserves offer a wealth of scientific expertise and conduct
extensive outreach at the State and local level. Consequently, States
would benefit from coordinating with Reserves on their state resource
assessments and plans. The Reserves are currently authorized in a
separate section of the CZMA, and in some states Reserves are not
integrated with the State's coastal programs.
Implementation of the state coastal nonpoint programs developed
under Section 6217 should be refocused on achievable objectives. States
should be given more ability to focus on activities that the coastal
programs do well, such as influencing land and water use decisions and
working with landowners for cooperative conservation. Improved
coordination could include working with programs in the Department of
Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to target specific
nonpoint pollution-related challenges.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission
both called for the development of better regional governance
structures. The CZMA should more clearly encourage and support regional
coastal and ocean partnerships, both for federal agencies and among the
states. State-coordinated, regional efforts should be eligible for
competitive federal funding under CZMA. In addition to providing a
forum for planning and resource management across jurisdictional
boundaries, these partnerships could help leverage resources to address
regional research needs and improve distribution of applied science to
managers.
OTHER PENDING LEGISLATION
The Subcommittee has requested the Administration's views on three
bills, each of which would make separate amendments to the CZMA.
Comments on each provision are provided below. In general, the
Administration does not support this ad hoc approach to amending the
CZMA because it contradicts the underlying premises of both ocean
commissions and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan to pursue an integrated and
coordinated approach to coastal and ocean management.
H.R. 5452: Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008
H.R. 5452 would amend the State Grant Program under the CZMA. As
amended, the program would support voluntary state efforts to initiate
and complete outer continental shelf surveys adjacent to a state's
coastal zone and coastal waters. These surveys would identify potential
areas that are suitable for the exploration, development, and
production of alternative energy in a manner consistent with the
enforceable provisions of Coastal Zone Management plans (approved
pursuant to section 306A of the CZMA).
We are concerned that this program may result in considerable
duplication of effort. NOAA and other federal agencies already have
extensive expertise and existing hydrographic, oceanographic and
geographic data for many of these areas. Section 388 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 provided the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in
the Department of the Interior with the authority to grant leases,
easements, or rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf for the
siting of alternative ocean energy activities. Thus, any new surveying
or observations should be done in a partnership with MMS, NOAA, any
other relevant agencies, and the states, including on a regional basis
where appropriate. Any such effort should be consistent with the
standards and objectives of pending legislation (H.R. 2342) to
authorize the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). They should
also be consistent with ongoing efforts to promote integrated ocean and
coastal mapping, including the basic principal to ``map once, use many
times.'' The emphasis should be on using existing data and not on
funding new surveying activities unless clearly warranted.
H.R. 5453: Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008
H.R. 5453 would amend the CZMA to require the Secretary of Commerce
to establish a coastal climate change resiliency planning and response
program. This program would provide assistance to coastal states to
voluntarily develop coastal climate change resiliency plans (as
amendments to CZMA management plans), and provide financial and
technical assistance to enable coastal states to implement these plans
through their enforceable policies.
NOAA supports the development and implementation of plans by states
and territories for addressing the effects of climate change. With
respect to requiring long-term monitoring, NOAA has concerns over the
cost to states and Reserves and how the monitoring would be integrated
with the IOOS and other ongoing monitoring efforts. While developing
plan content, coastal management programs should coordinate with
appropriate federal agencies and other state or regional entities to
ensure that they are taking advantage of existing resources.
Specifically, we encourage states with a Reserve to incorporate the
contributions of the Reserves' monitoring efforts into the Climate
Change Resiliency Plans.
H.R. 3223: Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007
H.R. 3223 would amend the CZMA to establish a new grant program to
preserve and expand access to ``water-dependent commercial activities
including commercial fishing, recreational fishing, aquaculture, boat-
building, or other water-dependent coastal-related businesses.'' The
Federal grants created by the bill could cover up to three quarters of
the cost of supporting these activities in competing against other uses
for waterfronts, such as residential development.
The national policy set by the CZMA currently addresses working
waterfronts by directing state coastal management programs to give
priority consideration to coastal-dependent uses when siting major
facilities, including fisheries development, or new commercial and
industrial development in areas where such development already exists
(CZMA Sec. 303(2)(D); 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1452(2)(D)). The CZMA provides, as
a national policy, that state programs should assist in the
redevelopment of deteriorating waterfronts and ports, as well as
sensitive preservation and restoration of historic, cultural, and
esthetic coastal resources (CZMA Sec. 303(2)(F); 16 U.S.C. 1452
(2)(F)).
The Administration supports efforts to preserve working
waterfronts. However, the Administration does not believe the grant
program established by H.R. 3223 is the right tool to address this
agreed upon goal. The program, which would have an authorization level
of $50 million in 2009, is inconsistent with the President's Budget.
Moreover, the Administration believes that Federal funds should be used
for public benefit, and is concerned that H.R. 3223 appears to promote
one type of commercial activity over others.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to working with you on reauthorizing this important program.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy. And thank
you for staying within the five-minute allotment. I failed to
mention it, but I will mention it to all the future witnesses,
that we do have a five-minute rule. But your full, complete
statement will be entered into the formal record.
Mr. Bailey, it is a pleasure to welcome you before the
Subcommittee, and you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, REAUTHORIZATION
COMMITTEE, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bailey. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Chairwoman
Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thanks for holding this hearing and the
opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Robert Bailey, and I manage the Oregon Coastal
Management Program. I am here today on behalf of the Coastal
States Organization, the CSO, which represents Governors of 35
coastal states, Great Lakes states, islands, and territories.
I note that you, Madame Chairwoman, and many Subcommittee
members represent these same states and islands.
In summary, CSO strongly urges you and the Congress to
begin work to enact new legislation to redefine coastal
management in this country. CSO has developed some elements and
ideas for such a bill that we respectfully offer for your
consideration, and we have done so in our written testimony. We
also enthusiastically support the three related bills before
you today.
Now, from the vantage point of 36 years, many would say
that the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 has been
successful. Thirty-five islands, coastal and Great Lakes states
and territories have accomplished a lot of good things through
their Federally approved programs.
But the world has changed, and is about to change even
more. The coasts are being hit with a triple whammy. The first
is an enormous reservoir of retiring baby boomers that is
starting to scour the real estate ads in coastal communities.
As a result, our coasts will be under even more pressure for
development.
Second, climate change is beginning to affect our coastal
communities and coastlines in profound ways. Chairwoman
Bordallo, I am sure that as a delegate of an island territory
ringed by the coasts and ocean, you join me in understanding
just how fragile our coasts are, and appreciating what is at
stake for our nation, our coastal areas, and our people.
Third, energy scarcity is driving proposals for renewable
energy to wind, waves, and tidal power. We must take care to
carefully fit these new uses with our traditional uses.
Meanwhile, governmental budgets at all levels are and will
be stretched thin, so our efforts must be efficient, effective,
and accountable.
Three years ago a budget review by the Office of Management
and Budget triggered what became a terrific partnership between
the CSO and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
to thoroughly assess and revision coastal management in the
U.S. Together, CSO and NOAA embarked on outreach that engaged
hundreds of stakeholders and citizens from around the country
to assess needs for coastal management over the next 35 or more
years. And what they told us forms the basis of our
recommendations to you.
People told us that they care deeply about the coast. They
want to take their kids to see tidepools, to wade in the surf,
to walk the solitude of the beach. But they told us that they
need help in protecting these treasures.
And they also told us that coastal management efforts need
to be better if we are to succeed. They told us that our state
and Federal coastal programs must be prioritized and strategic.
They have told us that our efforts must be coordinated across
all levels of government, because people don't make a
distinction between local, state, and Federal governments. They
want it just to work better.
They also want our government programs to be accountable,
and to demonstrate results. And they told us that our programs
need significantly increased financial support to make our work
successful in protecting the nation's coastal communities.
These principles guide our framework for revisioning
coastal management in the United States, and we think of this
as a new coastal constitution. We in CSO are willing to work
hard to ramp up our efforts, and we believe that the continuing
central role of state programs is crucial.
We urge that state and island programs already approved
remain so, and that the requirement for Federal agency actions
be consistent with approved state programs likewise be
retained.
We see the National Estuarine Research Reserve System as a
key partner in carrying out this enterprise.
I want to turn quickly to the other three bills. CSO
strongly supports H.R. 5453, and commends Congresswoman Capps
for introducing this. This will significantly help coastal
communities address the enormous challenges of climate change.
CSO also supports H.R. 5452 to make sure that the green
power we all want from wind, wave, and tidal energy sources
will work for fishermen, coastal communities, and marine
wildlife.
Finally, CSO supports H.R. 3223 to protect working
waterfronts. Representative Allen's bill gets it right: The
heart of coastal communities will be gone if working
waterfronts are eliminated. These assets must be preserved.
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, we in CSO look
forward to working with you and the Members of the House and
Senate to move these bills forward.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:]
Statement of Robert Bailey, State of Oregon's Representative, Coastal
States Organization, and Manager, Coastal Services Division, Oregon
Department of Land Conservation & Development
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss a new vision for coastal management in the
United States, reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and
three related issues: planning for climate change on our coasts,
planning for alternative energy development, and protecting working
waterfronts.
My name is Robert Bailey. I am the Manager of the Oregon Coastal
and Ocean Management Program in the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development.
I am here today representing the Coastal States Organization (CSO),
an organization that represents the interests of the Governors of
thirty-five coastal states and territories. I note that many of the
members of this Subcommittee are from coastal, islands, or Great Lake
states and territories, all of which are members of the CSO. My
testimony today will provide comments on behalf of CSO as well as my
own perspectives gained from more than 30 years of working in coastal
and ocean management for the State of Oregon.
First, however, I want to commend you and the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing. This conversation about a new approach to coastal
management is a long time coming. We all know that it is easy for the
coasts to get lost in the press of world issues and assume they will
always be there. But, Chairwoman Bordallo, I am sure that, as a
Representative of an island territory ringed by a coast and ocean, you
and the other Subcommittee members join me in understanding how fragile
our coasts are and appreciating what is at stake for our people and our
nation.
What's Happened Since 1972: An Experiment That Succeeded
It is fair to say that the Congressional authors of the 1972
Coastal Zone Management Act had no idea of how successful their efforts
would be when seen from this 35-year vantage point. Of 36 coastal and
Great Lake states and territories, 35 have federally approved coastal
management programs that account for the unique needs and setting of
each state or territory. These CZM programs have provided public access
to coastal waters and made sure that those waters were clean, kept
shoreline development safe from coastal hazards, protected and restored
estuarine and wetland habitats, protected dunes, barrier islands and
other unique coastal features, helped citizens to be better stewards of
the coast, and, importantly, worked hard to coordinate state and
federal efforts to conserve the Nation's coastal resources.
The unique federal-state partnership of the Coastal Zone Management
Program has enabled states to ensure that federal agency actions
affecting coastal resources are consistent with approved state
programs, which often include local regulations. This arrangement has
been good for coastal communities, coastal states, and the Nation. It
is a stellar example of innovative public policy that has worked
quietly and well, notwithstanding the occasional headline or
controversy. In this democracy of ours, where each state is a
laboratory, the 1972 CZMA experiment has been a success.
I also think it is fair to say that these same authors could not
have envisioned the demands that are increasingly bearing on our
coasts. In 1980, 120 million people lived in coastal counties. Today,
40 million more people have crowded near our nation's coastlines, an
increase of 30 %. Nearly 60% of the U.S. population now lives in
coastal counties, which make up only 17% of the nation's area. There is
clearly something special in our coasts and oceans. I remind my friends
in Oregon that you can drive for six straight days across this country
and never see a tidepool, an estuary, or waves crashing on an ocean
beach. What we live with every day on the coast of Oregon and other
coastal states and islands are truly national treasures.
Unfortunately, our coasts are about to get hit with a triple
whammy. The first is the enormous reservoir of retiring Baby Boomers
with the means and desire to seek coastal living or recreation. Second
is climate change, which will place a premium on the naturally air-
conditioned coasts even as coastal communities are stressed from rising
sea-level, increasing storm intensity, and higher temperatures. Third
is an energy scarcity that will impact economies and development
patterns of coastal communities and spawn demand for renewable coastal
energy resources of wind, waves, and tides. All the while, the public
will demand that all levels of government work more efficiently to
protect coastal and ocean resources and be accountable for results.
So, the conditions for our experiment in coastal management are
changing drastically. We in the Coastal States Organization believe it
is time to meet these challenges with equally dramatic changes in our
national and state coastal management efforts.
H.R. 5451: Toward a Vision for the CZMA
Over the past three years a remarkable confluence of circumstances
has resulted in a broad consensus among many coastal constituents about
how this nation needs to re-tool coastal management for the next 35
years or more. The first was the nearly tandem reports of the Pew
Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that zeroed
in on the Coastal Management Program as critical to addressing many
issues confronting our coasts and oceans.
The second was an assessment of the strengths and weakness of the
National CZM program by the Office of Management and Budget that shook
the ground under both NOAA and CSO. While the report found positive
effects from state and federal actions to carry out the 1972 program,
it also found serious issues about performance, accountability, and the
level of effort necessary to truly address oncoming needs on the
Nation's coasts.
The third happenstance was leadership within both the Coastal
States Organization and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration who read the OMB assessment and recognized that in
``crisis'' is both ``danger'' and ``opportunity.'' With so much at
stake, CSO and NOAA took the path of opportunity and agreed to
vigorously engage stakeholders in creating a vision for an improved
Coastal Zone Management Act and to identify methods for improving
program implementation at the state and national levels.
The fourth circumstance was--and is--a climate of intense interest
and willingness to think boldly among the public, coastal managers,
local governments, coastal industries, federal agencies, non-profit
foundations, state officials, and even Congressional members. These
stakeholders have been nearly unanimous in believing that it is high
time to think boldly about the future of coastal management in this
country.
The CSO and NOAA reached out to stakeholders around the country.
Five national workshops were held, which spawned additional state-level
conversations. In all, about 600 participants from across the spectrum
of stakeholders participated, including municipalities, maritime
industry, environmental organizations, and the public. NOAA met with
many federal agencies with coastal programs and began internal
discussions to better align NOAA resources. CSO and NOAA both met with
a variety of organizations representing a wide range of coastal
stakeholders. Discussions were frank and creative.
What we all heard loud and clear was that coastal management needs
big improvements. And in so doing coastal management must be 1).
prioritized and strategic; 2.) accountable; 3.) coordinated, and 4.)
supported by significant financial investments. Together, the CSO and
NOAA worked out a set of Cornerstones and Core Principles for coastal
management in the United States that has guided us as we have come to
agreement within CSO on National Priorities and a framework for
achieving them.
We call our framework the Coastal and Ocean Legacy Act of 2008. We
think of this as a new ``Coastal Constitution.''
PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR CZMA
The Coastal States Organization urges a new national commitment to
coastal management that includes the following elements:
Reaffirm a national commitment to keystone principles of coastal
management
Keystone principles include maintaining state-enacted programs and
authorities that meet national policies, balancing conservation and
development, protecting coastal natural resources, and federal
consistency with state programs. These core elements have been the
cornerstone of implementing the 1972 Act.
Address National Priorities to meet the needs of the Nation's coasts
The CSO agrees that coastal management must go beyond core programs
and be focused on achieving National Priorities that broadly reflect
the concerns of stakeholders from around the country. CSO urges that
local, state, and federal programs be organized to meet these four
priorities:
Support healthy coastal communities and economies: By
this we mean assisting coastal communities to plan for and manage urban
growth, revitalize waterfronts, and reduce impacts on coastal resources
while building for sustainable economic development and improving the
quality of life.
Protect and restore coastal natural resources: Coastal,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems, habitats and unique resources are
under pressure and will require significant focused effort to protect
and, where possible, restore.
Prepare for climate change on the nation's coasts: The
Nation's coasts are on the front lines for impacts from climate change.
Coastal communities and states must have the capacity and resources to
plan and prepare for these impacts.
Ensure coordination and integration of coastal and ocean
programs: While seemingly implicit, this should be an explicit National
Priority to ensure that local, state, and programs work together to
make effective use of scarce public resources in pursuit of coastal
management objectives.
Act strategically
States recognize that meeting these National Priorities will
require strategic investments and programs. So states will prepare
multi-year strategic plans to address these priorities. These
strategies will be based on comprehensive assessments of resources,
conditions, needs, and opportunities, will describe outcomes and
identify performance measurements, and will be the basis of annual
implementation plans and funding.
Monitor effectiveness through performance measures and periodic
evaluation
States understand that performance measurements will be needed to
demonstrate progress in meeting national priorities. To ensure that
appropriate, useful measures are used, the states propose that the
National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Public
Administration convene a panel of experts to develop performance
criteria and metrics for the national priorities.
Engage and encourage local communities in the coastal stewardship
enterprise
Local communities are vital partners in the nation's effort to
steward coastal resources. Local governments are on the front lines as
on-the-ground decision-makers whose land use regulations and
infrastructure investments are pivotal in determining the scope and
kind of coastal development. But communities need financial and
technical assistance to be effective partners in meeting the national
objectives.
Strengthen coordination and integration of management programs for the
nation's coasts
The programs of many federal agencies that affect the nation's
coastal zone must be aligned and integrated with each other and with
coastal state programs. Part of the challenge of coastal management is
to integrate non-NOAA agencies such as the EPA, USFWS, USGS, MMS, the
USACOE, and the departments of Agriculture and Transportation. Such
integration will not be easy, but it is absolutely necessary.
Increase investments in coastal stewardship to meet national priorities
States understand that this new approach to addressing the nation's
coastal issues will require significant investments in funding and
technical support for both states and federal agencies. Investments
must be commensurate with the dimensions of the task or our coastal
communities will suffer. At present, federal coastal management funding
equates to 46 cents per person per year living on the coast. We believe
that our coasts are worth far, far more than that.
Coastal states are ready to tackle these coastal challenges. We
must. But we cannot do it alone. We believe that the framework we have
developed with our partners will enable all of us to succeed in this
most important endeavor.
H.R. 5453 COASTAL STATES CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ACT
I want to turn now to H.R. 5453 and what is probably the biggest
single reason for thinking differently about how we plan for, manage,
and protect our coasts. Climate change.
Climate change is more than just another issue for the coasts of
our states and islands. It is a planetary issue with particularly
unique effects and challenge for our nation's coasts and coastal
communities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), socioeconomic and environmental impacts of climate change are
projected to be most significant in coastal areas. As a representative
from one of our vulnerable Pacific islands, I suspect that you
understand clearly how critical it is to address the effects of climate
change on our nation's coasts--right now.
The CSO commends Representative Capps for introducing H.R. 5453 to
amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to authorize assistance to
coastal states in developing coastal climate change adaptation plans.
With this legislation, Representative Capps has recognized that states
have developed skills and authorities to deal with many aspects of
adaptation through work on coastal hazards and coastal development. I
would note that CSO recently completed a white paper summarizing the
work already underway by coastal states to address climate change and
to identify needed actions. In my own program, we have begun a somewhat
bootstrapped effort to address adaptation and have already recognized
that the scale of effort outstrips our available or foreseeable
resources.
The CSO applauds the provisions of H.R. 5453 that would enable
state coastal management programs to tailor current responsibilities
and begin adaptation planning under the CZMA, and significantly,
provide grant assistance to implement these plans and additional
projects to address climate-related stress factors. CSO understands
that if we are going to face the challenges of climate change on our
coasts, funding, as well as planning, will be essential. So, no pun
intended, H.R. 5453 is right on the money.
H.R. 5452 the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008.
The CSO also commends Representative Capps for introducing H.R.
5452. This, too, is a very timely and helpful bill. For example, my
state, Oregon, is on the front lines of efforts to develop ocean wave
energy conversion facilities. As much as we all want clean, renewable
energy, I know first hand that the rush to develop wind, wave and tidal
energy is placing unprecedented pressures on coastal states to plan for
these new uses and to balance them with existing economic and
environmental uses and values.
Coastal fishermen and local communities are keenly interested in
how new energy development will affect them. H.R. 5452 would provide
critical financial assistance to state coastal management programs to
do the planning and assessment work necessary to develop credible
public processes, acquire needed data, prepare assessments, and
identify areas where energy development is appropriate and where it is
not. In Oregon, fishermen and community leaders are demanding this kind
of assessment and planning. And because energy industries are in a
mini-Gold Rush in response to global energy and greenhouse gas issues,
the need is urgent.
I would note that even while this planning is taking place the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is receiving private sector
applications that could result in 50-year licenses for energy
facilities located in state waters. The subcommittee might consider
addressing this issue. States are concerned that without such planning,
it is premature to commit ocean areas to long-term licenses. If it
would be useful to the Subcommittee, I would be pleased to provide more
information about the kinds of issues that we are addressing as we work
with industry, FERC, other agencies, and ocean users in a kind of
pioneering endeavor to site wave energy development facilities in the
ocean on the Oregon coast.
H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007
Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank Representative Allen
and Representative Capps for introducing H.R. 3223, the Keep Our
Waterfronts Working Act of 2007. The Findings in that Bill get it
right: working waterfronts are under enormous pressure from the twin
forces of continuing demand for development and changing economies on
our coasts. Those who build and live on the coasts know that
waterfronts have tremendous financial value, which is why traditional
uses of working waterfronts are so vulnerable to elimination. But as
the Bill notes, if working waterfronts are eliminated, the economy,
culture, and the heart of coastal communities will be fundamentally
altered.
In Oregon we regard working waterfronts as scarce and valuable
public resources, the same way we regard unique coastal habitats, and
we protect them from being lost to inappropriate development. So I am
particularly pleased to tell you that CSO strongly supports the Working
Waterfront Grant Program that H.R. 3233 would create to help all
coastal states address this need. We believe that working waterfronts
are national assets and that it is essential to preserve them in order
to protect the economic and cultural value they provide to our local
coastal communities and to the nation.
CONCLUSION
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and subcommittee
members, what I like about all these bills is that while they address
governmental programs they are really about the real world of our
coastal communities, our shores, and our oceans, and the kind of
coastal world we will pass to my grandchildren and yours. These bills
make me optimistic because they offer important tools for our coasts
and coastal management in the U.S. CSO looks forward to working with
all of you and the members of the House and Senate to advance them.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey. And again,
thank you for staying within the time limits.
Mr. Bailey. You are welcome.
Ms. Bordallo. And thank you for your very helpful comments.
Dr. Kooser is here to testify on behalf of the National
Estuarine Research Reserves Association. And her colleague, Dr.
Michael De Luca, was unfortunately unable to be here today due
to illnesses in his family. But I would like to thank Dr.
Kooser for coming, and invite her to testify at this point.
STATEMENT OF JAIME C. KOOSER, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES ASSOCIATION
Ms. Kooser. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and members of
the committee.
Again, my name is Jaime Kooser, and I serve as the
President of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
Association. And I also manage the San Francisco Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve.
I am presenting testimony that was prepared by Mr. Mike De
Luca, the Legislative Director of NERRA. And I want to say we
support all of the bills that are being discussed in this
session.
Our comments emphasize the importance of regional
approaches to coastal management, the importance of building
capacity in the coastal community, and engaging the public in
coastal stewardship.
I also want to say that we echo many of the themes that
have already been discussed by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bailey. And
NERRA has collaborated with NOAA and the Coastal States
Organization in the coastal visioning process that Mr. Bailey
described. And we look forward to working together to integrate
all of the ideas that we have for improving coastal management.
NERRA is dedicated to science-based management of our
nation's estuaries and coasts, and it serves as the primary
advocate for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System,
which is a network of 27 protected areas throughout the states
and territories.
Through our state-Federal partnership with NOAA, the
reserves play a critical role in national efforts to sustain
healthy estuaries and coastal communities. NERRA strongly
supports amendments to the CZMA that enable coastal communities
to protect coastal resources in the face of rapidly shifting
environmental changes.
As the Chairwoman has already described, much has changed
since the CZMA was last authorized, in 1996. Devastating storms
and natural disasters, intensifying population growth along the
coast, and climate change are altering both the pace and the
scope of environmental concerns.
Because environmental issues such as fisheries management
and habitat loss transcend watersheds and state boundaries, a
regional approach to problem solving is necessary. We are
already moving in that direction with collaborative efforts,
like the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and the West Coast Governors
Agreement on Ocean Health. And likewise, we can align technical
capacity with regional needs, as we do with the regional
associations that help us implement integrated ocean observing
systems. We want to foster similar approaches in other coastal
regions.
Second, we recognize the need to base our coastal decisions
on the best available science. And we often hear that phrase,
that we want our decisions based on the best available science;
but the question remains, how do you allow that information to
be available to decision makers so that it can actually happen.
And the National Estuarine Research Reserve System has
developed a coastal training program to meet this need of
linking science to management. We give elected officials, land-
use planners, regulatory personnel, coastal managers, and
members of the public relevant, science-based information. We
offer these programs in partnership with national and local
organizations and other NOAA programs, and we want to expand
our capacity to do CTP regionally so that we can better address
the regional environmental concerns that we have described.
Third, I wanted to say that I recognize the critical role
of engaging all members of our community in protecting our
resources. Generally people will do the right thing, if they
know how. Because, as previous witnesses have stated, people
really do care about the coasts, and they do want to know what
they can do to help.
And so there are many excellent formal and informal
programs that exist at state and local levels, but we need more
resources in order to be able to scale up to do the kind of
regional-based approach that we think will help us do more
effective problem solving.
In summary, NERRA offers a number of recommendations in
support of CZMA reauthorization, which are more fully
described, of course, in our written testimony. But I did want
to note that we want to make the NERRS a leader in leveraging
the capabilities of protected-area networks, to engage the
public in stewardship of our coasts, and to recognize the
special role that estuarine research reserves can play as
sentinel sites for adaptive management strategies for climate
change, which is certainly an issue that is going to be
increasingly upon us.
In closing, reauthorization of the CZMA provides an
opportunity to build on our past successes, so as to strengthen
our ability to care for our coasts and estuaries.
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is
passionate about our coasts and estuaries, and the people who
depend on them. So we thank you for the opportunity to share
that with you this morning, and look forward to working with
you and all of the members of the committee in order to move us
forward.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Kooser.
And finally, I would like to welcome Ms. Evangeline Lujan,
all the way from the district that I represent, Guam. And I
will say that this is the second time that she has testified
before this Subcommittee, and she didn't come out here just for
this. We make the most of these 19-hour flights to the nation's
capital. She was here for the U.S. Coral Task Force meetings.
And so, Ms. Lujan, I am very pleased that you took the time
out to appear before us again. And it is a pleasure to have
you. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF EVANGELINE LUJAN, DIRECTOR, GUAM COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, ALL-ISLAND GROUP
Ms. Lujan. Thank you so much.
[Witness spoke a greeting in her native language.]
Ms. Lujan. Hello, Chairman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown,
and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss island
coastal management and reauthorization of the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
My name is Evangeline Lujan. I am the Administrator for the
Guam Coastal Management Program in the Guam Bureau of
Statistics and Plans. I am here today representing the All-
Islands Committee on Coastal Zone Management, which is
comprised of representatives from Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
In my testimony today, I will provide comments on behalf of
the All-Islands Committee, as well as from my own perspectives
gained from more than 14 years of working in coastal and ocean
management for Guam.
To islanders, the ocean is our heritage and our future. Our
island's coastal zones provide economic and environmental
services to millions of people. These valuable areas are
sources of natural beauty, food, jobs, revenue, recreation and
tourism, cultural activities, and shoreline protection.
The inability of coastal management to address
environmental issues on an ecosystem-based approach affects
islands in a unique way.
For example, no point on Guam is more than a few miles from
the shoreline. The entire island is considered a coastal zone.
The coastline is affected by activities that occur inland, as
is true for all island jurisdictions. Thus, land-use planning,
resource exploitation, water quality, and coastal management
are all inter-connected.
I would like to provide you with a few outlined items that
are important for the island jurisdictions, as we perceive
through the reauthorization of CZMA. It is important to
recognize that the reauthorization of the All-Islands CZMA
program provides a special perspective for the following
reasons.
Our islands, coasts, and oceans extend from the top of the
mountain to the sea. We are both indigenous and immigrant
populations. We recognize the importance of culture and
tradition in management practices. Many of our jurisdictions
include non-contiguous land masses with unique characteristics,
limited natural resources, and a finite land base surrounded by
ocean waters. And we are more directly affected by sea-level
rise and climate change needing effective and immediate action
to ensure the survival of ecosystems and cultures.
With these distinctive characteristics in mind in
reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act, I urge Congress
to strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Act to maintain a
balance between coastal conservation and economic development,
provide adequate funding for states and territorial coastal
programs, so that levels of investments are aligned with
economic contributions. Islands are especially susceptible to
economic pressures to develop in inappropriate areas to
economic pressure--I am sorry--and coastal management is
considerably under-funded given these economic impacts to
coastal areas.
Increased funding for emerging issues, such as sea-level
rise and climate change, such issues are not presently factored
into the original CZMA. Provide funding for the non-point
source program for islands especially, this problem is critical
and has direct impact on our valuable coral reef ecosystems.
Craft national priorities to support healthy coastal
communities and economies, protect and restore coastal natural
resources, enable states and territories to adapt climate
change, and ensure integration of coastal and ocean programs.
And I have a list, but in my written testimony, so I would
like to just add this one also. Strengthen Federal consistency
to apply to the entire island, including the ecosystem,
including Federal lands. This will ensure that natural
resources are managed through an ecosystem approach. For Guam,
strengthening of Federal consistency may be critical in this
time of military buildup.
In reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act, and in
considering the role of the bill in coastal management, I urge
you and the members of your committee to be mindful of the
unique perspective and needs of island states and territories,
recognizing that coastal jurisdictions are distinctive, and
have very different values and needs.
The CZMA ensures that national interests are expressed and
carried out through local initiatives. The Guam Coastal
Management Program and other island jurisdictions comprising of
the All-Islands Committee look forward to working with you and
members of the House Natural Resources' Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans to advance these bills.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. And I will
be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lujan follows:]
Statement of Evangeline Lujan, Guam's Representative, Coastal States
Organization and Administrator, Guam Coastal Management Program, Guam
Bureau of Statistics and Planning
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss island coastal management and
reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
My name is Evangeline Lujan. I am the Administrator of the Guam
Coastal Management Program in the Guam Bureau of Statistics and
Planning.
I am here today representing the All Islands Committee on Coastal
Zone Management representing Hawai`i, Guam, American Samoa,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
My testimony today will provide comments on behalf of the All
Islands Committee as well as my own perspectives gained from more than
14 years of working in coastal and ocean management for Guam.
The island's coastal zone provide economic and environmental
services to millions of people as valuable areas of natural beauty,
sources of food, jobs and revenues, recreation and tourism, cultural
activities and shoreline protection. The inability of coastal
management to address environmental issues on an ecosystem-wide basis
affects islands in a unique way: for example, no point in Guam is more
than 11 miles from the shore. The entire island is considered a coastal
zone. As is true for all other island jurisdictions, the coastline is
affected by activities that occur inland. Thus, land management
decisions, resource exploitation, water quality and coastal management
are interconnected. Management of impacts to habitat is critical to the
protection of natural resources. To islanders, the ocean is our
heritage and our future.
Firstly, I would like to provide a few outlined items that are
important to the island jurisdictions as you proceed with support of
the reauthorization of the CZMA.
OUTLINE OF TOPICS:
It is important to recognize in the Reauthorization that the All
Islands CZM programs provide a unique perspective because Island coasts
and oceans extend from the top of the mountain to the sea (three miles
seaward) which should address;
Indigenous and immigrant populations;
Cultural & Traditional importance in management
practices;
Island environments of non-contiguous land masses with
unique characteristics, limited natural resources (terrestrial and
marine), a finite land base, surrounded by ocean waters; and,
Uniquely affected by sea level rise and climate change,
needing effective and immediate action to ensure the survival of
ecosystems and cultures.
With these distinctive characteristics in mind, in reauthorizing
the Coastal Zone Management Act, I urge Congress to:
Strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Act to maintain a
balance between coastal conservation and economic development.
Provide adequate funding for states' and territories'
coastal programs so that they receive the investment aligned with their
economic contribution. Islands are especially susceptible to economic
pressure to develop in inappropriate areas. As an island jurisdiction,
coastal management is considerably under-funded given the economic
impact of coastal areas. This is true not only for Guam but to all our
island CZM programs.
Provide for adequate base funding for the core programs,
on a non-competitive basis. Competitive funding available for
additional programs.
Increase funding for emerging issues such as climate
change. Such issues are not presently factored into original CZMA.
Provide funding for the non-point source program. For
islands especially, this problem is critical and has direct impact to
their valuable coral reef ecosystems.
Craft National Priorities to support healthy coastal
communities and economies, protect and restore coastal natural
resources, enable states to adapt to climate change and, ensure
integration of coastal and ocean programs. Recognizing that ``One size
fits all'' policies are not appropriate for different physical
settings, most especially for islands.
Monitor effectiveness of coastal programs through
measures and evaluation.
Engage and encourage local communities and indigenous
people in coastal stewardship. Noting that there is a mix of diverse
cultures and traditional practices. Finding ways to incorporate both
scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge in resource management
is important.
Strengthen coordination and integration of management
programs for the nation's coasts taking the unique needs of territories
and islands into account. Islands, as well as other coastal
communities, struggle with competing Interests (multiple users,
achieving balance, and setting priorities). There is also a need for
coordination among federal agencies and among levels of government.
Strengthen federal consistency to apply to the entire
island. This will ensure that natural resources are managed through an
ecosystem approach. For Guam, strengthening of federal consistency will
be critical during the military build up.
Strengthen NOAA's ability to coordinate and collaborate
with federal agencies in support of local jurisdiction's coastal
policies.
Secondly, I would like to provide a few outlined points that are
important to island jurisdictions to authorize CZMA with emphasis on
coastal climate change;
Islands Are Uniquely Affected by Climate Change.
Islands have an urgent need for adequate coastal planning for sea
level rise and other expected impacts from climate change. I commend
Representative Capps for introducing H.R. 5453, a bill to amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to authorize assistance to
coastal states and territories to develop coastal climate change
adaptation plans. The future of Guam's as well as other island
jurisdictions' economic stability are reliant upon protection and
management of coastal resources and adaptation to climate change and
rising sea level. This legislation provides a mechanism for coastal
management to address one of our most pressing coastal issues.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report
confirmed what managers of island coastal programs know: small islands
have characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to the
effects of climate change, sea-level rise, and extreme storm events.
Characteristics such as limited size and proneness to natural hazards
increase the vulnerability of islands to climate change. In most cases
they have low adaptive capacity, and adaptation costs are high relative
to gross domestic product.
With ``very high confidence,'' the IPCC found that especially for
islands, sea-level rise is expected to exacerbate inundation, storm
surge, erosion and other coastal hazards, threatening vital
infrastructure, settlements and facilities that support the livelihood
of island communities. Specifically, sea-level rise could lead to a
reduction in island size, particularly in the Pacific. Island
infrastructure is predominately located on the coast and in the
Caribbean and Pacific islands, more than 50% of the populations live
within 1.5 km of the shore. Almost without exception, international
airports, roads and capital cities in the small islands of the Indian
and Pacific Oceans and the Caribbean are sited along the coast, or on
tiny coral islands.
Climate change will also compromise water resources, heavily
impacting coral reefs, fisheries and other marine-based resources (high
confidence), and adversely affecting human health, subsistence and
commercial agriculture, tourism, on small islands.
H.R. 5354 would provide essential funding and management capacity
to island coastal programs to address these front-line needs. These
specifically are encouraged for the following priorities:
Need of data/information for effective adaptation to
Climate Change:
Higher resolution topography useful for land use permits;
Current, seasonal, coast-wide imagery to assess shoreline
change and rates of change over time; and,
Images for inland areas in order to connect land uses with
shoreline change, needed at a resolution of land use parcel or better.
Need for training, outreach and education:
Software and training for spatial analysis using GIS;
Island-specific funding for experts to evaluate a problem
and provide expert advice/recommendations on how to solve it;
A Toolkit of Best Management Practices for land use
tailored for the islands, include links to available resources; and,
Develop local strategies on coastal management issues,
adapt the tools to the island, county, and local management level.
Support the need for island-specific information and
research
Translate federal smart growth programs and tools to be
applicable in the islands.
Studies on the water carrying capacity of islands,
including in-water use impacts.
Methods to document real-life land use instead of general
policies and information, needed to capture the impact of variances
issued by local zoning.
Recommendations for innovative, protection alternatives
for shoreline change caused by sea walls on Guam.
Information on the social science impacts (cultural,
economic) of resource degradation.
Island-specific case studies and examples for improving
the governance structure for addressing land use and land use
designations (zoning).
Conclusion
In reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act and considering
the role of this bill in coastal management, I urge you to be mindful
of the unique perspectives and needs of island states and territories.
Recognizing that coastal jurisdictions are unique and have different
values and needs, the CZMA ensures that National interest are expressed
and carried out through local initiatives. The Guam Coastal Management
Program and island jurisdictions looks forward to working with the
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Oceans and Wildlife
to advance these bill.
______
Ms. Bordallo. You all get an A-plus for staying within the
time limit.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. It is very unusual, you know. We always have
to tap this gavel several times.
I want to thank Ms. Lujan for her statement, and all the
rest of you. And I do have some questions that I would like to
begin with.
Mr. Kennedy, I want to thank you for your statement.
Considering that the Administration does not support any of
these bills, I am left to conclude that the Administration has
developed its own thoughtful proposal to reauthorize the
Coastal Zone Management Act in an appropriate manner.
So, number one, can you please tell me when the
Administration will be forwarding this proposal to Congress?
And second, for the record, can you tell the committee how many
legislative proposals the present Administration has
transmitted to prior Congresses that would reauthorize the
Coastal Zone Management Act?
Mr. Kennedy. What a way to get started.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kennedy. We certainly have, as you can tell from the
testimony, done a lot of discussing about what a new Coastal
Zone Management Act would look like. And we currently are
drafting such a document, and it is going to be vetted
internally. And we anticipate that some time in late spring,
early summer, this would be vetted within NOAA.
But I cannot tell you, and I do not believe that we have a
schedule that would then prepare me to be able to say exactly
when we would submit this to Congress.
So right now the schedule is let us make sure that the
ideas that we have, that we have gotten collectively from all
of our visioning and with our partners, get put into a bill
that we have some agreement with NOAA with. And then we would
take the next step of attempting to determine how we will
submit it forward.
So I apologize, but I cannot give you a specific date when
it would come to Congress. But we are working diligently to
develop something internally that at some point would be
prepared to come up.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Kennedy, on the first question I asked
you, you said that, you gave an affirmative answer. But in
checking with the committee here, since this Administration has
taken over, we haven't received any proposals. So I just want
that on the record.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. No, you have not. And I hope I
made that clear. We are discussing where to go internally, but
there has been no proposal.
Ms. Bordallo. And on the second part of the question, you
don't have a definite date as to when this proposal will be
concluded. Do you think it will be within the year?
Mr. Kennedy. I think we will have clearance through NOAA
within the year. Again, I am not prepared to say when we would
have it available.
Ms. Bordallo. Should Congress then move ahead with whatever
we have on hand? Would this be your suggestion?
Mr. Kennedy. We would like to work with you. We would like
to discuss what you have already submitted, but we do not have
an alternative that we are ready to submit to you. That is
true.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
I do have a question for Ms. Lujan. I want to thank you for
your testimony this morning, and I appreciate your being here
to give us an island perspective on some of the issues that are
before the committee.
Could you be more specific on how to strengthen the Coastal
Zone Management Act to maintain the balance between coastal
conservation and economic development?
And the second part of the question is, how might greater
consideration of cultural traditions be factored into this Act?
Ms. Lujan. Thank you for the question. I think on Guam,
especially within our programs on the islands, economic
development and the balance with the environment is very
critical. In all our decisions, we have to take huge
consideration as to maintaining that balance.
Island economies are very small. They depend a lot on the
Federal government, and they depend a lot on tourism. And
especially right now, we are in a very important phase of our
history on Guam, where the military is going to be coming in.
And there is a lot of pressure on our natural resources.
But as we have proceeded through the last 20 years of the
CZMA and the implementation within islands, we have developed
strong partnership with all the other Federal agencies and
local agencies in ensuring that decisions are made to take into
consideration the most valuable asset of our economy. And
fortunately, we see it often, because it is in tourism.
And in tourism we are able to see that people come to our
islands for sand and surf, clean water, clean air. And so in
implementing it on Guam, you really have to take into
consideration what it means when you put up a development, how
much resources will be lost or gained by any kind of
development. And it is very critical. It is a very delicate
balance. It is also very political at times. And so sometimes
we have to really do a good assessment about how that will
work, and how it will infringe on very fragile island
environments and ecosystems.
The cultural aspect is so critical. As you see, there is a
wide variety of culture and heritage, and identities and
different types of people that we have to ensure get
represented in the way of life that we want to have.
I think the most important thing for islanders is having a
good quality of life. We come to the mainland, and we see a
variety of cultures and lifestyles. And I think when we go
home, we appreciate the slower pace type of lifestyle; the
ability to get engaged with the different types of communities,
and also have the very wide variety of cultures that exist
harmoniously within our islands.
And in order for you to ensure that that is maintained,
that needs to be incorporated in all your decisions, and in the
way that we develop our island and the way that we determine
what our economy is going to be. There are times I think that
decisions are made where you, you may not assume the entire
full benefit of an economy. Because knowing that you have to
protect the indigenous people that live there, because their
language and their culture are the reasons that we exist
together in a community, and we have to protect them.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Lujan. That was very
well put. And she brought out the fact that because of our
distance from the mainland United States and our culture, I
think whenever we legislate here in the U.S. Congress, we
should take into effect the territories, and how they will
react to the laws that we are putting into place.
I would like to invite everyone standing back there--I
never like to see people standing for a long period of time--
you can take the chairs up around the table here. Please come
forward. Yes, you could be Members of Congress for a few hours.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. I am sorry, I should have mentioned this
earlier. The committee reminded me, and I forgot. Good, because
it may be a long morning.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, for
any questions he may have.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Before I start the
questions, I guess I would like to introduce our newest Member:
Rob Wittman from the historic First Congressional District of
Virginia. And welcome to the Subcommittee, and to the
committee. I understand you have a fisheries background, and we
look forward to your expertise.
Thank you all very much. That was interesting dialogue. And
like the Chairlady said, we are grateful that you all kept the
train on time.
And before I start my question, I certainly would like to
welcome Ms. Lujan myself. We really appreciate the Chairlady.
And she has been certainly encouraging me to come out to Guam,
and one day I might. And I think in about two or three weeks,
she is going to come to Myrtle Beach, which is my Congressional
District. I represent the coast of South Carolina, and so, you
know, we are certainly interested in coastal issues.
I guess South Carolina has about a 200-mile coastline, and
we are grateful in South Carolina that we have been able to
partner with the state and the Federal and local efforts to
preserve at least a third of that coastline. So we are grateful
for that opportunity.
And Mr. Bailey, I would like to get some input from you
about how you address in your coastline there in Oregon. I know
that we partner with the local people, particularly in the Ace
Basin, which is about 135,000 acres, that we are encouraging
them to--in fact, we have given them some incentives, financial
incentives and tax incentives--to place their property into
this, this bank, so to speak.
And what we are doing, we are actually buying their
development rights. So that we will know that those pieces of
property will be preserved forever. And we have had Mr. Yawkey,
you know, to preserve I guess about 10,000 acres up to
Georgetown. And so we are blessed in our part of South
Carolina.
We recognize that my Congressional District is like the
21st-largest in the Nation now. And of course, everybody, you
know, in Oregon and other places too, everybody is wanting to
move to the coast. And so it is absolutely important that we
develop some process to, you know, be sure that we leave our
next generation with some of those good qualities of life that
we enjoy.
But tell me how you address an issue.
Mr. Bailey. Representative Brown, I appreciate the
question. The coasts of the U.S.----
Ms. Bordallo. Excuse me. Could I ask all the witnesses to
come closer to their mics? Some are working, and some are not
working so well. Thank you.
Mr. Bailey. Are we on? All right. Is it rolling?
In Oregon we embed our coastal management program really
within a statewide system of land-use planning, where all
cities and counties adopt local land-use plans. And those land-
use plans are based on a set of state-wide standards to provide
for adequate housing, you know, economic growth,
transportation, protecting agricultural lands, and so on.
But on the coast, then, we are, about 35 years ago some of
the principles were developed into law that really require us
to set back from the ocean shore, that dynamic dune line, the
beach erosion. Sands shift and blow over time. So we really
rely on local governments to make those land-use decisions. We
try to provide them as much information as we can. As Dr.
Kooser said, the best available science on dune dynamics, how
the beaches are moving, what we think are the erosion rates,
and try to provide them with the best technical information on
setting back from the bluffs, and so on. But the local
governments, the cities and counties make that land-use
decision.
Now, is that going to be enough for sea-level rise and
climate change? We are not sure it is. And this is really
resetting the clock for all of us.
So one of the things we are very interested in, and one of
the reasons we are interested in Rep. Capps' bill, is we are
really looking to ramp up our efforts on understanding this
very dynamic ocean shore. And do we need different tools along
that back there, or can we simply continue to rely on our
current planning and zoning? Are we going to need to buy
properties and help homeowners and property owners relocate? We
are not sure of that yet. But we do need to continue to work
with that local-level government.
Mr. Brown. Are you all engaged in beach renourishment?
Mr. Bailey. No, we don't. We have enough sand moving around
right now, that so far we are not doing beach renourishment.
Mr. Brown. So you are satisfying the ocean rise and the
erosion by a setback, further setback line?
Mr. Bailey. That is correct. That is our strategy for now,
and I think that is probably the strategy we will pursue. We
have been talking with a number of local governments, and they
are already beginning to look at erosion rates along their
ocean shore. We just had worked with a small city last week
that adopted a much tougher ocean erosion safety line along
their beachfront, and they did that themselves. They went
beyond our recommendation, because they think it is important.
Mr. Brown. So you don't make any effort to protect the big
hotels and other properties along the seacoast?
Mr. Bailey. The way our program works, Rep. Brown, is that
when our coastal management program was passed in 1977, and
enacted into law, the assumption was a property that was
developed prior to that date, they are eligible for protection.
Riff-raff, shorefront seawalls, whatever it takes. We call them
tacos, the soft taco approach, where you have big fabric
structures to protect.
But after 1977, the assumption was that local governments
and property owners were on notice that if they built in this
environment, they needed to be built back far enough to take
into account erosion rates, and sort of sand over topping,
and--that has been, by and large, successful. We have gotten,
there is a couple places on the coast where it is dramatically
different. Pre-1977, those people are ringed with riff-raff.
After 1977, they are well back of that line, and it has not
been a problem.
But again, as I say, sea level rise is going to recalibrate
all of our assumptions, I think.
Mr. Brown. Madame Chairman, I know my time is gone. I just
would just leave with one further question.
Other than dollars, do you think the Federal government
should have any further reinforcement, I mean enforcement
responsibilities?
Mr. Bailey. Enforcement? At the current time, the Federal
government, at least as far as beachfront protection, they are
not involved. It is strictly a state and local decision. And
no, I don't think anybody is ready for additional, or for new
Federal intervention in that process. And I am not sure they
want it, either.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member of the committee,
Mr. Brown.
And now the Chair recognizes Congresswoman Lois Capps of
California.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Madame Chair. Before I begin, could
I inquire that you have such an excellent panel of witnesses,
will you be having a second round?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mrs. Capps. OK. Then I can go as long as I want. I have
several questions for two witnesses.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Capps. I won't go as long as I want in this round. I
will note that I have another chance at it.
I will start, then, with Mr. Kennedy. I am going to get
specifically to an issue in southern California today.
Earlier this month the California Coastal Commission
objected to a plan to build a toll road through San Onofre
State Beach in San Diego County, because it was inconsistent
with our state's coastal program. That project sponsor, the
Transportation Corridor Agency, has appealed the decision to
the Secretary.
This is the first appeal to the Secretary under the
regulations adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So my
questions are asking you to explain the timeframes on this
appeals process, and how the Secretary will develop the record
to make a decision in this particular appeal of the case.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, indeed, this is the first appeal. And
basically what has happened is there is a limited timeframe now
associated with this appeal process.
Mrs. Capps. Well, that is what I want to inquire, the
specifics of that timeframe.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. And so that timeframe initially is 250
days.
Mrs. Capps. And we are already, the clock is already on?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, the clock is just starting now, yes.
Just at the receipt of the actual appeal, then the clock
starts, and we have 250 days.
There is the potential for extensions that would run that
out as far as 325 days, but that is it.
Mrs. Capps. And that is the absolute maximum?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, that is the maximum. By then we have to
have a decision.
So what happens is, once the appeal is received, we----
Mrs. Capps. Has the appeal been received?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, there has, one has just been received.
Mrs. Capps. Yes, that is what I----
Mr. Kennedy. I don't know the exact date, but this month.
Mrs. Capps. OK.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, basically, a schedule is set to start
the process. And the process includes receiving input from all
affected parties. They basically have the right to submit
testimony, if you will, for each of their particular positions.
And then, within that timeframe that I just mentioned--and
there is a schedule that is all set on how this works, works as
in getting the materials in and then processing and developing
the whole event--the Secretary makes a final ruling within that
timeframe.
Mrs. Capps. And all the parties do understand this, as of
right now.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe they do, yes.
Mrs. Capps. OK. I just have to say that I hope, if you can
pass the word along, that the Secretary won't override this
objection. Because it goes to the heart of what the CZMA is all
about.
This project, which has been proposed, is inconsistent with
the objectives and purposes of our CZMA. And one of the core
principles, and I am quoting now, of the word ``visioning,'' of
the visioning process, was retaining the state's rights through
Federal consistency. And this is, as I said, the hallmark of
the CZMA.
Now I will turn to another topic with you, please. A
regional governance received an A-minus, and that was actually
the highest grade, from the Joint Ocean Commission yesterday.
And that is good. And I want to ask you, how can the next CZMA
reauthorization legislation support this kind of partnership,
which has been complimented, if I may interpret that, to
address regional issues? How can it compliment, for example,
what is happening with the West Coast Governors' Ocean Plans?
Mr. Kennedy. I was at the roll-out of the report card, and
I think the Federal governance got a D.
Mrs. Capps. Yes, that is why I am highlighting the
positive.
Mr. Kennedy. So I think we would be foolish if we haven't,
and we have, looked at some of these regional endeavors. And so
I would say that we have looked closely. NOAA has been involved
in many of those regional efforts.
Mrs. Capps. That is right. Can they, is it too much to hope
that they would be included in the reauthorization, or re-
strengthening of that?
Mr. Kennedy. I think specifically naming them might be too
much to hope. But certainly as we have thought about
reauthorization, a regional component to support what is
already out there--not to replace, but to support----
Mrs. Capps. Right, right.
Mr. Kennedy.--and to somehow be able to have built in the
idea that either direct or funding support be made available to
continue to sustain and develop those very successful programs,
is something we do endorse.
Mrs. Capps. That is good to hear. Thank you very much. And
I am counting on that second round, Madame Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. You will get the second round.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wittman from Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mr. Bailey, I just wanted to ask you a question to get your
perspective on things. In Virginia the CZMA program has been a
very useful program through the years; it has helped us to
protect wetlands. It has funded some of our non-point source
protection programs. It has helped us with oyster reefs, and it
has helped us in a mapping system there. So we see a number of
utilities with it.
We also see some continuing challenges in our coastal
areas. Just in the Virginia area, we have had a 60 percent
population increase in our coastal areas, which creates a
number of significant challenges.
And I wanted to get your perspective on how you see this
increasing population in our coastal zone affecting natural
resources. And then, since its last reauthorization, I want to
know if you believe the CZMA has been able to keep up with
these trends, to make sure that we are able to offset the
impacts of these population increases in our coastal zones.
Mr. Bailey. Thank you for the questions, Congressman. To go
to the second part of your question first, in general, the
framework of the Coastal Management Act, as we play it out in
Oregon, I think gives us at least the adequate sort of legal
tools and planning processes, and all that stuff, from the
ground level up to the state level, to do the job.
What we lack in the middle are the resources to really
identify the key resources that are at risk. We have
communities, as you are suggesting, that are building out like
crazy. Although, interestingly enough, what we are finding on
the Oregon coast is that in many communities, the majority of
those are second homes and vacation homes. So we are using up a
big footprint of ground, and impacting resources, for second
homes and retirement, or just simply investment. And we are not
getting the kind of livable communities that we need.
So when real people, as it were, are looking to develop
communities, to live there, to work there, then we are
impinging on some of the wetlands and the forested areas.
What we do in Oregon is we require--well, first of all, it
is a little bit of an anomaly probably nationally. We have
urban growth boundaries around even the smallest of the coastal
communities. And those are projected based on their 20-year
assumption about population.
Well, along comes this demand for, really, second-home
housing that fills up those urban growth boundaries. So when
the City of Yachats or the City of Newport was doing a
population estimate, suddenly they are having to expand that
urban growth boundary.
So we have been providing them funding, although not nearly
enough, to do the inventories of what we call buildable lands.
Where are the buildable lands? We want to stay out of the
wetlands, we want to stay away from steep slopes. We want to be
providing efficient sewer and water services, so that we are
not leap-frogging out and then relying on septic tanks.
So the whole buildable lands inventory thing, we need help
on that. We have the process in place, but we don't quite have
the tools to do it.
So that is really how it works. We are relying on good
information, a good process, and then making, at the city
council level, that tough decision about what is going to get
developed, and then what is not.
Mr. Wittman. Second question.
Mr. Bailey. Yes.
Mr. Wittman. You talked a little bit earlier about local
land-use planning and the link with CZMA activities. Do you
believe that there is, that there is an effective mechanism
within the current CZMA to give the tools to localities to make
land-use decisions in a way that will allow them to consider
the impacts of this development in a meaningful sort of way?
Mr. Bailey. Again, Congressman, I think it is a question of
the structure is there. I feel pretty good about that. And I
have been a local elected official myself, making these
decisions. And what you need is the information, the ability to
really back up the decision you are going to make, because the
public is going to demand it. At least in Oregon, they don't
tolerate a sloppy decision on land use. You have the neighbors
coming in, you have interest groups coming in.
So it is really a question of better information, doing a
better job of identifying the key resources and impacts, and
then educating and informing the local decision-makers as to
the consequences of their decision, and the balance they have
to make. I think the structure is there. We need a reenergized
and more, really, resources, as they say, in the system to make
it work.
People want to do the right thing. But as my colleague here
said, they need better information to do the job.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Wittman. I have a
couple of questions, and then we will go through a second
round. So get ready with your questions.
Mr. Bailey, I want to thank you for your statement. And I
would like to ask you about the coastal states, and I want to
add, and territories, organization. And NOAA's national
stakeholders workshop.
What was the tenor of these meetings? Were people demanding
action?
Mr. Bailey. Madame Chairwoman, I think it is safe to say
that in some respects, they were. I mean, nobody had picket
signs saying we demand action. But they were enthused, they
were concerned. They were happy for, and really thrilled with,
the opportunity to weigh in on such an important issue.
And I think what we heard was, they weren't there just to
take up space. They were there because they want action. And I
think your characterization of it as demand I think is correct.
In fact, we were amazed that even in what I would consider
large urban areas, where people sometimes can get disconnected
from the real world around them, people were there, and
passionate.
So I think your characterization of demand is probably
accurate.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. In the Coastal States Organization's
proposed framework for coastal zone management, you describe
the need for states to prepare multi-year--states and
territories--to prepare multi-year strategic plans to address
priorities, such as protecting and restoring coastal natural
resources.
Have all of the states and territories signed on to this
idea? And would it be mandatory or voluntary to prepare these
multi-year strategic plans?
Mr. Bailey. I think it is safe to say that all the states
and territories agree with the idea that strategic plans are a
good idea, and that we ought to be doing them.
Now, the level of mandated outcomes from those is, I think,
still open to debate. But I don't think anybody disagrees with
the idea that we need to know where we are going in five to six
years. It is often, sometimes we talk about 10 years, but who
knows.
At least in the five- to six-year arc, I think it is safe
to say that there was no disagreement around the table that
strategic planning can help us all be better and more effective
in what we do.
Now, what is within those plans and the degree to which
states have flexibility to identify their own strategies to
meet these objectives, I think that is the key. And that is
what we are talking about, is that yes, Oregon's strategic plan
will look different from California's, will look different from
Guam's, will look different from Maine's. But we are going to
make those strategic plans, we are going to make them fit our
needs, based on these national priorities.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Bailey. You are welcome.
Ms. Bordallo. Dr. Kooser, I want to thank you for your
statement, especially your insights into the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System.
My question to you is, in terms of building capacity among
coastal decision makers, can you explain how the reserve's
coastal training program interacts with this, if at all, with
NOAA's Coastal Services Center?
Ms. Kooser. Yes. I am glad you asked the question, thank
you.
In my longer testimony I, in fact, named a number of our
partners, because we not only partner with NOAA's Coastal
Services Center, but also with Sea Grant and the coastal
programs within NOAA, as well as other sections of NOAA that
have programs that relate to the work that we do.
And those partnerships are very vital for us, because one
question that I am often asked is, why are there different
parts of NOAA that are doing what may seem to be similar
activities, in the sense of well, gee, are we really
coordinated with each other.
And I want to emphasize that the amount of work that we
need to do in order to accomplish that kind of coastal training
program is so large, we need to engage all of those different
parts of NOAA, because all of us are contributing a different
element of the overall program that we need to be able to make
happen.
In other words, there is so much work to be done, we are
all doing different parts of it. And because we are
collaborating in partnership with each other, we are actually
achieving that synergy that you want to have in effectively
using resources, as we work on programs together.
The Coastal Training Program has been one of our biggest
success stories, and I feel like the demand for our training
programs is just growing. And as we continue to deal with the
kinds of issues that Mr. Bailey and others have described, I
think that we are going to have even more people wanting to
have a workshop that helps them figure out oh, what do I need
to do about this aspect of sea-level rise.
And so with that, I will ask if I have, if you have any
further question.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Doctor. All right. We
are having votes in about five minutes. However, as a Territory
Representative, I do not vote on the main legislation; I vote
on amendments only.
But our Ranking Member will have to leave, and he does have
a couple of questions here. So Mr. Brown, please go forward.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chair. I was interested in, I
guess, Ms. Kooser, on your assumption about the rise in the
ocean. And do you have a feel of how fast it is rising, and
whether there is any deterrent to that acceleration? Or, how do
you sense it? Are you all tracking over there in San Francisco
the rise, and exactly how much is rising a year?
Ms. Kooser. Thank you for your question. And I wanted to
say that my colleague is here from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, and I want to acknowledge the work that
they have done in San Francisco Bay. Because they have actually
developed maps that show anticipated sea-level rise, so that
you can look at a before, during, and after, so to speak.
The first picture is how the San Francisco Bay looked in
the 1850s, and then, with development and landfill, how the
shape of the bay changed as it was filled in. But now that sea
level is rising, it is not surprising that the waters are
anticipated to flow back into the areas where they had once
been. And so the after picture looks surprisingly similar to
the original picture.
And to answer your question about the rate of change, there
are many different kinds of models that are out there with
information regarding the factors that would affect sea-level
rise. And that is a little bit harder to predict, but we have a
couple of different variations on that, what that map would
look like year by year, based on the different models that are
in use.
One thing I want to also add is that there is work now on a
Bay Area Climate Change Action Plan. And I think that that is
one of the ways in which we are addressing the anticipated sea-
level rise.
The National Marine Sanctuary Program is collaborating with
the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program and the Coastal
Program, and also the Local Association of Bay Area Governments
and other agencies like the Air Resources Board, so that we can
have a program for addressing climate change in the Bay that
addresses each of those separate elements.
And I think that that is very important, because there are
many different ways in which each person, each locality might
be thinking oh, my gosh, what are doing about sea-level rise?
But then the question becomes, how do we integrate that at a
regional level, so that we can be more effective in the use of
the resources, the financial resources and the people resources
that we have to actually address that problem.
Mr. Brown. So you feel like that this is a cyclic movement
of the oceans. I know in South Carolina, for instance, I guess
probably about at least 80 miles inland one time used to be
under the sea. I mean, we got evidence of, you know, fossils
and marine life, and this sort of thing. And so we are not sure
exactly whether this cyclical movement will cause it to be
impacted that much, and I guess that could happen over
thousands and millions of years really, rather than just, just
a short period of time.
So I am looking at the pictures now, of your assumption
that something is going to happen within 100 years, do you
think?
Ms. Kooser. Yes. That is my, that is my----
Mr. Brown. And so you all are planning now, you are going
to put seawalls up, or are you just going to let the water come
in normal?
Ms. Kooser. You have asked a great question, because
obviously one way of adapting to the sea-level rise is to build
seawalls. And if you have the maps in front of you, you will
notice that the San Francisco International Airport and the
Oakland International Airport are two obviously important
infrastructures that we see anticipate being underwater,
because of their location in the Bay.
Mr. Brown. Sure, right.
Ms. Kooser. And so those are, given the importance of that
to our economy, it is not surprising that we would be thinking
about how best to protect those kinds of infrastructure
investments, so that we can maintain our economy.
And so I, in my own mind it is like a patchwork. As you
move around the Bay, you are thinking well, this is where we
can build seawalls to protect this, and then maybe we will have
setbacks here. Or maybe this is where development rights will
be bought up.
For example, in the Delta, that is a question right now,
because there is a lot of pressure for development within the
Delta of the San Francisco Estuary. And people are anticipating
that that is an area where there will be a lot of subsidence.
And so as the land is already subsiding, there are already
levee systems developed in the Delta, and those are going to be
under increased pressure with sea-level rise.
And so that is going to call for a different approach to
addressing both the need for development and the environmental
resource protection. Again drawing on my comments from my
colleague here from Guam about the balance between the two.
Mr. Brown. Right. Well, thank you very much for that
insight.
And Madame, if I could just ask Mr. Kennedy one question. I
didn't have a chance to do that yet today. Thank you for being
here.
But H.R. 5452 appears to change the existing role of the
states and the Federal government in the Coastal Management Act
as it relates to planning for alternative energy activity.
Under the bill it appears that if states can survey in
Federal waters and make the determination about what areas of
Federal waters would be off limits to alternative energy
facilities, does the Administration support such a role
reversal?
Mr. Kennedy. I think on the surface, to your statement the
answer is probably, is no. We don't support that.
However, in the discussions that we are having, we believe
that in thinking through where we are going to go with the
Coastal Zone Management Act, that there has to be more of a
partnership in that interface; that we have to make sure that
both parties are communicating and discussing those types of
issues on a much more regular basis, with better information
shared between them.
So from that perspective, we certainly support there has to
be more of a dialogue, and states have to be at the table as we
discuss what is going to happen off-shore, because of the
impact.
Mr. Brown. Right. Well, let me tell you, thanks to the
panel. This has been a great dialogue. And Madame Chair, I
appreciate you putting it together. And I have to apologize for
leaving. I will leave Mrs. Capps here.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member. He has to go and
vote, and he has another appointment. But I will give Mrs.
Capps the opportunity. She has to also vote, but the committee
will continue.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Bailey, you
discussed, as you discussed, there is strong momentum to bring
new off-shore energy sources on line. I want to support that,
as you know, too.
But I also want to support development that occurs in a
timely manner, in the right locations, and fully protects the
public's interests.
You are the expert, because you are a coastal manager. And
I want you to tell us now why a bill, the bill I have
introduced, H.R. 5452, could lead, and hopefully will lead, to
responsible off-shore renewable energy development.
I have three other questions, so a brief answer would be
great.
Mr. Bailey. Thank you very much. Yes, we are facing this
head-on in Oregon. We have seven applications in the works
right now for off-shore wave energy development.
As you can imagine, these are through the FERC process, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process, where the
applicant basically doesn't have to talk to anybody. They can
file an application, and the next day the crabbers, crab
fishermen, local communities are saying, holy cow, that is
right in the middle of my, our valuable crab grounds.
So actually, we have gotten the attention of the industry,
I must say. But what we need now is to back up and do some
comprehensive planning; to take a look at the current uses, the
resources of these areas. The sweet spot for wave energy
development in Oregon happens to straddle the 50-meter isobath,
which in some places is half in state waters and half in
Federal waters. And on either side of those two, it is a
different regulatory regime.
So we have to do some good planning to account for
commercial fisheries, to protect those; to locate energy
development; and to protect the marine wildlife habitats, as
well.
Mrs. Capps. Let me ask you an even more specific question.
Mr. Bailey. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Capps. Off-Shore Renewable Energy Coalition suggests
that we encourage states to dedicate specific personnel to off-
shore renewables as a way maybe to get, and put that in the
legislation. Many programs are operating with little funding,
and it is happening now.
What do you think of this?
Mr. Bailey. Yes.
Mrs. Capps. Yes. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Capps. Took care of that one. Let me turn to another,
the other bill that I have introduced, the Climate Bill, which
will help states develop adaptation plans, which will include
several factors.
Some states have expressed interest in perhaps going
further than adaptation planning, and wanting to develop
themselves reduction or mitigation strategies. Do you think we
should allow more flexibility in the bill to help accomplish
this kind of goal?
Mrs. Capps. Oh, I think we can use all the tools we can
get. And if a state would like to use some funding to build
capacity to do that kind of mitigation and reduction
strategies, they certainly ought to be able to do it.
Our big--in the Coastal Management Program in Oregon, we
are going to be working on adaptation. We are not going to be
working on----
Mrs. Capps. You are going to.
Mr. Bailey.--mitigation and reduction. Except to say that
throughout the statewide land use program, trying to link land
use policy to transportation and other ways of reducing the
impacts of automobiles, for instance, is a way of reduction.
Mrs. Capps. Exactly.
Mr. Bailey. But primarily we are interested in adaptation
right now.
Mrs. Capps. OK. A final thought that I would like your
comment on.
This is what you are talking about, and what I hope we can
get to, is really preparing for advanced planning. Or it is
really kind of like pre-disaster mitigation, isn't it? It is
cheaper to do, and I think about how you set out so smartly in
Oregon to protect your coastline right from the beginning.
This is what we need to do now as we think about renewable
energy. It is cheaper to do the planning and prevention, right,
than to try to fix it after somebody makes an unwise decision.
Just one final word about, how could the Federal government
give the right kind of assistance in this area? To the regions,
to the states.
Mr. Bailey. To the states. Two things. One is, obviously
some additional financial tools and financial resources that we
can use at the local level to do that kind of assessment. And
as you say, if a city or a county is going to be building for
instance, and there is a number of them facing this, new water
treatment facilities or sewage treatment plants, they are down
in that zone of vulnerability. And if they are going to be
using Federal money to help leverage their investment, we don't
want them putting it in the wrong place.
Mrs. Capps. Right. You want to make the decisions, but you
need some assistance to help make the right decision.
Mr. Bailey. We do. And we likewise need, then, the ability
to rope in a number of the other Federal agency programs, not
just NOAA.
Mrs. Capps. Right.
Mr. Bailey. But the Corps of Engineers, Transportation and
others----
Mrs. Capps. Right.
Mr. Bailey.--to help us in these decision making so we are
not working at cross purposes.
Mrs. Capps. That goes right back to my question to the
Representative on the road proposed to go through--everybody
has to be at the table.
Thank you so much, all of you, for being here today.
Mr. Bailey. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from
California, Mrs. Capps, and I know she has to run off to vote.
But we are going to keep this Subcommittee meeting ongoing. I
am a Territorial Representative, and we only vote on amendments
on the Floor.
All right. I have, my first question here is for Ms. Lujan.
Ms. Lujan, I agree that monitoring effectiveness of coastal
programs through measures and evaluation is important. Do you
think that the island jurisdiction should be treated
differently with regards to performance criteria?
Ms. Lujan. I think that it is important that all of us meet
national standards, and that we all--in many other programs,
performance measures are incorporated.
Our agency deals with different sections or different
varieties of Federal programs. And a lot of them are social
programs and educational programs. And some of those things are
very easy to count. The performance measures for them are how
many students receive this, or they take a test. It is easy to
evaluate that.
I think on the Guam and other islands, and especially the
way that our coastal programs are treated, it is very difficult
for us to obtain some types of performance measures that are,
they don't necessarily apply to islands.
One of them happens to be, for example, on Guam public
access to beaches. On Guam, in 1971 I think Paul Bordallo and
Carlos Titan introduced the Seashore Reserve, which set aside
10 meters from the mean high-water mark as public property.
And so we don't necessarily have access issues. And I think
that this is the same in many other islands, as well. And some
of that, in American Samoa for example, the beaches and the
coastal, and the direct, the waters belong to the communities.
Some of these things that are very different from other
states and territories--I mean, other states--they don't
necessarily apply to Guam. And so I think there needs to be in
place in the performance measures flexibility, and be more
adaptive to these island situations. Because if we are going to
count how many public access, it is all accessible to the
public. It is only on Federal properties. And I mean, it is
very difficult to try to get public access on Federal
properties. We don't have enough funds to have as many lawyers
as the Federal government does to have that.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Lujan. And so I don't know. If the CZMA program is
prepared to give us the funding to do such a thing, I think
then we should be able to do that.
But our island won't grow. I know in Hawaii, their island
pretty much grows because of the volcano. But it won't, we
cannot see any kind of measurement. We already are at the 100
percent of all our properties. And so that particular component
of the performance measure may not apply to Guam, or may not be
standardized the way that you would do it.
It would be nice if it is as easy as counting, but it is
not. In many instances it is not. Certain types of legislation
that states have, that they are able to enforce, are not
necessarily.
And I think that one of the things that is so critical that
we can't measure are the value of the public, and how much that
they have embraced some of the policies or some of the concepts
of allowing certain types of development to happen, or certain
types of practices to occur that is not necessarily measurable.
The aesthetic value, the cultural value of a resource. You
can't necessarily pinpoint that in an Excel spreadsheet.
And so I think not just for territories, I think certain
types of consideration should be given for jurisdiction in
general.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Ms. Lujan, for those very
excellent comments.
Mr. Kennedy, I have a few questions before we release the
second panel and go into the third panel.
You recommended in your statement that each coastal state
and territory's planning area should be expanded based upon
uniform national criteria that would include coastal watersheds
and the territorial sea. Can you further elaborate, or describe
the factors or the elements that would make up these national
criteria?
Mr. Kennedy. As I mentioned, we still are discussing this,
and there is no finalized plan. But conceptually, we talked a
little while ago about regional, and how we have seen
tremendous success in regions getting together to address their
common problems.
And that is somewhat what we are talking about here, in
that we think that a number of the issues, certainly as we have
talked to folks in our business around the country, many of the
issues really transcend a state boundary or an identified state
coastal zone. They are a watershed issue. And that watershed in
many cases is bounded by two or three states.
And so what we are looking at is an attempt to try and
embrace the issue as it relates to the whole watershed, and not
just stop the debate and/or the coordination at an individual
state boundary.
And so conceptually, what we are looking to do is try and
encourage that broader look at some of the issues.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I have another
question. If I understand the Administration's position, NOAA
would maintain some level of base funding for coastal state
management programs; but over time, a larger percentage of
funding would be awarded competitively.
Exactly what percent of funding does the Administration
intend to aware competitively? Do the coastal states support
this transition to a competitive process?
Mr. Kennedy. We don't have an exact percent, but again I
can talk to you a little bit about the concept.
And that is that we basically have three tiers of funding.
And one would be kind of a base or maintenance fund, which,
quite frankly, as we have developed this whole idea, we have
said from the beginning that the funding that we currently have
is not adequate to address the kind of problems that we are
asking the states, and the states are telling us that they have
to address.
So as I talk about this issue, I must tell you that we
would, were projecting that the existing funds could not make
this whole process work the way that we are describing it. So
you would have base funds that are roughly maybe what the
states currently get to maintain their infrastructure.
Then there is a second tier, which is to help assist in
this planning concept that we are talking about. We don't
expect that to be done with no new money; there has to be some
money to actually develop these plans, do the assessments, and
get that right.
And then the third tier is competitive funding. And that,
then, would be that tier--and again, no percentages--where we
are looking at trying to encourage some of these regional
discussions, and helping with maybe supporting funding more
specific proposals to look at our priority areas. And that
could be done, again, across states or by individual states.
Put that more on a competitive basis, to try and focus some of
those issues.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Bailey, what is your perspective on this?
Mr. Bailey. Excuse me. I think it is safe to say that CSO
definitely supports this approach. We want to maintain core
program functions. That is going to take some serious money
that is not sort of open to competition.
The states' programs are embedded in law. We have local
governments working on this. We need to maintain the core
capacity.
David is right that the next level of strategic planning is
going to take significant resources, especially the first time
out. And we want to be able to do that, and have the best
possible plan.
The third level, the competitive funding, I prefer to use a
different term than competitive, which often implies winners
and losers. I like to think of it, and I think most of the
states are thinking of this more as proposal-driven funding.
What do we intend to do, and what are the outcomes to meet
these various objectives that we have identified in our
strategic plan? And those are going to take significant more
dollars to accomplish if we are going to get the job done.
But in general, we are on the same page as NOAA in terms of
thinking about the three levels of funding that it is going to
take.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. You know, competitive
is what drives people, you know. And also, the same competitive
model, would that be applied to grants awarded to the National
Estuarine Research Reserves? Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Bailey? Yes,
Dr. Kooser.
Ms. Kooser. Thank you. The National Estuarine Research
Reserve System is a part of the CZMA, as are the coastal
programs. And so generally, our funding has had the same types
of, the way it has been given to us has been similar over time.
In other words, we have a core amount of money that goes to
fund our programs. Although I will say that at the present
moment, the core amount of funding is not really adequate to
address all of the needs that the 27 Estuarine Research
Reserves presently have at the moment, and there are
anticipated that we will have more reserves coming on line. So
I will say that as far as looking at the core funding part of
it, we would welcome an additional amount of resources to just
do what we are doing now.
And then, in keeping with what Mr. Bailey has said, I would
say that we recognize that to do the kinds of needs assessments
that you would want to have to compliment what is going on in
the states, that the reserve program would be able to really be
well-positioned to absolutely support the coastal programs in
doing that. Because when they are talking about having baseline
assessments, it is the Estuarine Research Reserves that have
been the heart of doing research that is going to inform the
types of data needs that would be part and parcel of those
kinds of strategic plans.
And so I see us as a key partner in actually helping the
coastal states to do those kinds of strategic assessments. And
so we, too, would be thinking about participating in that
second tier.
And I agree with, again with Mr. Bailey, about proposal-
driven, in the sense of if there is more funding available,
there are some states that have--for example, in California we
have three National Estuarine Research Reserves, and we really
collaborate very well together. And it is quite possible that
we would be able as a group, for example, to say you know,
there is this really excellent project that we can take on. And
if we had more resources available, we could do that.
Whereas another state might feel like well, in this
particular planning year, we are not necessarily able to do
that. And so having that kind of flexibility and being able to
apply for that kind of additional funding would be a welcome
resource.
Ms. Bordallo. Doctor, if you could give me just a quick
answer to this. When will the new reserves be designated?
Ms. Kooser. The new reserves that I have been referring to
is Wisconsin, and they are in the designation process now. And
I do not know the exact anticipated date of their designation.
The other state is Connecticut, and they are still in the
planning process.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Doctor. And I would like
to remind the witnesses that whenever we refer to the states,
we must add the territories.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. It is very important. And you know, you can
get into a lot of trouble with legislation here in Congress. If
it is not specifically stated that the territories are
included, then I have to do my extra work.
Ms. Kooser. Thank you for the reminder. Because in fact,
there is a National Estuarine Research Reserve in Puerto Rico.
So thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. Mr. Kennedy, I will just wind up
this panel with a question for you, and I would just like to
have a straight yes or a no on these questions.
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, boy. OK.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. Just a yes or a no. Regarding H.R. 5452, for
the record, the surveys that states and territories would
develop for renewable energy would be entirely voluntary. Is
that correct?
Mr. Kennedy. I don't know the answer to that, I am sorry to
tell you.
Ms. Bordallo. That is all right, you just don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Really I don't think I should answer that,
because I don't know the answer.
But I will tell you what. I know this much. For the record,
we will be happy to get back to you with the answer.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. Also, these surveys would only indicate areas
for renewable energy that would be consistent with a state and
territory coastal program. Is that correct?
Mr. Kennedy. Again, I think I need to get back to you, for
the record.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. The third one.
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, boy.
Ms. Bordallo. Finally, nothing in H.R. 5452 changes
existing Federal or state or territory permitting or licensing
authorities. Is that correct?
Mr. Kennedy. I think that is correct. But again, for the
record, I want to make sure and confirm that, and get back to
you.
Ms. Bordallo. OK. Should we give him a report card grade?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bailey, Dr.
Kooser, and of course Ms. Lujan, for your testimony. You had
very, very excellent testimonies today.
Ms. Lujan. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I would like to call on the last
panel, the third panel. Who is the third panel? Thank you.
The third panel includes Dr. Robert Stokes, the Chairman of
the Board, Restore America's Estuaries; Mr. Jim Connors, Senior
Planner at Maine State Planning Office, Maine Working
Waterfront Coalition; and third, Ms. Carolyn Elefant, General
Counsel for the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition.
We will begin, and I hope you are as good as the last
panel. Five minutes. We do include your full formal statement
for the record.
I recognize Mr. Stokes to testify. And there is a timing
light in front of you, so if you would be aware of that. And
you can begin.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STOKES, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, RESTORE
AMERICA'S ESTUARIES
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. My name is Robert
Stokes, and I am Chairman of the Board of Restore America's
Estuaries. I am also the President of the Galveston Bay
Foundation, located in Webster, Texas. We are a non-profit bay
conservation organization.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss Restore America's
Estuaries comments regarding legislation you are considering to
amend the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Restore America's Estuaries is a national alliance of 11
community-based organizations that protect and restore coastal
and estuarine habitat. We join with government agencies,
corporations, civic organizations, scientists, and local
volunteers to conduct restoration projects with real impacts.
Since its creation, Restore America's Estuaries and its 11
member organizations have invested more than $28.5 million in
local restoration projects, restored more than 56,000 acres of
estuarine habitat, and mobilized more than 250,000 volunteers
across the country in coastal restoration and education
activities.
Estuaries and other coastal ecosystems are critically
important across the country, both ecologically and
economically. Estuaries provide essential habitat for over 75
percent of the nation's commercial fish catch. They help
stabilize shorelines and provide flood control, and they
provide numerous recreational opportunities.
While incredibly valuable, estuaries are in a perilous
state due to an increasing level of stress. Some of the causes
of the decline in the health and productivity of these systems
include wetland loss, shoreline armoring, sea-level rise,
pollution, invasive species, and over-harvesting of resources.
A growing threat to our nation's estuaries is climate
change. Climate change threats to estuaries include changes in
rainfall, temperature, sea level, soil conditions, and
especially sea-level rise.
Restore America's Estuaries strongly supports
reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. We need to
modernize and bring change to the CZMA by providing new tools
to match today's critical needs. We believe these tools can be
far more action-oriented, and involve a broader array of non-
governmental partnerships than currently exists.
Restore America's Estuaries respectfully requests that you
consider the following key recommendations.
To begin with, we have seven key recommendations regarding
H.R. 5451. The first is straightforward and fundamental. We
need to provide adequate funding to implement the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
I heard Mr. Bailey earlier refer to the triple whammy faced
by coastal states as we move forward. We need appropriate
funding to address this triple whammy.
Second, we must conduct comprehensive ecological and
socioeconomic assessments of our nation's coastal lands and
waters. Coastal management decision making needs to be based on
the best information available. These assessments should be
ecosystem-based, comprehensive, and include both ecological and
socioeconomic parameters.
Third, we should establish coastal habitat restoration as a
specific national priority. Habitat restoration is a proven and
viable tool for improving the health of our nation's estuaries.
The inclusion of coastal habitat restoration as a national
priority in the Coastal Zone Management Act will help provide a
link between aligning national and state-level restoration
planning.
Coastal habitat restoration should be included as a new
Congressional finding and statement of policy.
Fourth, we need to develop state habitat restoration
strategies. Having long-term habitat restoration strategies
with specific goals and objectives is crucial for proper
planning and prioritizing.
Fifth, we must make additional efforts to preserve critical
coastal lands and waters. The Coastal Zone Management Act
should authorize the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program, known as CELCP, to secure the long-term protection of
lands that have significant conservation, recreation, historic,
economic, and aesthetic values.
But we also recommend that as lands are given priority
rankings, those that can be restored to effectively enhance
ecological function should be given priority.
Sixth, we should give non-governmental organizations a
meaningful role in planning and implementing restoration
strategies. Non-governmental organizations have proven to be
essential as convening bodies that can reach out and bridge
government, private sector, and scientific community interests
to collaboratively develop and implement habitat restoration
strategies.
Our seventh suggestion would be to strengthen the Federal
role in coastal management. The CZMA establishes and promotes a
NOAA-state partnership. We need improvements at the Federal
level to coordinate and collaborate between Federal agencies
involved in coastal management, and between Federal, state, and
local entities. This includes clarifying roles of the different
Federal agencies working on coastal issues. We strongly
encourage you to empower NOAA to lead these efforts.
We have three, excuse me, quick comments on H.R. 5453.
First, habitat restoration should be an integral part in our
efforts to combat climate change. Healthy estuaries help
counter climate change by capturing carbon from the atmosphere.
Scientists have found that tidal salt marshes are particularly
effective in helping to counter climate change. We recommend
tidal salt marsh restoration as an important strategy to
capture and hold carbon from the air.
Second, a new CZMA must address climate change by providing
assistance to coastal states to develop plans and implement
projects to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
And then third, we should explicitly include coastal
habitat restoration as an eligible activity for coastal
adaptation project grants.
Madame Chairwoman, I have additional comments in my written
testimony, and I will leave it at that. And I will be glad to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stokes follows:]
Statement of Robert Stokes, Chairman of the Board,
Restore America's Estuaries, and President, Galveston Bay Foundation
Good morning Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
am Robert Stokes, Chairman of Restore America's Estuaries Board of
Directors. I am also the President of the Galveston Bay Foundation,
which is located in Galveston Bay, Texas. The mission of the Galveston
Bay Foundation is to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural
resources of the Galveston Bay estuarine system and its tributaries. I
am pleased to be here today to discuss Restore America's Estuaries'
comments regarding the legislation you are considering to amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
Before I present our recommendations, I would like to provide you
with a little background about Restore America's Estuaries and discuss
several issues of interest to our organization.
Restore America's Estuaries is a national alliance of 11 community-
based organizations that protect and restore coastal and estuarine
habitat. Our mission is to preserve the nation's network of estuaries
by protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to the
richness and diversity of coastal life. Restore America's Estuaries has
been working since 1995 to restore our nation's greatest estuaries and
bring them back to life. We join with government agencies,
corporations, civic organizations, scientists and local volunteers to
conduct restoration projects with real impacts. We seek to achieve a
return of abundant fisheries, strong local economies, and shorelines
that are resilient to storms and flooding.
Restore America's Estuaries is results-oriented. Since its
creation, Restore America's Estuaries and its 11 member organizations
have:
INVESTED more than $28.5 million in local restoration
projects;
BUILT more than 300 oyster reefs and planted over 2.6
million oysters;
RESTORED more than 56,000 acres of estuarine habitat;
MOBILIZED more than 250,000 volunteers, including more
than 80,000 young people in coastal restoration and education
activities each year; and
CONVENED the largest biennial national gathering for the
coastal restoration community. Our next National Restoration Conference
will be in Providence, Rhode Island, October 11-15 of this year. We
expect over 1,200 restoration professionals from across the country to
participate.
All this is done through partnerships and community involvement. My
own organization, the Galveston Bay Foundation, typically hosts as many
as 25-30 habitat restoration events each year, some with as few as a
handful of Boy Scouts, or as many as 300 citizens and local business
employees. Our annual signature restoration event is called Marsh
Mania, a nationally recognized, community-based wetlands restoration
and education event of the Galveston Bay area. The goal of Marsh Mania
is to involve local citizens in hands-on wetlands restoration
activities while increasing their awareness and appreciation of wetland
habitats and functions. The first Marsh Mania was held in 1999, that
year known as ``Marsh Bash.'' This one-day event set a national record
when 1,500 volunteers planted nearly 70,000 stems of smooth cordgrass
to create 14.5 acres of new habitat at eight sites around the bay. In
the nine years since it began, Marsh Mania has involved more than 4,700
community volunteers in the restoration of 107 acres of vital wetlands
at 41 coastal sites around Galveston Bay.
At the national level, Restore America's Estuaries has been a
leader in bringing all sectors of the restoration community together to
advance the knowledge, science, policies, and best practices in coastal
and estuarine habitat restoration. Restore America's Estuaries engaged
in a 2-year initiative to create a multi-sector consensus document, A
National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat, which
outlines the objectives and methods for reaching the goal of restoring
one million acres of our nation's coastal and estuarine habitats. In a
previous effort, we worked closely with the Estuarine Research
Federation to build a consensus framework for habitat restoration
through a collaborative process between scientists and field
practitioners to define scientifically sound and technically feasible
principles of estuarine habitat restoration. These principles are
delineated in the publication, Principles of Estuarine Habitat
Restoration.
Importance of Estuaries
Estuaries are where fresh water rivers meet the salty sea in
shallow protected bays. Native American Indians called these beautiful
places ``Between-Land'', not quite land and not quite water. Estuaries
and other coastal ecosystems are critically important to keeping the
U.S. competitive, through their roles as centers of population growth,
commerce, military activity, recreation, and ecosystem services (e.g.,
providing natural resources and shoreline protection). Many of the
estuarine resources such as salt marshes, flats, and beaches are also
important because they help stabilize shorelines and provide flood
control.
In my home state of Texas, the coastal wetlands of our estuaries
serve as nursery grounds for over 95 percent of the recreational and
commercial fish species found in the Gulf of Mexico, and provide
breeding, nesting, and feeding grounds for more than a third of all
threatened and endangered animal species as well as supporting many
endangered plant species, and provide permanent and seasonal habitat
for a great variety of wildlife, including 75 percent of North
America's bird species. Coastal wetlands also serve important functions
ranging from reducing waterborne pollutants to providing natural
buffers against flooding and erosion. Texas coastal wetlands are also
extremely important economically. In Galveston Bay alone, the
recreational and commercial fishing industries combined are valued at
over $3 billion annually, and support over 40,000 jobs in the area.
Threats to Estuaries
Estuaries and their associated natural resources and important
ecosystem services are in a perilous state due to an increasing level
of stress. In addition to physical impacts (e.g., wetland loss,
shoreline armoring, and sea-level rise) to these ecosystems, nutrient
and other chemical pollution (e.g., pharmaceuticals and personal care
products), invasive species, and over-harvesting of resources are major
causes of declines in the productivity and health of these systems.
Along the Gulf coast habitat is still being lost, and in the
estuary I know best, Galveston Bay, we've experience a significant loss
of wetlands over the last 50 years. Between the 1950s and the 1990s,
the Galveston Bay system experienced a net loss of nearly 35,000 acres
of its wetlands, due to a variety of human and natural causes. Recent
research indicates that wetland loss is continuing at rapid rates.
Because of this loss, habitat degradation has been identified as the
most critical of all the problems currently facing Galveston Bay.
Although we have had many successes, the losses are great and they
continue. These losses have dire consequences for our environment, our
economy, our way of life, and our health.
Estuaries around the country have also lost varying degrees of
habitat and biological function. For example, 70 percent of the eel
grass beds and 50 percent of the salt marshes around Narragansett Bay
in Rhode Island have been lost due to human activity, and the Raritan
Bay area in lower New York Harbor has lost over 80 percent of its
original wetlands. In New Jersey, only a mere 2 percent of the historic
native oyster populations have survived after suffering from disease,
over-harvesting, and habitat destruction. In the Chesapeake Bay over 16
million bushels of oysters were harvested in the early 1900's, but the
harvest has collapsed to only 45,000 bushels in 2006. In Long Island
Sound more than 40 percent of the original wetlands are gone. The story
continues on the west coast as well. San Francisco Bay has lost 95
percent of its original marshland.
A growing threat to our nation's estuaries is climate change.
Climate change--caused by human greenhouse gas emissions--threatens
the health of our nation's estuaries, the fish, and wildlife, as well
as the surrounding communities. The impacts of climate change will
exacerbate the already increasing stresses on our sensitive coastal
resources. Estuary wildlife and the habitat they depend on are
threatened by changes in rainfall, temperature, sea level, soil
conditions and air pollution. For example, altered rain and snowfall
patterns throughout the U.S. will affect the volume and timing of fresh
water flowing into our estuaries, consequently changing salinity and
sediment conditions, which will impact sensitive habitats and species.
While no one knows how precipitation patterns might be altered,
changing fresh water flows would affect the distribution and abundance
of some shellfish such oysters, as well as rare species, that depend on
high salinity salt marsh habitats.
Sea level rise is of particular concern. As sea level rises, the
frequency and duration of coastal flooding and inundation will
increase, severely impacting sensitive coastal resources and adjacent
properties. For example, in San Francisco Bay, sea level rose about
seven inches over the last century at the Golden Gate, and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2006 California
Climate Action Team project it could rise another two to three feet by
2100, which could cause coastal flooding of Bay wetlands and shoreline
cities.
Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act
Support for the management and stewardship of our keystone coastal
ecosystems that bridge land and sea has never been more important due
to the accelerating pace of environmental change now occurring. While
environmental degradation of the coastal area has continued in recent
years, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) has been a valuable tool
to policy makers and environmental managers in balancing human
activities with environmental health to help reduce the rate of
degradation. Establishment of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System through the CZMA has been particularly successful in setting
aside valuable estuarine areas for long-term protection and supporting
science-based coastal management through long-term research,
monitoring, education, and stewardship.
But having said that, it has been almost forty years since the CZMA
was first passed, and we desperately need to modernize and bring change
to the CZMA by providing new tools to match today's critical needs. We
also believe these tools can be far more action-oriented and involve a
broader array of nongovernmental partnerships. I encourage you and the
Members of this Subcommittee to think broadly, and boldly, as you
consider reauthorization of the CZMA.
Our recommendation on the proposed legislation to amend the CZMA
fall into three broad areas: 1) reauthorization of the CZMA is
essential; 2) coastal habitat restoration is a viable tool to restore
the health of estuaries and should be recognized as a national
priority; and 3) nongovernmental organizations have the capacity to
leverage state and Federal programs. Restore America's Estuaries
respectfully request that you consider the following key
recommendations.
H.R. 5451--Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008
Provide adequate funding to implement the CZMA.
As population and development pressure along the nation's coasts
continues to rise, increased funding will be required to fully address
the complex problems facing the coastal zone. It is crucial that
Congress provide stable and adequate funding to implement the programs
authorized under the CZMA to better address growing challenges to our
nation's estuaries and coasts.
Conduct comprehensive ecological and socioeconomic assessments of our
nation's coastal lands and waters.
Coastal management decision making needs to be based on the best
information available. Hundreds of decisions are made every day
throughout our nation's coastal zone that affects the health and
sustainability of estuaries. Yet, in most cases, little is known about
the estuarine resources involved, how they might be impacted, or how
they are changing over time. Restore America's Estuaries believes it is
absolutely critical that a comprehensive baseline condition of our
nation's estuaries be established as soon as possible. These
assessments should be ecosystem based, comprehensive, and include both
ecological and socioeconomic parameters. Ecological parameters should
include: habitat types and extent, condition of those habitats, causes
and rates of habitat decline, services being provided by the habitat,
and opportunities for habitat restoration within the ecosystem.
Socioeconomic parameters should include human use indicators (i.e.,
fishing licenses, boat launchings, beach use, etc.), land uses,
population migration rates, etc. It is also essential that these
comprehensive assessments build on existing data and information. Much
research and data collection has been done to determine the state of
our coasts, and this information should be fully utilized in developing
comprehensive assessments in order to achieve fast progress toward
accomplishing the goals set forth by a new CZMA.
Establish coastal habitat restoration as a specific national priority.
Habitat restoration is a proven and viable tool for improving the
health of our nation's estuaries. It is time for coastal management to
recognize and embrace this tool on equal footing as our efforts to
preserve and protect critical habitats. Habitat restoration was set
forth as a national priority through the Estuary Restoration Act. We
believe that the inclusion of coastal habitat restoration as a national
priority in the CZMA will help provide a link between aligning
national- and state-level restoration planning. Coastal habitat
restoration should be included as a new Congressional Finding and
Statement of Policy that highlights the need for adaptation to sea
level rise and the important role of habitat restoration to reduce
global warming from greenhouse gases.
Develop state habitat restoration strategies.
Having long-term habitat restoration strategies with specific goals
and objectives is crucial for proper planning and prioritizing. In
2002, Restore America's Estuaries released a multi-sector consensus
document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat,
which outlines the objectives and methods for developing comprehensive
restoration plans. A copy of that document has been provided to you.
Developing state restoration strategies that can be incorporated into
broader comprehensive coastal management strategic plans provides
planners and practitioners with a framework for comprehensive and
inclusive planning to identify restoration needs and opportunities down
to the estuary level. The development of these strategies should take
into account other water resource requirements such as the Clean Water
Act, Total Maximum Daily Loads analysis to help establish restoration
needs and priorities. Currently, through the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program, states develop plans to address their priorities
for land acquisition, and a similar focus on restoration planning
should be undertaken by states. Sound science must be an essential
component of the planning process and implementation of the strategies.
Preserve critical coastal lands and waters now and into the future.
The CZMA should authorize the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program (CELCP), within NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, to secure the long-term protection of lands that
have significant conservation, recreation, historic, economic, and
aesthetic values to the residents of coastal communities. Protection of
critical coastal and estuarine areas provides numerous public benefits
by improving water quality, increasing access to shoreline areas,
conserving wildlife habitat, and sustaining recreational and commercial
fisheries.
We recommend that as lands are given priority rankings, those that
can be restored to effectively enhance ecological function be given
priority. While land conservation and protection is absolutely critical
to maintain water quality and ecosystem functions, restoring a property
will improve water quality and ecosystem functions. Many
nongovernmental organizations have played an active role in this
program and are poised to continue to provide support for land
conservation. As Congress considers authorization of CELCP, we
recommend that you allow land owned by nongovernmental organizations to
be used as non-federal match. We also support having costs associated
with habitat restoration of a property be eligible to be used as non-
federal match.
Give nongovernmental organizations a meaningful role in planning and
implementing restoration strategies.
Nongovernmental organizations have proven to be essential as
convening bodies that can reach out and bridge government, private
sector, and scientific community interests to collaboratively develop
and implement habitat restoration strategies. Restore America's
Estuaries has demonstrated the ability to facilitate action. Mobilizing
this power across our country's coastal areas in a concerted way would
provide additional support to Federal and state agencies in their
efforts to restore the health of our estuaries. One way to recognize
and strengthen the nongovernmental role in coastal habitat restoration
is to provide the explicit authority to establish cooperative
agreements between NOAA and nongovernmental organizations to carry out
the purposes of the CZMA.
Strengthen the Federal role in coastal management.
The CZMA establishes and promotes a NOAA/state partnership. To date
this partnership has worked with the states assuming, and appropriately
so, most of the responsibility for the planning and implementation of
their coastal plans. But this partnership equation is no longer
sufficient to make progress against many stressors affecting the
coastal zone. We need improvements in coordination and collaboration
between Federal agencies involved in coastal management and between
Federal, state, and local entities. This includes clarifying roles of
the different Federal agencies working on coastal issues. Essentially,
we need an effective network of communication that operates vertically
and horizontally and provides for efficient information exchange that
gives state and local entities the tools and information necessary to
address local challenges. It is time for NOAA to step up and lead
efforts to provide integrated and coordinated support to the states for
research, monitoring, science translation, education, training,
capacity building for local officials, and technology. We strongly
encourage you empower NOAA to lead these efforts.
H.R. 5453--Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008
Habitat restoration creates healthy estuaries to combat climate change.
Healthy estuaries help counter climate change by capturing carbon
from of the atmosphere and providing natural flood protection.
Scientists have found that tidal salt marshes are particularly
effective in helping to counter climate change, and recommend tidal
salt marsh restoration as an important strategy to capture and hold
carbon from the air. According to scientists, every acre of restored,
healthy salt marsh captures and converts at least 870 kilograms of
carbon dioxide into plant material annually--equivalent to the
greenhouse gas emissions from driving 2,280 miles. Restored tidal salt
marshes also provide natural flood control and may reduce the need to
build seawalls to protect developed shoreline areas against sea level
rise.
Address climate change through adaptation planning.
A new CZMA must address climate change by providing assistance to
coastal states to develop plans and implement projects to adapt to the
impacts of climate change. H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change
Planning Act provides a good start to developing an adaptation planning
framework. We suggest that coastal state adaptation plans take into
account disaster response and recovery programs to make sure that
rebuilding is done in a way that reflects our need to adapt to climate
change. Plans should consider relocation of infrastructure and people
out of hazardous areas as a recovery response, and use these relocation
strategies to facilitate habitat restoration since many of these
locations were originally wetlands and vegetated buffers that provided
for healthy environmental quality. Recognizing the key role that
healthy estuarine habitat plays in combating climate change through
carbon sequestration, we encourage Congress to specifically include
development of strategies for habitat restoration to mitigate climate
change as part of the adaptation plans.
Explicitly include coastal habitat restoration as an eligible activity
for Coastal Adaptation Project Grants
Habitat restoration needs to be part of the solution to combating
climate change. We strongly support the inclusion of habitat
restoration as an eligible activity for the coastal adaptation project
grants. H.R. 5453 does include several restoration-related activities
that are eligible for the adaptation project grants, such as activities
to address the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat;
however, we recommend the explicit inclusion of habitat restoration as
an eligible activity. With the strong track record and accomplishments
of nongovernmental organizations in implementing habitat restoration
projects, we recommend that these organizations also be eligible for
funding in addition to state agencies.
H.R. 3223--Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007
Restore America's Estuaries recognizes the need to ensure coastal
access and water-dependent coastal-related business. We particularly
endorse the ability of nonprofit organizations to qualify to receive
working waterfront grants to assist state or local governments and/or
hold title to or interest in property. This clearly recognizes the new
and demonstrated role that nonprofit organizations can play to help
local coastal communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Your entire statement will be entered into
the record. Thank you, Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. And now, as Chair, I recognize Mr. Connors.
You may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JIM CONNORS, SENIOR PLANNER, MAINE STATE PLANNING
OFFICE, MAINE WORKING WATERFRONT COALITION
Mr. Connors. Thank you very much, Chairman Bordallo. I
welcome the opportunity to come to Washington to get out of my
house doorway, which has two feet of snow at the moment sitting
there. So this is a welcome relief, actually. It might feel
cold to you.
Ms. Bordallo. A better solution would be go to Guam.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connors. I would love to do that. I usually go to South
Carolina, but your co-chair is not here to appreciate that.
I am here this morning representing the Maine Working
Waterfront Coalition. This is a broad-based coalition of
fishing industry associations, non-profit organizations, state
agencies, and individuals dedicated to supporting and enhancing
Maine's working waterfronts through policy, planning,
investment, and education.
We are here to testify on H.R. 3223, which we strongly
support. We feel that this bill, and we compliment Rep. Allen
and Capps for entering this bill, would have three significant
impacts in the discussion about CZMA.
First, it would recognize the importance of the issues
related to the loss and decline of working access to the
coastal areas, and bring attention to the problem in a formal
program element.
Second, the bill would establish working access as a
priority to CZMA, in addition to existing ports and harvest
programs and public access programs.
And third, the bill creates, would create a program with
funding and access to NOAA programs and tools that can augment
and support state-level efforts to preserve working
waterfronts.
And mostly what I hope I can accomplish here today is to
portray the experience we are having in Maine with an active
working waterfront protection program.
The committee asked, my testimony includes some additional
research-based information, where we have surveyed local
communities about access needs and losses. And that is reported
in the testimony, so I won't recite that here.
I did want to emphasize that, as Rep. Allen indicated and
the bill indicates, the genesis of the problem is the shift of
population to the coastal zone, competing demands for a limited
resource, economic pressures on traditional water-access-
oriented businesses, particularly commercial fishing, but also
other waterfront enterprises, such as mariners, boat yards, and
other businesses that have to be on the water to conduct their
enterprise. And that the focus of the Maine's work so far has
really been at the issue of commercial access to the coast.
So you asked, the committee asked, in the invitation
letter, for us to comment on three or four elements of the
bill. One was on the scope of the bill. And the point I wanted
to make here is that it is important, I think, for the
committee and Congress to keep in mind that we are talking
about commercial working access when we are talking about
working waterfronts. And when time allows, we would like to be
able to explain a little more clearly what we mean, what public
access really means in that particular kind of setting.
Second, the committee asked for comments on the state plan
requirements, and the coalition does support a planning
function. But I think it would like to see a planning function
that models or supports the program being implemented at the
state level. The coalition did have some reservations about the
comprehensiveness of the planning requirement that is in the
bill at the moment. That does seem like a lot of work, and it
could actually be an impediment to getting a program up and
running. So I think some refinement on what the planning
requirements might be would be useful.
Third, in the arena of comments on the application process
on H.R. 3223, we just reinforced the interest in it being a
responsive bill. Rep. Allen mentioned the fact that the bill
needed to be able to turn around fairly quickly to help provide
support in a complimentary way to existing state programs. We
think that is very important. And we hope that the program
could be responsive in that instance. Which might be difficult
for aa government competitive grants-type program, but we do
want to just sensitize the committee's awareness of that
particular issue.
And then finally, on CZMA, as I have already alluded to, we
feel that this program is really lacking in the current
pantheon of NOAA programs, and this really needs to be added
into that array of opportunities. It would be a very valuable
addition to CZMA programs.
So I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connors follows:]
Statement of Jim Connors, representing the
Maine Working Waterfront Coalition
Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the House
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. My name is Jim Connors.
I am representing the Maine Working Waterfront Coalition today to
provide testimony on H.R. 3223, Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of
2007.
The Working Waterfront Coalition (WWC) is a coast-wide group of
fishing industry associations, nonprofit organizations, state agencies,
and individuals dedicated to supporting and enhancing Maine's working
waterfronts through policy, planning, investment, and education.
Over the past few years the Coalition has worked closely with
political leadership in the Legislature and the Governor's Office, as
well as the fishing industry to create new tools and programs aimed at
protecting and securing working access to the tidal waters. The
Coalition has been successful in helping to envision and create an
active working waterfront protection program, using public bond funds
approved by the voters of Maine.
Section 320, (a) Findings and Purpose:
The Problems confronting working waterfronts is well summarized in
the Findings and Purpose section of the bill. To support these findings
we offer the following research based information.
In 2001, The Maine State Planning Office engaged the services of
Coastal Enterprises Inc. to conduct a survey of 25 coastal fishing
communities that are representative of the array of commercial fishing
centers found along the coast from Kittery to Eastport. The purposes of
this study were to (1) document the status of working waterfronts and
the present and future threats of change or loss, (2) to identify
municipal responses and technical needs for dealing with problems, and
(3) to make recommendations regarding the best ways of monitoring
changes and trends in the future. The study was conducted by
interviewing knowledgeable people in each selected community in order
to better understand the status of their working waterfronts, and how
the towns are handling changes confronting their commercial fisheries.
A summary of major findings follows:
The loss of commercial fishing access takes many forms, which adds
to the complexity of tracking change and formulating effective public
policy. A number of types of loss are identified:
1. Loss of access to inter-tidal areas due to posting of private
lands, and new land owners closing off/contesting established public
access ways, traditionally used by clam and worm diggers;
2. Loss of tenuous lease or use arrangements with other private
pier and wharf owners;
3. Conflict and competition for use of public facilities,
especially those with limited parking and equipment storage space;
4. Conversion of working wharves to residential/recreational or
other commercial use.
Threats to established commercial access facilities and sites are
real, persistent, and pervasive. The surveyed communities identified a
list of problems:
1. Intense development pressure to use waterfront lands and
facilities for non-commercial fishing/water dependent uses;
2. As fishing families sell waterfront facilities, access use
moves to town/public piers, which increases use pressure on these
facilities;
3. The use of public wharves must balance and serve both
commercial and recreational use, which can lead to conflicts;
4. Limited parking areas, combined with increased tourism use,
can intensify potential conflicts;
5. In some areas with heavy recreational boating use there are
limited moorings available;
6. Boats are getting bigger (both commercial and recreational),
which requires more berthing and mooring space;
7. Increased cost for coastal towns for legal challenges over
access rights;
8. Sales of higher value property triggers re-valuation, leading
to higher taxes;
9. Municipal and private wharves have costly infrastructure and
upkeep; and resulting challenge to keep them economically self-
sustaining;
10. Towns and individual fishermen cannot afford inflated market
price for waterfront property.
There is strong support and concern for protecting commercial
fishing access. 64% of the 25 towns surveyed indicated that commercial
fishing access is a problem now, and 80% of the towns surveyed are
planning to address this issue.
Commercial fishing access is provided through publicly owned
facilities, privately owned commercial piers and through arrangements
with other privately owned wharves. 25% of access usage is at publicly
owned facilities, and 75% at privately owned facilities. Of the usage
of privately owned facilities, 35% occurs at commercial business
facilities, and 40% at other privately owned wharves.
(Taken from A Review of the Effectiveness of the Maine Coastal Plan
in Meeting the State's Public Access and Working Waterfront Policy
Goals. 2002)
In 2007 in preparation for the National Symposium on Working
Waterways and Waterfronts the National Sea Grant Network conducted a
coastal zone-wide survey to characterize the scope of coastal access
issues and the effects on coastal communities. In a report entitled
Access to the Waterfront, issues and Solutions Across the Nation they
highlighted three issues:
Concerns over the loss of access for commercial fishermen
Problems with conflicts over recreational access
Shrinking access for the public
The report goes on to discuss three important conclusions:
1. The tools and solutions to address and resolve access loss and
conflicts will need to be localized;
2. Given the wide spread nature of the problems, there is a need
for national strategies to support local efforts;
3. Although there are many tools being used, there are more
innovative solutions yet to be identified and developed.
Scope of the Bill
The Committee has asked for Comments on the scope of the bill. We
offer comments on three important elements of the bill:
1. Keeping an emphasis on working access for commercial fishing
and other water dependent uses and businesses;
2. Differentiating between commercial facilitated access vs
general public access; and
3. Comments on the definition of working waterfront.
We recognize that the problem of maintaining working access to the
coast varies from state to state and includes issues related to the
loss of recreational boating access, particularly in areas experiencing
re-development into condominiums and dockaminiums. We think that a
national program has to cover the needs of commercial fishing and those
water dependent business that serve the recreational and boating needs
of the public at large, such as marinas and boatyards.
The Maine WWC is specifically concerned about the plight of
commercial fishermen, who must have adequate working access to conduct
their fishing operations. Fishermen are in a unique position in which
they sell their catch into markets with set prices that they cannot
influence. At the same time they face all of the cost associated with
harvesting and landing the catch. They are caught between set market
based prices and their production costs. They do not have the
opportunity to push costs forward through to the consumers (such as a
fee for business might) so they get pinched by rising costs such as
increasing property values and taxes that have to be absorbed in the
narrow gap between production costs and market price. It's no wonder
that fishermen are being squeezed off the waterfront.
We think that the program should be focused on commercial water
dependent uses that need to be on the waterfront to successfully
conduct their businesses. This is not to say that certain assurances of
``public access'' cannot be incorporated into the outcomes of the grant
program. But the issue of public access in general, at publically owned
sites, is and has been a fundamental part of CZMA that should continue
to be a coastal program priority but separate from a working waterfront
program. The emphasis in this bill should be on ``commercial'' working
access. That is, assuring that access is secure for businesses that
require access to tidal waters. We think that the public access
requirement should be removed as an element of this working waterfront
program, but certainly retained as a key element of CZMA, otherwise it
is a deal killer! H.R. 3223 provides an opportunity to recognize the
importance of dealing with the problems being faced by fishermen and
other water dependent businesses by creating a program that fills an
existing gap in CZM programs between public access programs and major
port and harbor development programs.
Definition of Working Waterfront--Members of the Maine WWC
participated in a Working Waterways & Waterfronts Symposium Conference
held in Norfolk, VA 5/8,9,10,11/07. The concept of working waterfront
was a unifying concept, but we learned that people have differing views
of what makes up a water dependent use based on their particular local
access issues and needs. In a wrap-up planning session the participants
described working waterfront in terms ranging from commercial fisheries
activities through marinas, boatyards, commercial sports fishing
services, ferry services, tourist oriented nature cruising, to heavy
industrial uses. A common theme of working waterfront is ``commercial''
access for water dependent businesses. For the marine industries the
water access may be for recreational leisure time pursuits, but for
those waterfront companies they are a business serving the public at
large for a fee. Which in a way is part of the supply of public access
which is facilitated by the business enterprise. I want to be clear
that this bill is aimed at addressing the water access needs of
businesses that need physical access to the water.
One small point, in the Definitions section, aquaculture needs to
be added to the definition of the term ``working waterfront'', to be
consistent with the use of this term in the body of the bill.
State Plan Requirement
The Committee has asked for comments on enhancements to
requirements for the development of a state plan.
In general, the WWC supports a planning function that positions the
state to deliver a good and efficient program. But it needs to be a
plan that is practical and useful, more of a functional ``program''
plan rather than a ``comprehensive'' water access plan. We are
concerned that preparing (and updating) a big, expensive, comprehensive
access plan as a requirement for participating in the grant program
will be a major impediment to coastal states that could otherwise put
the program to good use. We agree that state Coastal Programs should be
doing this type of planning, but it creates a major hurdle to
implementing the grants program.
As written, the current bill is asking for more planning work than
is really needed to guide a Federal Program at the state level. We
would ask the committee to consider the difference between a plan to
guide the operation of a program and a plan that is a comprehensive
analysis of the coast and access needs. A good example of a program
participation is provided by the current Coastal Estuarine Land
Conservation Program, which is administered by NOAA.
The Maine Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program offers an example
of a program that is competitive, guided by a set of project selection
criteria, and responsive to opportunities to work with fishing
businesses, property owners, municipalities, and willing sellers as the
opportunities arise. More information can be found at the program
website: www.wwapp.org
Comments on the application process
The Committee has asked for comments on the application process.
The WWC offers comment on five elements of the application and granting
process;
Responsiveness to immediate opportunities
State responsibilities, capacities, assurances, and process
Non-profit organization as a qualified holder
Creation of a Working Waterfront Covenant
Violation of a Working Waterfront Covenant
The WWC recognizes that NOAA has a long, well established record
for running competitive grant programs, which the Committee should
value and take full advantage off. As written, however, the WWC has
several suggestions for your consideration regarding the application
and granting process:
Responsiveness to immediate opportunities--The bill as written
correctly implies that there is a need to be responsive as
opportunities arise or a need for action is paramount. We know that
there is a difficult balancing act between administering a competitive
grants program and the responsiveness needed to proceed in a timely
manor when a critically important opportunity arises. The
responsiveness (or lack thereof) of a government funding program is an
issue for the WWC and other working waterfront advocates when they see
the need to move quickly to take advantage of an opportunity. We have
found that working waterfront projects must be fairly patient when
dealing with government programs (usually for good reasons related to
due diligence and program capacities), but still we ask the committee
to consider carefully how the program can be operated to be responsive
to crisis situations.
State responsibilities, capacities, assurances, and process--The
grant program, as envisioned, would be run in cooperation with the
appropriate state Coastal Program, or other state, regional, or other
unit of government. It is up to the coastal state to figure out how to
run a working waterfront program. The state retains the responsibility
to assure the grant funds are used as proposed, make certain
certification of matching funds, hold the working waterfront Covenant
(or designated holder) and enforcement responsibilities (including
policing qualified holders). In Maine, and a few other states,
compatible working waterfront programs exist which could assume and
exercise these responsibilities, but in other coastal states creating
and implementing a working waterfront program will be a relatively
greater challenge.
Non-profit organization as a qualified holder--the bill provides
that a state may designate a non-profit organization (such as a land
trust or working waterfront heritage trust) as a qualified holder of a
property or an interest in a property. Recognizing and authorizing this
role for a non-profit non-governmental entity is a significant step for
Congress. Certainly in Maine and across the country, duly incorporated
501,c land trusts are playing a vital role in conserving the nations
resources. In one Maine working waterfront project the holder (owner)
of the protected property is a new nonprofit foundation dedicated to
the continued operation of the property as working waterfront. So the
model exist and a track record for nonprofits is established, the WWC
feels that a nonprofit fishing heritage trust has a role to play in the
future as the experience with these programs unfolds.
Working Waterfront Covenant--The bill calls for the use of a
working waterfront covenant as a means to gain permanent protection of
the subject property. This is a relatively new mechanism for holding
property interests with its roots in conservation easements and
affordable housing covenants. The Maine Legislature has enacted
statutory language to guide the purpose and scope of a working
waterfront covenant. A model covenant has been created by the Land for
Maine's Future Program, and specific covenants are currently being
prepared for six working waterfront projects. The first one was
consummated last week and a second is due to close on March 12th.
Violation of the Covenant--this section needs further work, guided
by consideration of due process, legal practice, and enforcement
experience with Conservation easements. Reference to the Maine model
covenant would be useful.
CZMA
The committee asked for views of how the CZMA might be amended, in
general, to better attain the goal of preserving working waterfronts
and marine-dependent uses and the public's access to them.
The WWC is not in a good position to comment on the re-
authorization of the CZMA. We understand that many good minds have been
hard at work on this task. The WWC does feel that a working waterfront
program has a place in the CZMA and state coastal programs. Various
members of the WWC have a long, successful, and productive working
partnership with the State's Coastal Management Program and we would
not want to see that change.
The program envisioned in H.R. 3223 seems like a natural fit with
the purposes and goals of the CZMA. A working waterfront program would
be an additional tool to help the state achieve its objectives. A
working waterfront program element in the CZMA, with funding support
would send a strong message to state programs about the importance of
these issues.
In summary
We think that H.R. 3223 has three significant impacts:
First it recognizes the importance of the issues and brings
attention to the problem;
Second, the bill establishes working access as a priority in the
CZMA (in addition to ports and harbor programs, and public access
programs);
And third, the bill creates a program with funding and access to
other NOAA programs and tools that can augment and support state level
efforts to preserve working waterfronts.
The Maine Working Waterfront Coalition is pleased to be able to
help craft this important program and stands ready to continue to
assist as its experience and expertise allows.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Connors, for your
careful consideration of H.R. 3223.
And finally, I would like to invite Ms. Elefant to present
her testimony.
STATEMENT OFCAROLYN ELEFANT, GENERAL COUNSEL, OCEAN RENEWABLE
ENERGY COALITION
Ms. Elefant. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. As you said, my
name is Carolyn Elefant, and I am legislative and regulatory
counsel to the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, or OREC. Our
organization is dedicated to the commercial, to advancing and
promoting commercialization of marine renewables in the United
States, which include off-shore wind, wave, tidal, and current.
OREC is grateful to the committee for inviting us and
giving us this opportunity to testify, specifically on H.R.
5452. We support the bill's goals of streamlining the marine
renewables licensing process, and most importantly channeling
funding to the states, states and territories, so that they can
evaluate proposed projects more efficiently, while still
carrying out their responsibilities under the CZMA.
However, OREC believes that many of the goals of
streamlining marine renewables are better carried out through
giving funding for data collection and creating designated
marine renewable personnel, rather than through the proposed
zoning concept contained in H.R. 5452.
Now, as this legislation recognizes, regulatory delay and
uncertainty has been a major impediment to developing our
marine renewable resources in the United States. And there is
one thing I do want to be clear about. When people hear about
regulatory delay, they assume it is because industry is not
being cooperative.
And what I want to point out is, the obstacles in this case
isn't because of intransigence on the part of our developers;
rather, because of their commitment to comply with the litany
of Federal, state, and local regulations.
Our companies have devoted significant resources to
complying with environmental regulations; and in fact, the cost
of compliance comprises 30 percent to 60 percent of some of the
prototype and demonstration projects currently under
development.
So it is for that reason that we really applaud the goals
behind H.R. 5452 to try to streamline the process and move
ahead.
We believe that funding coastal states to survey the
elements outlined in Section 2[b] of the legislation will help
developers more readily identify suitable sites, and cut down
on the need for them to gather information and try to figure
out what they need to do to comply with the statute. And most
importantly, the data will allow coastal states, and also
territories, to fulfill their responsibilities under the CZMA
mandate more efficiently, and with more confidence in their
decisions.
However, OREC doesn't support the concept of zoning, at
least at this time. And one reason is just because the industry
is so nascent. Right now there is not a single commercial off-
shore renewable project in the United States, and for that
reason it is important that any streamlining process remains,
allow for maximum flexibility.
There are other problems that we have with the zoning
concept. For example, while we are confident that states would
implement it responsibly, an unfortunate reality is sometimes
zoning is vulnerable to politicization. And also, a zoning
process, especially one that would rightly involve multiple
agencies and stakeholders, can be very time-consuming and
create delay at a time when the industry is really picking up
some momentum.
So this is our preferred approach. We do like the idea of
funding studies for the elements outlined in the legislation.
We would like to see states have the ability to study, to
survey all of these different criteria, and to make that
information available within their agency to other agencies
that are partners in the process, and most importantly to
developers.
We are confident that if developers have information about
a sensitive environmental area, or about an area that might be
optimal for development, that they will take that information
into account when they make their development decisions. And
that, in turn, will help expedite the process.
We also support the idea of funding designated marine
renewable energy personnel within state agencies. That is
something that is very important, because it helps to build a
body of institutional knowledge within the agency. And those
experts can help guide our developers, and they can work as
part of a partnership.
Ultimately, we do view the state coastal agencies as
partners in the development of marine renewable resources. And
with well-staffed, well-informed, and well-funded agencies that
can provide data on the environment, transmission
infrastructure, and other elements, states and developers can
work together and make informed decisions about marine
renewable energy projects. And it is for that reason that we
support the goals of H.R. 5452, if not the precise mechanism
for carrying those out.
Like my colleagues on the panel, I am also happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Elefant follows:]
Statement of Carolyn Elefant, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel,
Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC)
My name is Carolyn Elefant and I am legislative and regulatory
counsel to the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC). OREC is the
national trade association for the marine renewables energy industry in
the United States with a mission of promoting the commercialization of
marine renewable technologies such as offshore wind, wave, tidal and
current. Founded in April 2005 with three members, OREC now represents
forty companies, including marine renewables developers within the
United States, Canada and Europe, environmental consultants, law firms,
engineering firms, investor owned and municipal utilities and
investment bankers. OREC members share the common goal of helping our
nation build a domestic marine renewables industry to eliminate our
dependence on foreign oil, diversify our energy supply and develop an
important source of emission free energy.
OREC is grateful to the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife
and Oceans for extending an invitation to our organization to
participate in these hearings and specifically, to offer testimony on
The Honorable Congresswoman Capps' bill, H.R. 5452, the Coastal States
Renewable Energy Promotion Act.
We support the legislation's goals of streamlining the marine
renewables licensing process and most importantly, channeling funding
to the states so that they can evaluate proposed marine renewable
projects more efficiently while still carrying out their mandate of
ensuring responsible and orderly development in coastal zone areas.
However, OREC believes that these goals are better achieved through
funding for data collection and creation of a designated marine
renewables expert position within state agencies rather than the zoning
concept described in the legislation.
My testimony is organized in three parts. First, I will describe
the present regulatory impediments to marine renewables development.
Second, I will discuss some of the problems inherent in the zoning
concept and explain why this mechanism is not appropriate, at least
right now while the marine renewables industry is in a nascent stage.
Third, I will offer alternative suggestions for directing funding to
states in a way that will help them carry out their statutory mandate
under the CZMA and also help developers identify suitable project
sites.
Part I: Regulatory Delays and the Impact on the Industry
To date, regulatory delay and uncertainty poses one of the primary
impediments to the emergence of the marine renewables industry. Let me
be clear--regulation poses an obstacle not because our member companies
seek to evade regulation, but rather, because they are absolutely
committed to ``doing development right.'' OREC's member companies have
devoted considerable financial resources to complying with the litany
of applicable federal, state and local laws and taking into account the
interest of multiple stakeholders who use our nation's coastal waters.
But complying with so many agencies proves costly--our present
statistics show that permitting costs can account for as much as 30 to
60 percent of the total project cost, which is a deterrent to private
investment.
The length and uncertainty of the regulatory process also deters
private investment. Thus far, companies like Verdant Power or Finavera
have spent more than seven years in an effort to obtain authorization
to install 6 turbines or four buoys. Part of the lag comes from state
agencies--not because they oppose development, but simply because they
lack the resources and staff to evaluate these projects. The burden
then shifts to developers to gather sufficient information--which can
also prove time consuming and expensive. And there is no guarantee of
when or if an authorization for the project will issue. OREC is aware
of several instances where this regulatory delay and uncertainty has
killed private financing arrangements, which is a huge blow to the
entire marine renewables industry.
Part II: The Proposed Legislation's Goals
OREC applauds H.R. 5452 for recognizing the critical importance of
expeditiously developing marine renewables and the need to streamline
the regulatory process. We believe that funding coastal states to
survey the elements outlined in Section 2(b) of the legislation
1 will help developers more readily identify suitable sites,
thereby cutting down the need for costly information gathering studies.
Most importantly, this data will allow coastal states to fulfill their
responsibilities in issuing certifications under the CZMA certification
more efficiently and confidently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These elements include surveys of the hydrographic, bathymetric
and seismic characteristics of an area, environmental characteristics,
other marine uses and availability of infrastructure and transmission
to support renewable energy development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, OREC does not support the concept of zoning--at least at
this time, when the marine renewables industry is new and so much
remains unknown about siting, operation and the environmental effects
of projects. Quite simply, a zoning process locks the industry in a
place at a time, when flexibility is paramount because technologies are
still evolving.
For example, a zoning process might block off an area which at
present, lacks transmission access or may appear to have inadequate
power potential. But a few years forward, a new technology may emerge
that is capable of efficiently capturing the power resource or
transmission access may improve. Alternatively, a zoning process may
block an area deemed environmentally sensitive. However, a technology
might later emerge that could prove compatible with the environmental
characteristics of the area.
By freezing conditions in place, zoning also arguably deters the
emergence of more benign technologies. If certain areas are permanently
off limits, developers have no incentive to innovate and come up with
designs that might even have the affect of improving a sensitive area.
Many of OREC's members have, over time, improved or changed the design
of their projects to respond to environmental considerations, which
represents a positive development.
Moreover, while OREC is confident that states would responsibly
implement a zoning process, the unfortunate reality is that sometimes,
the zoning process is vulnerable to politicization. Stakeholders intent
on preventing any renewable development offshore might attempt to
unduly influence the zoning process. Though we stress that we do not
anticipate this type of mischief, past experiences suggest that it is a
possibility.
Finally, a zoning process--particularly one that involves multiple
agencies and stakeholders--can take time. OREC is concerned that
development of projects would be put on hold pending completion of
zoning. Any delay at this time will stop the marine renewables industry
and quite likely, send many member companies overseas in search of
greener pastures, or more aptly ``bluer waters'' that will allow for
expeditious siting, testing and development of projects.
III. OREC's Preferred Approach
As we have emphasized throughout, we commend the intent of H.R.
5452 and its recognition that states need funding so that they can
evaluate the effects, and eventually realize the benefits of marine
renewables development in coastal waters. We believe that the
legislation will work more effectively in the following manner.
First, states should be given funding to study all of the elements
listed in Section 2(b)(1)-(7). States would then make this data
available both in-house, to resource agency staff and to developers.
Developers could use this data to make informed decisions about where
to site a project. For example, where a data survey shows baseline
information about an area used by migratory mammals, a developer could
choose to do the following: (1) it could decide to avoid the site
entirely or (2) it could site a project there, but realize that it
would need to evaluate potential effects and devise mitigation. A
rational developer would recognize that option 2 poses more risk than
option 1, but a developer might determine that the risk is worthwhile
if for example, the resource offers substantial power potential or
convenience to transmission. Because marine technology companies still
bear the full cost of developing this new technology that will benefit
our entire nation, ultimately, they are best suited to make the final
decision about siting.
Second, OREC would also like to encourage states to designate
specific personnel dedicated to marine renewables development. The
legislation might consider suggesting this option. A dedicated marine
renewables office within each state coastal planning office will help
build a body of institutional knowledge that will expedite
certification decisions and give states more confidence in the
decisions that they make.
IV. Conclusion
OREC views the state coastal agencies as partners in the
development of marine renewables resources. Well staffed, well informed
and well funded state agencies that can provide data on the environment
and infrastructure allows both states and developers to work together
and make informed decisions about marine renewable energy projects in
an expeditious manner. For that reason, OREC supports the goals of H.R.
5452.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Elefant, for your
testimony before the committee. And I do have some questions.
And I understand Congresswoman Capps will be returning to the
committee; she has some questions, as well.
But I will begin with Mr. Stokes. I want to thank you for
your support of the reauthorization of the CZMA.
Do you have any idea how much it would cost to conduct a
comprehensive ecological and socioeconomic assessment of our
nation's coastal lands and waters?
Mr. Stokes. I don't have a specific idea.
Ms. Bordallo. Do you have a ballpark figure?
Mr. Stokes. It would be difficult for me to even give a
ballpark figure. I could go back and think about it a little
bit, but I know we are talking, we are talking about investing
some dollars to ensure that our future actions are appropriate.
You know, in the State of Texas we have elements of some of
this stuff going on already. So it is not like we would be
recreating the wheel. But we need more collaboration. We have a
lot of very good research entities, academic entities that are
doing some type of this research already. Either, you know,
using Coastal Management Program grants, or other sources of
funding.
It may not be as expensive as what you would think, because
it may simply be coordinating a lot of what is going on out
there. But again, I don't have a specific dollar figure for
you, and I apologize.
Ms. Bordallo. Could you provide this when you----
Mr. Stokes. I would be glad to go back and see if we could
put something together----
Ms. Bordallo. To the committee?
Mr. Stokes.--and bring it back to you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And similarly, do you have a sense
of what it would cost to develop state habitat restoration
strategies for all 34 coastal states and territories?
Mr. Stokes. Again, I am hesitant to put a dollar figure on
that. But I mean, again, we have elements of this already in
place.
For instance, my organization, the Galveston Bay
Foundation. We have something called the Habitat Conservation
Blueprint that we put together about 10 years ago, that talks
about literally over 170 different places around Galveston Bay
that could benefit from a restoration project.
You know, we haven't taken the step of prioritizing
necessarily all 170 of those places. But again, I think it is
taking advantage of some of the existing information that is in
the community, and really taking it a step further.
Ms. Bordallo. Again, the committee would like to have the
figures once you have them.
Mr. Stokes. OK.
Ms. Bordallo. I understand from the committee here that the
territories are defined in the CZMA. So I am resting a lot
easier up here.
Mr. Stokes. Good, good.
Ms. Bordallo. The third question I have, does Restore
America's Estuaries support H.R. 1907, the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Protection Act?
Mr. Stokes. Yes, absolutely. We are supportive of bringing
the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act within the
Coastal Zone Management Act, because we think protecting land
is a comprehensive part of coastal stewardship.
However, if, for other reasons, it needs to be a stand-
alone bill, we are very supportive of the program in general.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And I have a couple of questions
for Mr. Connors. I want to thank you also for your testimony
before the committee.
You mentioned that public access is a fundamental part of
the CZMA, and should continue on as a priority, but separately
from a working waterfront program.
Should access that is appropriate not be facilitated by
this grant program?
Mr. Connors. Well, thank you for the opportunity to address
that distinction.
I think that the coastal zone programs through CZMA have
had very active and high-level priority activities around
public access. So when we use that term public access, we mean
for all sorts of uses: view sheds, physical access to the
shore, access across into the water for recreational pursuits,
and that sort of thing.
And the distinction we were trying to draw here is to say
that working access is really related to commercial enterprise,
those businesses that are operating on the waterfront and need
to have that space and that opportunity to get back and forth
from the water to carry out their activities.
Some of those enterprises serve the general public in the
sense that they are open for business, at a fee, such as a
marina or a boat yard. And so in one sense you could think of
them as providing a form of facilitated public access. That is,
as part of their business enterprise. But they have to be there
to carry out that enterprise. That type of public access could
be distinguished from the kind of public access that we often
operate looking for as a public arena, as a publicly owned boat
ramp, a public park, a facility or an area that is open to the
general public to come and to go. So we are just trying to draw
that distinction, that when we are talking about working
waterfronts, we are really talking about businesses conducting
their business.
I left a little room in the testimony to be able to say
that it is not unreasonable to consider that in a government
granting program, that you couldn't somehow continue to assure
that that facilitated public access, at a reasonable fee to the
general public, couldn't be guaranteed as part of a business
operation. I don't know exactly how that might work out, and it
might not be acceptable to some business operators. But you
could conceive of a marina operator, for example, that could
designate part of the property for a general access to the
public, and another part of the property more dedicated to
specific services, and so forth, for its customers.
So that is the distinction I am trying to draw.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Connors.
A member from California, my colleague, Lois Capps, has
just returned. And she does have some questions of the panel.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you all for your testimony. Ms. Elefant,
I want to start with you if I could, please.
You state that zoning could lock in, your words, the
renewable energy industry when flexibility is needed. How would
the identification of areas found suitable for renewable energy
development lock in industry?
Ms. Elefant. Well, right now the industry is in a very
nascent phase. As I point out in my testimony just before the
committee, there are no commercial renewable, off-shore marine
renewable projects in the U.S., either wind, wave, or tidal,
right at this time. And in fact, the only project that is in
place is a commercial-size project in the East River comprised
of six units. So that is all we have so far.
The industry is still learning a lot about what works and
which spots are appropriate. And what might appear, look
appropriate today, based on some of the technologies we have,
may turn out to be less than optimal at some future point.
Now, we certainly do not foreclose the possibility that at
some point, as these technologies reach commercial stage, that
zoning might be appropriate. We are just concerned at this
time, when we don't know enough about the technologies. And
also where a lot of the projects that are being proposed, at
least with wave and tidal and current, at least thus far, and
probably for the next five to 10 years, are going to be small-
scale demonstration projects.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Just to push it a little further.
When you say that zoning may block transmission access, would
you support surveys of off-shore areas that are updated
regularly? In other words, kind of keep up with as the
technology develops, and as the industries figure out what they
want to do?
Ms. Elefant. Right. Well, certainly for something like
transmission, which is prone to change, and also where there is
information available about planning. I mean, that would be
something that would be easy to update the surveys for.
Again, you know, certainly having regular updates would be
an improvement; but at the same time, we still would have some
concerns about putting in zones, even with updated----
Mrs. Capps. For example, can I give an example?
Ms. Elefant. Sure.
Mrs. Capps. If this was, if the update was sort of
scheduled for every five years, would that account for changes
in technology and electricity delivery? For example, that
might--is that a good time, or too little, or too long?
Ms. Elefant. Probably at this stage, it really is too long.
One of the arguments we have made to MMS, which is doing sort
of five- to seven-year planning, is it really should be more
frequent.
But the other thing is, again, until we can start getting
at least a little bit of operational experience with some of
these projects, we don't really known entirely what to look for
in the zoning process. And obvious things to avoid, you know,
like a nesting area for endangered species.
Mrs. Capps. Right, right.
Ms. Elefant. I mean, certainly having data. And when I say
that, you know, it states gather data, our developers will take
that into account. They are not going to site a project on a
nesting area for endangered species because no investor is
going to finance something like that. And the technology is
risky enough, you know, having this type of backlash is just
going to, you know, it will sort of, the market will regulate
the decisions at that point.
Mrs. Capps. One final question for you. You mentioned that
states and other stakeholders might influence the development
of the zoning process, which would prevent projects from
advancing.
On the contrary, we have heard from stakeholders and states
that it would be more helpful to do this under statutory
directives. In other words, CZMA, they want that partnership to
facilitate renewable energy, rather than an ad hoc approach
currently underway.
You don't agree with this, right? And why?
Ms. Elefant. Well, I guess, as I said, we don't agree with
it right at this time, just because we would like to see some
flexibility.
We also have some concerns about having a planning process
at a time when there is no technology in place. Our industry,
back in the 1970s, actually there was ocean thermal energy
conversion legislation. It put into place a whole comprehensive
scheme for licensing and permitting. And it turned out nothing
was ever built. The technology wasn't ready, the scheme was too
comprehensive.
Mrs. Capps. I have got you.
Ms. Elefant. And so we just have concerns that a lot of
resources are going to be devoted to zoning and planning at
this time, when really what we need to see is get some
technologies in the water, and see really will they work; and
if they work, what their potential is, if they are economically
feasible at this time.
Mrs. Capps. You have made your point well. Thank you.
Ms. Elefant. OK, yes.
Mrs. Capps. I have one more question, and I might run over
time. If I could ask, approach Mr. Connors now.
There is a race to the coastline going on right now. We
have heard from Mr. Bailey that such advance planning of the
kind I have been asking Ms. Elefant about would reduce future
consistency conflicts, and lead to better projects that protect
the environment and grow the industry.
Now, public access is a focal point of the CZMA, and it is
recognized prominently in my bill, or in the bill H.R. 3223.
But you suggest removing that requirement as an element of the
Working Waterfront Program. The shortage of access to the water
impacts broad segments of the population, not just those
directly tied to the water for its livelihood. We heard this
from our first, very first witness.
How can we enhance public access and commercial working
access through existing and some new grant programs?
Mr. Connors. Thank you for asking that question. I would
like to say again that we suggested that that particular
section of the bill that directly specified public access be
provided at these particular kinds of places, where the
business enterprise wouldn't be suitable, or just wasn't
physically, perhaps, possible.
I also do public access planning and work for our coastal
program. And we have in place a number of programs that would
be considered part of what you heard was core programs. And
certainly every state I think has a public access program for
all of the purposes. Those certainly need to be retained, and I
think that what we offered in the testimony was that that is an
important element of CZMA that needs to be retained and
supported where necessary.
We certainly need to make sure that the public, the various
publics, are getting access to the water.
I think the coalition's concern here was that there was a
danger perhaps of trying to do too much in this one program;
and that by keeping it more focused on commercial problems, and
that we still would have other programs available to use, would
be appropriate.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I was offered the opportunity to go
further, which I would love to do, but I am going to thank our
Chairwoman for allowing me this indulgence of going over time.
Thank you. And thank you all.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank my colleague, Mrs. Capps, from
California.
I have just a couple of more questions before we wrap up
this Subcommittee hearing.
To Mr. Connors, can you speak further to the balance
between administering a competitive grants program and a need
to proceed in a timely manner when a critically important
opportunity arises? Are you asking for some type of emergency
grant authority? Or what would trigger the use of such an
authority?
Mr. Connors. Well, what is underlying that point is the
fact that the opportunity to work with a, in our case
commercial fishing business, really is driven by the willing
seller at a fair market value. And those provisions, by the
way, are good provisions.
And what happens is that you have to have a project that is
fairly patient, in the sense that it can wait for the dollars
to make it through the process. So, and probably what underlies
a process of grant-making, to make it as quick as possible, it
was adequate capacity in the program manager's hands to get the
paperwork done, because there is a process of due diligence
that has to be undertaken. But basically, program capacity.
NOAA has a long track record of providing competitive
grants. And we all participate in that process. And I really
don't know the precise mechanism for an emergency. You could
have a hold-back of a certain percentage of grant, you know, of
appropriated funds for emergency. But emergency is always a
little difficult to define, so I am not going to push too far
on that. I just want to make sure that the committee is
sensitive to the fact that these projects do have a quick turn-
around time sometimes, perhaps a little quicker even than a
land conservation project, because you have business owners
trying to turn the property over, and you have people trying to
buy it, and you can hold them up.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good, thank you. Mr. Stokes, I have one
question for you, as well.
In your statement you said that a way to strengthen the
non-governmental role in coastal habitat restoration is to
provide the explicit authority to establish cooperative
agreements between NOAA and the non-governmental operations.
Is this authority not already provided to NOAA under
Section 310 of the CZMA? And do you mean for this authority to
be more specific to environmental restoration activities?
Mr. Stokes. I think there are elements of the authority
there. I think we have partnerships with NOAA, and we felt like
it would just be more helpful to explicitly have that listed,
and certainly as it applies to restoration activities.
Ms. Bordallo. So you do want to be more specific, is that
what I am hearing here?
Mr. Stokes. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Well, again, I want to thank Mr. Stokes,
Mr. Connors, and Ms. Elefant--is that the way----
Ms. Elefant. Elefant, that is right.
Ms. Bordallo. Elefant.
Ms. Elefant. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. For your testimonies this morning. And thank
you for your patience in waiting for the third panel to be
seated. But we appreciate all your input.
Also, to the members of the Subcommittee, if any of you may
have--they are not here right now, but I am sure their
committees will pass the word--if any of them have additional
questions for our witnesses, we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. And the hearing record will be held open for
10 days for these responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses this morning.
The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record by Frank Blum, Executive
Director, South Carolina Seafood Alliance, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.eps[A letter submitted for the record by Hugh
Cowperthwaite, Fisheries Project Director, Coastal Enterprises
Inc., follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A statement submitted for the record by Michael P. De
Luca, on behalf of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
Association, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Michael P. De Luca, on behalf of
the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
Introduction
Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of H.R. 5451, the Coastal
Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments, and related coastal
amendments. My name is Mike De Luca and I serve as the Legislative
Director for the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
(NERRA). I also manage the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research
Reserve and serve as the Senior Associate Director of the Institute of
Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University. With the broad
expertise in working waterfronts, climate change, and coastal renewable
energy represented by the other witnesses today, my comments will focus
primarily on H.R. 5451. I will emphasize the importance of regional
approaches to coastal management, the need to capitalize on emerging
ocean technologies for coastal applications, and the importance of
broadening efforts to build capacity among the coastal management
community and engage the public in stewardship of our coasts.
Appended to my testimony is a draft NERRS subtitle for
consideration in the CZMA developed by NERRA. The draft aims to codify
core programs established since the last reauthorization of the CZMA,
establishes a regional role for the NERRS to leverage the capabilities
of protected area networks on behalf of regional coastal and estuarine
conservation issues, and seeks support for technologies for research
and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities. I
respectfully request that this Appendix and my complete written
statement be included as part of the written record.
National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
NERRA is dedicated to science-based management of our nation's
estuaries and coastal systems, and serves as the primary advocate for
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), a network of 27
(soon to be 29) regionally-based programs representing diverse
estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the U.S. and its
territories. Through a state-federal partnership codified in the
Coastal Zone Management Act, the reserves play a critical role in
national efforts to sustain healthy estuaries and coastal communities.
NERRA strongly supports amendments to the CZMA that enable coastal
states and communities to protect coastal resources in the face of a
rapidly shifting environment and new demands for renewable energy
resources.
Comments on CZMA Reauthorization Amendments
Much has changed since the CZMA was last authorized in 1996.
Devastating storms, natural disasters, declining natural resources,
booming population growth along the coast and changing climate have
altered the pace and scope of environmental change. This has led to
alteration and loss of coastal resources, and degraded water and
habitat quality throughout much of the nation's coastal zone. The rapid
pace and scale of change demands regional approaches to coastal
conservation, use of innovative technology, broad efforts to build
capacity among coastal decision-makers, and heightened public awareness
to engage citizens in active stewardship of our coasts. Collectively,
these actions can help to reduce the vulnerability of coastal resources
and communities to unwanted change, but will require substantive
resources.
Regional Approaches to Coastal Conservation
The broad national mandates that constitute the CZMA are
administered through state-based programs. Many successful coastal
management strategies, tools, and programs have resulted from past
support. Successes, as well as some failures, are shared through a
variety of information and learning networks. Today, an increasingly
broad suite of regional environmental issues transcend state boundaries
and bear on coastal ecosystem health, and the quality of life and
economic vitality of coastal communities. These include sediment and
water contamination, fishery management, nutrient enrichment, declines
in natural resources, habitat loss, beach erosion, and harmful algal
blooms.
A myriad of government, academic and private agencies and
institutions deliver coastal programs and services at many scales. Two
excellent regional mechanisms have emerged to coordinate coastal
activities in the Gulf of Mexico and on the West Coast--the Gulf of
Mexico Alliance and the Western Governors Association. Although
relatively new, these organizations show promise as regional conveners
and a means to leverage resources on behalf of regional coastal issues.
Long-term support will be required to stabilize these organizations and
to foster similar approaches in other coastal regions.
Broader regional networks also are in place that coastal managers
can capitalize on to align technical capacity with regional needs. One
example is the Regional Associations created to implement the
integrated ocean observing system. User needs and management priorities
vary from region to region and the Regional Associations are presently
engaging a broad representation of industries, government at all
levels, academic institutions, and the public. Broader representation
from the coastal management community is needed in the leadership of
these and other regional structures to focus capacity on regional
coastal issues.
It should also be noted that the NERRS have expressed strong
interest in leading efforts to leverage the capabilities of protected
area networks to address regional coastal and estuarine conservation
issues. Capabilities that could benefit these networks include mapping
and characterization of marine and coastal protected areas, engagement
of citizens in stewardship of marine and coastal protected areas, and
building capacity of coastal managers to conserve, manage and protect
coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
Innovative Technology
Advances in undersea research and technology have enabled us to
enter a new era in oceanography--that of the well-sampled ocean. New
samplers, sensors, autonomous vehicles and ocean observatories now
allow us to sample the ocean at time and space scales never before
achieved. Technology development, including development of samplers and
sensors for the emerging network of ocean observing systems, represents
an opportunity for the coastal management community. Emerging
technologies such as coastal ocean observing platforms and autonomous
undersea vehicles have begun to provide timely information on coastal
processes. When complete, this system will enable integration of real-
time physical and biological data from chemical, optical, and acoustic
sensors, satellites, undersea robots, and a high-frequency radar system
for synoptic measurement of surface currents. Real time data from
arrays of sensors and forecast models will be used to mitigate the
effects of flooding and erosion from hurricanes, tsunamis, and other
severe storms. The sources, fates, and effects of pollutants will be
better understood using better means of tracking sediments and
pollutants in the ocean. High resolution surveys of ocean habitat using
autonomous underwater vehicles, and use of the observing system will
advance tracking and sampling of fish populations. The maritime,
coastal recreation, and power industries require accurate forecasts to
maintain efficient and reliable operations. All coastal stakeholders
will benefit from better observations of our coastal ocean
surroundings.
As a result of observing system technology, efforts are under way
to develop a predictive capability to enable resource managers and
coastal decision makers to use science-based decisions to address
management issues. The success of these efforts will benefit from
expansion of the estuarine components of the observing system (e.g.,
NERRS System wide Monitoring Program), provision of technical
assistance to develop coastal information products in response to
management needs (e.g., scale up of the NERRS Coastal Training
Program), and use of regional networks to bring the capacity of the
science and technical community to bear on the needs of the coastal
management community.
To date, technology development efforts at NOAA have been driven by
operational research needs in the ocean and Great Lakes, and the
undersea research needs of the academic community. This has led to
development of an impressive inventory of undersea assets and
capabilities in response to scientific demand. A mechanism is required
to harness this capacity on behalf of pressing coastal issues. One
approach is to align the capabilities of the National Undersea Research
Program with the information needs of coastal managers. This can be
accomplished in a number of ways, but certainly could benefit by
inclusion in the CZMA.
Build Capacity Among Coastal Decision-makers
One of the most significant challenges in managing the nation's
coasts today is the need to link science-based information to local
coastal communities. Decisions made by coastal communities can have
profound, long-term consequences for estuarine and coastal
environments. Issues such as nonpoint source pollution, stormwater
management, fisheries management, habitat loss and alteration, and
shoreline management are the subject of constant debate by the public,
the media, and coastal decision-makers. A common feature of these
debates is the need for better information and training about the
coastal environment. Elected officials, land use planners, regulatory
personnel, coastal managers, and agricultural and fisheries interests
are key decision makers who often do not have adequate access to
relevant science-based information, training, or available technology
to make informed decisions affecting the coast. Building on past
success with services for coastal decision-makers (such as workshops on
global climate change or the transfer of management-oriented research
to coastal decision-makers in many states using an interactive format
via the Internet), the NERRS has developed a Coastal Training Program
(CTP) to meet this need.
The CTP enhances existing NERRS training delivery systems to
provide the best available science-based information, tools, and
techniques to individuals and groups that are making important
decisions about resources in coastal watersheds, estuaries, and
nearshore waters. Programs have taken the form of workshops, seminars,
distance learning, technology applications and demonstrations.
Opportunities for information exchange and skill training are expanding
coastal management networks and collaboration across sectors, and
improving local understanding of the environmental, social, and
economic consequences of human activity in the coastal zone. These
programs also make use of field experiences, relevant research and
monitoring, and facilities provided by the site-based reserves.
The CTP was designed to increase the current capacity of Reserves
to deliver technical training services to under-served constituent
groups. Reserve staff continues to work closely with State coastal
programs and others to identify critical issues in the region and key
coastal decision-makers that could benefit most from relevant science
and training. Participants in CTP have included state and local elected
and appointed officials, agency staff, volunteer boards, members of
NGOs, business organizations, and state and regional professional
associations whose daily decisions impact coastal resources.
Reserve staff implement the CTP in partnership with national and
local organizations. At the national level, NOAA's Estuarine Reserves
Division provides strategic and budget planning and support in
partnership with NOAA's Coastal Management Programs, Sea Grant, and the
Coastal Services Center. At the local and regional levels, individual
Reserves are developing CTP partnerships with State coastal programs,
Sea Grant programs, local universities and researchers, professional
organizations, local government agencies, non-profit organizations, and
a variety of others with expertise, skills, training sites, and
logistical support. Support is needed particularly to support delivery
of CTP programs at these regional scales.
Citizen Engagement in Coastal Stewardship
Many of us in the hearing room today are well aware of the value of
coastal resources to the environmental quality and economic vitality of
coastal communities. What continues to be surprising though, is the
general lack of awareness of this value among the public, especially
those who reside in or vacation in coastal areas. My home state of New
Jersey has 130-miles of shoreline and our beaches receive millions of
recreational visits annually. Despite our close connection to the shore
for recreation, and its dramatic effect on our weather, recreation, and
economy, New Jersey students are not required in the state science
education standards to learn about our coasts and oceans. In general,
concepts and topics about the coastal ocean are hardly taught in K-12
schools, and rarely appear in a meaningful way in curriculum materials,
textbooks, assessments or standards. The burden of advancing coastal
and estuarine literacy is increasingly the responsibility of the
coastal and estuarine science and management communities and educators
who are willing to teach ``outside the box.''
Many of us are very familiar with grass roots education efforts
that have made a difference with recycling programs, litter control,
seat belt use, and cigarette smoking to name a few. The common
denominator among these programs was heightened awareness about how
changes in individual behavior could produce broad societal benefit.
Support for broad national efforts is needed to increase understanding
and awareness of estuarine systems and improve decision-making among
key audiences (K to Gray) to promote stewardship of the nation's
coastal resources. Many excellent programs exist at the local and state
levels, but lack the resources and delivery system to scale up
nationally, and to be made regionally relevant. Formal and informal
education and interpretation programs must be tailored to key audiences
around priority coastal resource issues and incorporate science-based
content. We must also make new technologies and real time, real world
coastal science information accessible to the classroom and the general
public. Programs such as the CoolClassroom that harness real-time data
streams from ocean observing systems for classroom applications are
good models. These programs do not have to be created, they just have
to be tailored to coastal issues. These programs do not have to build
new administrative structures, they just need to be advanced in
partnership with existing organizations such as the National Marine
Educators Association, Centers of Ocean Sciences Education Excellence
and the NERRS.
Summary Recommendations
NERRA offers the following recommendations in support of CZMA
Reauthorization.
Codify the research and monitoring, education and coastal
training, and stewardship programs as core elements of the NERRS.
Establish a role for the NERRS to lead efforts to
leverage the capabilities of protected area networks to address
regional coastal and estuarine conservation issues
Authorize traditional funding for construction and land
acquisition as a core NERRS element
Authorize funding for technologies for research and
monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities.
Provide incentives for regional approaches to coastal
management
Capitalize on emerging ocean technologies for coastal
applications
Align the capabilities of the National Undersea Research
Program with the information needs of coastal managers
Broaden efforts to build capacity among the coastal
management community
Broaden efforts to engage the public in stewardship of
our coasts
For grants under section 315, authorize funding for FY
2009 at a level of $40 million for operations, $15 million for
construction, land acquisition and improvement, and technology, and $10
million for regional coordination, with authorized levels increasing in
the out years per the attached appendix.
With respect to authorization levels, the annual appropriation for
the NERRS has remained flat since FY 2002 when the budget was $ 16.4
million. Costs for operations and the addition of new sites have
impeded efforts to expand existing successful programs (SWMP and CTP)
in response to growing demand, and have stifled growth of system wide
initiatives such as KEEP, an emerging K-12 education program. Two
additional sites may be designated soon compounding the static budget
situation even further.
H.R. 5452 Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008
This represents a laudable effort to survey coastal state and
federal waters to assess areas for potential development of renewable
energy sources. Data to be collected, such as hydrographic and
bathymetric surveys, characterization of sensitive marine ecosystems,
and surveys of existing marine uses will have many other uses beyond
the intent of this amendment. Given the need to develop regional
approaches to coastal management, and the value of these types of data
for regional programs, the amendment should direct the Secretary to
establish consistent standards for data collection to optimize use and
value of the data.
NERRA also notes that the cap on annual grants of $750 thousand may
not be suitable to survey certain areas that are relatively
inaccessible to conventional survey equipment. For example, the Hudson
Submarine Canyon off the coast of New Jersey and New York requires
advanced undersea technology to sample and survey. A single cruise to
this important marine ecosystem may easily exceed the proposed cap.
NERRA also notes that a bill to authorize integrated ocean mapping
is pending in Congress. Mapping and survey activities conducted under
the authority of these two bills should be coordinated.
H.R. 5453 Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008
Climate change has been an issue of strong interest for the NERRS,
especially in relation to the role of reserves as long-term reference
sites. The NERRS receive regular consideration by funding agencies as
preferred systems in which to conduct long-term research. This is based
primarily on the relatively low level of human disturbance at reserve
sites, history of targeted research on estuarine variability, and the
commitment to a long-term monitoring program that helps to characterize
the natural variability that governs structure and function of
estuarine ecosystems. NERRA recommends that the amendment recognize the
role that reserves can play as pilot and demonstration sites for
adaptive management strategies for climate change. Coastal states
should be encouraged to capitalize on reserve sites for this purpose,
as well as for assistance with training programs that can be supported
by the existing Coastal Training Program and monitoring programs that
can be informed by the existing System wide Monitoring Program, the
only national monitoring program for estuaries in the U.S..
H.R. 3223 Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007
Working waterfronts have increasingly become difficult to sustain
with rising property taxes and competing interest from private
developers to build residential, waterfront properties. Many benefits
are derived from working waterfronts and a grant program to help
preserve, protect and expand access for this stakeholder group is
certainly warranted. Inclusion of a public access requirement in the
vicinity of a working waterfront is a good and necessary element of a
working waterfront plan.
Closing
Reauthorization of the CZMA provides an opportunity to enhance the
capabilities of coastal communities by:
Providing effective regional mechanisms and harnessing
new technologies to meet information needs
Strengthening the capacity of the state-federal
partnership to support research and monitoring, education and coastal
training, and stewardship efforts relevant to local, state and
especially regional needs, and
Improving the access and delivery of science-based
information to build capacity to forecast and inform community
responses to changes in coastal systems.
Existing capabilities within the NERRS, combined with regional
approaches to coastal management and application of emerging
technologies to coastal management issues can help build science-based
capacity for decision-making, actively engage the public in coastal
stewardship, and enable us to make informed decisions with respect to
the dynamic drivers that govern change and stability in our coastal
systems.
I'd like to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Committee
for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of amendments to the
Coastal Zone Management Act. I will be pleased to answer any questions
the Committee may have at this time.
Appendix. NERRS Subtitle for inclusion in CZMA Reauthorization
Title I. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System 1/23/08
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Title is to support science-based management of
the nation's coastal and estuarine systems through a national network
of estuarine research reserves. The network shall play a critical role
in efforts to improve the understanding, management, and protection of
coastal and estuarine resources. Each reserve shall conduct research,
monitoring, education, training and stewardship programs tailored to
meet local, regional, and state information needs. Reserve programs
shall support coastal management through a process that engages a
diverse community of coastal stakeholders, and that complements or
supports the state-based coastal zone management programs.
2. Establishment and Responsibilities of the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System
A National Estuarine Research Reserve System (hereinafter referred
to as the ``Reserve System'') is established as a state-federal
partnership program between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (hereinafter referred to as NOAA) and the coastal
states. The Reserve System shall be dedicated to science-based
management of our nation's estuaries and coastal systems, and shall
represent the diverse estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the
U.S. and its territories. State-federal cooperation shall be used to
develop system-wide plans, partnerships, initiatives and any other
national activities of the Reserve System.
The Reserve System consists of those estuarine research reserves
designated under section 3 of this act and in operation as of January
1, 2008.
Primary responsibilities of the Reserve System are to:
Deliver science-based information to local, state, and
national decision-makers to further the sound management of coastal and
estuarine resources and communities,
Serve as a national model for the stewardship of coastal
and estuarine resources and best management practices using a system of
protected areas,
Support research and monitoring relevant to local,
regional and national needs,
Provide effective mechanisms to assess the research,
technology and information needs of coastal communities at local and
regional scales, and
Increase the nation's awareness of coastal and estuarine
environments through education programs for educators, students, adult
learners and the public.
3. Designation of National Estuarine Research Reserves
As of January 1, 2008, the Secretary may designate a coastal and
estuarine area as a national estuarine research reserve if ``
the Governor(s) of the coastal state(s) nominates the
coastal and estuarine area for such designation,
the Secretary finds that
the area is a representative coastal or estuarine
ecosystem that is suitable for long-term research, monitoring,
education and training, and stewardship, and contributes to the
biogeographical and typological representation of the Reserve System,
existing state laws provide adequate, long-term protection
of reserve ecosystems including relevant watersheds and coastal ocean
areas, and ensures a stable environment for research, monitoring,
education and training, and stewardship,
the reserve designation will promote public awareness and
understanding, science-based actions and decisions, and provide
suitable opportunities for public education, interpretation, and
training,
the coastal state(s) in which the reserve is proposed has
complied with any regulations promulgated by the Secretary to implement
this section.
The Reserve System shall be complete when there is at least one
reserve in each coastal and Great Lakes state. Coastal and Great Lakes
states with more than one major biogeographic region may establish an
additional reserve(s) to represent these areas.
4. Research and Monitoring
Research
The Reserve System offers a wide range of relatively pristine
estuarine environments in which to conduct both basic and applied
research, and provides a stable capacity for research through long-term
protection of coastal and estuarine resources. An overarching priority
for the Reserve System shall be to collaborate with scientists to
conduct and support research activities within reserve boundaries and
adjacent areas that address significant coastal management concerns
through coordinated research and monitoring, and to make results of
this research available to inform science-based management of coastal
and estuarine systems.
Research and monitoring efforts of the Reserve System shall focus
on integrating themes that can be addressed at local, regional and
national scales in response to coastal resource management needs.
Examples of integrating themes include but are not limited to:
Estuarine and coastal ecosystem response to climate
change;
Land-sea-air linkages and interactions with estuarine and
coastal ecosystems; and
Human interactions with estuarine and coastal ecosystems.
Site-specific research and monitoring programs shall be directed at
improving understanding of ecosystem function and responses,
restoration success, anthropogenic impacts on critical estuarine
resources, and human health connections to these resources. Reserve
education and training programs shall ensure that findings from the
research and monitoring programs are incorporated into timely education
and outreach materials and workshops.
Monitoring
The Reserve System shall establish and maintain a System-wide
Monitoring Program to advance knowledge of coastal and estuarine
ecosystem function, detect trends in water and habitat quality, support
ecosystem modeling, science-based ecosystem management, education and
training programs, and to serve as a reference site for long-term
studies. The System-wide Monitoring Program shall be designed to
identify short-term variability and long-term trends in coastal
environmental quality and health at national, regional, and local
levels, and focus research efforts on three critical areas: 1) coastal
and estuarine water quality, 2) coastal and estuarine biodiversity, and
3) coastal and estuarine land use and habitat change. System-wide
monitoring data collected by the Reserve System shall be managed and
accessed via a central repository and made available to state and
federal agencies, universities and coastal communities.
The System-wide Monitoring Program shall be operated as a backbone
element of the nation's coastal ocean observing system, support
development of information products for coastal managers and
stakeholders, and support enrichment of science education and public
awareness of coastal and estuarine issues.
The Reserve System shall establish and maintain training
opportunities for graduate students including the conduct of research
that responds to coastal management priorities identified by the
Reserve System and individual reserves.
Results of research and monitoring programs shall be synthesized on
a periodic basis for the coastal management and research communities.
5. Education and Coastal Training
Education
The Reserve System shall establish educational programs for K-12
educators and students, adult learners, and the general public to
enrich science education, advance ocean literacy and raise awareness of
coastal and estuarine issues. The Reserve System shall support
education opportunities for the next generation of coastal and
estuarine researchers, educators, natural resource managers, and the
public.
Coastal Training Program
The Reserve System shall establish and maintain a Coastal Training
Program to build capacity of coastal communities to address issues of
coastal protection and development, meet the need for science-based
information to inform coastal decision-making at the federal, state,
and local levels, and to improve local understanding of the
environmental, social, and economic consequences of human activity in
the coastal zone. Specifically, the Coastal Training Program shall
advance science-based management of coastal and estuarine ecosystems,
build technical capacity and transfer best management practices to the
coastal management community. This program shall respond to coastal
management needs at national, regional, and local scales.
6. Stewardship
The Reserve System shall provide long-term protection of natural
resources within a national network of protected areas, serving as a
model for sustainable management practices to coastal communities.
Stewardship efforts shall be conducted through an integrated program
involving protection, management, and restoration of estuarine and
coastal ecosystems and their associated uplands.
Stewardship efforts of the Reserve System shall focus on
integrating themes that can be addressed at local, regional and
national scales in response to coastal resource management needs.
Examples of integrating themes include but are not limited to:
Effects of invasive species,
Restoration science, and
Public use of coastal and estuarine habitats and
resources.
7. Technical Assistance
The Reserve System shall provide science and technical assistance
to improve the capacity of coastal communities to protect and conserve
coastal resources through research and monitoring, education and
training, and stewardship programs. Where suitable, these programs
shall be conducted in collaboration with relevant partners to leverage
resources, complement the mutual interest of other protected area
programs, and to avoid duplication of effort. Particular emphasis
should be given to partners that manage marine protected areas, and to
partners that have coastal management responsibilities. Support shall
be provided by the Secretary to foster interagency collaboration on
coastal management programs, activities and services, and to support
seamless networks of marine protected areas.
Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental
Technology
The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental
Technology shall collaborate with the Reserve System to develop and
apply innovative coastal and estuarine technology, and to support the
development, application, training, technical assistance, and transfer
of coastal management technology, information, and practices.
Coastal Service Center
The Coastal Service Center at NOAA shall collaborate with the
Reserve System to develop and apply innovative coastal management
products and services, and to support the development, application,
training, technical assistance, and transfer of coastal management
products, information and services.
Regional Associations of the Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System
The Regional Associations of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observing System shall cooperate with the Reserve System to develop and
apply information products and services in response to the needs of
coastal managers, and to support development, application, training,
technical assistance, and transfer of coastal information.
8. Promotion and Coordination of the Reserve System
The Secretary of Commerce shall take such action as is necessary to
promote and coordinate the use of the Reserve System for research and
monitoring, education and training, and stewardship purposes including:
Requiring that NOAA give priority consideration to
research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship
activities that use the Reserve System to conduct or support activities
that relate to coasts and estuaries,
Consulting with other federal and state agencies to
promote use of one or more reserves within the Reserve System by such
agencies when conducting research and monitoring, education and
training, and stewardship activities, and
Establishing partnerships with other federal and state
agencies to coordinate and collaborate when conducting estuarine
research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship.
9. Construction, Land Acquisition and Improvement, and Technology
Designated reserves shall acquire and improve property, and
construct and renovate facilities to strengthen protection of key land
and water areas, enhance long-term protection of the areas for research
and education, and provide for facility and exhibit construction to
further education and research goals. Designated reserves shall also
acquire, upgrade and operate major equipment in support of system-wide
programs and site-specific programs.
A competitive process shall be established to support construction
and renovation of core facilities and capabilities for the Reserve
System in support of research and monitoring, education and coastal
training, stewardship, and interpretation programs, activities and
services. Similarly, a competitive process shall be established for
land acquisition and improvement to add key land and water areas
essential to conserve, manage and protect ecological integrity of
reserves, including adjacent watersheds and coastal ocean areas. The
Reserve System shall also establish a mechanism to support acquisition,
replacement and upgrading of equipment, and operation of shared major
equipment for research and monitoring, education and coastal training,
and stewardship programs and activities.
The Reserve System shall establish, maintain, and periodically
update priorities for the construction and renovation of facilities,
the acquisition and improvement of key land and water areas, and the
acquisition, upgrading or replacement of equipment vital to research,
environmental monitoring, and education.
10. Regional Coordination
The Reserve System shall lead efforts to leverage the capabilities
of protected area networks to address regional coastal and estuarine
conservation issues. Existing mechanisms shall be used where possible
to:
support a seamless network of marine and coastal
protected areas
map and characterize marine and coastal protected areas
engage citizens in stewardship of marine and coastal
protected areas, and
increase the technical capacity of coastal managers to
conserve, manage, and protect coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
The Secretary shall provide financial assistance for the Reserve
System to contribute science, training and education capabilities to
protected area networks, and to coordinate and convene regional-scale
programs, activities and services of this section.
11. Financial Assistance
The Secretary shall make grants to a reserve for the following
purposes:
to operate and manage a reserve, and to support research
and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship activities
consistent with the guidelines stated in sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 above,
to acquire and improve such lands and waters, and any
property interests therein, as are necessary to ensure the appropriate
long-term management of an area as a reserve, as stated in section 9,
to construct and renovate appropriate reserve facilities
as stated in section 9,
to acquire, upgrade, replace, operate and maintain
equipment or shared major equipment for research and monitoring,
education and coastal training, and stewardship programs and activities
as stated in section 9, and
to contribute reserve science, training and education
capabilities to protected area networks, and to coordinate and convene
regional-scale programs, activities and services of section 10.
The amount of financial assistance to operate and manage a reserve
may not exceed 70 percent of the costs incurred.
The amount of the financial assistance with respect to the
acquisition and improvement of lands and waters, or interests therein,
for any one reserve, may not exceed an amount equal to 50 percent of
the costs of the lands, waters and interests therein.
The amount of financial assistance to construct and renovate
reserve facilities may not exceed an amount equal to 70 percent of the
costs of the construction.
The amount of financial assistance under this section provided from
amounts recovered as a result of damage to natural resources located in
the coastal zone may be used to pay 100 percent of the costs of
activities carried out with such funding.
The Secretary may--
enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with any
nonprofit organization established to benefit a reserve or the reserve
system, authorizing the organization to solicit donations to carry out
projects, other than general administration of the reserve or the
System, that are consistent with the purpose of the reserve and the
System, and
accept donations of funds and services for use in
carrying out projects, other than general administration of a reserve
or the System, that are consistent with the purpose of the reserve and
the System.
Donations accepted under this paragraph shall be considered as a
gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States for carrying out
this section.
12. Evaluation
A periodic review of system-wide programs shall be conducted by
NOAA to evaluate performance and responsiveness to program priorities
of the Reserve System. Performance metrics shall be established for all
system-wide programs. The Secretary shall periodically review and
evaluate the operation and management of each reserve including the
research and monitoring, education and training, and stewardship
activities conducted with the reserve.
13. Authorization of Appropriations
For Fiscal Year 2009
$ 40 million for section 2.
$ 15 million for section 9.
$ 10 million for section 10.
For Fiscal Year 2010
$ 45 million for section 2.
$ 18 million for section 9.
$ 15 million for section 10.
For Fiscal Year 2011
$ 50 million for section 2.
$ 20 million for section 9.
$ 20 million for section 10.
For Fiscal Year 2012
$ 55 million for section 2.
$ 25 million for section 9.
$ 20 million for section 10.
For Fiscal Year 2013
$ 60 million for section 2.
$ 30 million for section 9.
$ 20 million for section 10.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Lynne Hale on
behalf of The Nature Conservancy, follows:]
Statement of Lynne Hale on behalf of The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy (The Conservancy) is an international non-
profit dedicated to protecting ecologically important lands and waters
for nature and people. Our success in protecting over 117 million acres
of land and 5,000 miles of rivers worldwide and operating over 100
marine conservation projects globally has depended on our ability to
use a science-based approach to pursue pragmatic solutions with our
partners in all levels of government and the private sector. We would
like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing to review
recent proposals to reauthorize and amend the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) and are pleased to submit the following written statement
for the record.
Since it was first enacted in 1972, CZMA has played an important
role in creating the context in which The Conservancy has worked with
its partners on coastal and marine issues. CZMA creates a framework in
which coastal states, in partnership with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), strive to sustain the values of the
coast, weigh tradeoffs, and make decisions to manage the multiple uses
that must be accommodated in coastal areas, including conservation of
wetlands and other important coastal and marine habitats, economic
development, and appropriate access to public resources, among others.
Since its enactment over 35 years ago, the essential elements of CZMA--
the voluntary nature of the state-federal partnership; the importance
of the federal consistency provision for approved state programs, and
the central role of public participation--have proven sound and provide
a strong foundation on which to build. This foundation of programs,
policies, and processes enable coastal managers to face today's
challenges as well as those that will surely arise in the future. While
the legislation discussed here today propose important changes to
funding and additional programs and authority, The Conservancy believes
CZMA as a whole needs to be updated and amended to reflect the lessons
learned over the last 30 years, to include specific provisions that
will better enable it to meet future challenges. As such, we offer
suggested principles for consideration in a broader reauthorization
process, followed by more specific comments on the proposed legislation
discussed here today.
Principles for CZMA Reauthorization
Multi-objective Planning for Ecosystem Function and Human Uses
The Conservancy supports a reauthorized CZMA that reaffirms the
vision of management of coastal and ocean areas for ecosystem functions
and human uses through multi-objective planning. The power of the
original CZMA was its acknowledgement of the need for land-use planning
that considers multiple objectives and competing needs. This was
essentially an early expression of the concept that is now discussed as
Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). Despite years of discussion and work,
EBM is still a concept for which we have yet to reach consensus on how
it should be defined. Nor do we have robust examples of how EBM can be
implemented. As such, state and local CZM decision-making often focuses
on individual uses and threats. A renewed commitment to multi-objective
planning for coastal lands and waters is necessary to ensure future
decisions better protect coastal and marine environments while
encouraging appropriate economic activities. Further, incentives should
be provided to assist states and federal agencies to develop and apply
more multi-objective planning tools.
Boundaries at the Appropriate Scale
Another principle embodied in the Ecosystem-Based Management
concept is that planning should be carried out at a scale that is
ecosystem-relevant. State CZM programs are primarily focused on
traditional shoreline uses within the coastal zone, and have devoted
less of their programs' limited resources to the management of the
ocean or lake waters within their jurisdiction, or uses in coastal
watersheds that directly impact the coast. A reauthorized CZMA should
better enable states to incorporate management of the entire coastal
ecosystem, including watersheds and marine and lacustrine waters under
state jurisdiction into their CZM programs. Both the multi-objective
planning and expansion of traditional coastal zone boundaries to
reflect their upland and offshore connections should be encouraged
through strong financial incentives to the states.
Goals and Accountability
The Nature Conservancy also supports enhancement of CZMA to improve
accountability and performance. The goals of the current CZMA are not
clear, hence it has been difficult to assess progress and program
performance. This has led to a perceived lack of program
accountability, as well as ambiguity regarding desired program
outcomes. To increase effectiveness, CZMA needs clear national goals
and a strong set of performance standards to assess both ecosystem
health and program implementation. A set of clearly defined national
goals that can be translated into measurable outcomes at the state and
regional levels should address: conservation of biodiversity in coastal
and marine ecosystems; creation and maintenance of resilient habitats
and communities that can better tolerate the impacts of climate change,
natural hazards, and coastal development; ecologically sustainable
economies; and healthy water and air quality. Performance-based
indicators should also be developed to track progress toward meeting
the national goals.
Managing for Tomorrow's Challenges
One of the greatest challenges coastal managers will face in the
coming years is the impact of climate change on coastal areas--sea
level rise, lake level decline, habitat shifts, changes to hazard risks
from altered storm frequency and intensity, among others. Coastal
communities will need to develop adaptation plans that consider impacts
on development as well as biodiversity and habitat needs. CZMA, as a
framework to make multi-objective planning and management decisions,
weighing both human and ecological concerns, will be an important tool
as we look to adapt to these changes. CZMA should be amended to
encourage states and local governments to make coastal communities and
ecosystems more resilient to the impacts of climate change. New
approaches could include planning processes that consider impacts
related to biodiversity and habitat, and efforts to identify mitigation
measures such as protection, enhancement and restoration of wetland,
estuarine, and riparian areas. Current land acquisition plans could be
updated to include strategies to allow for the landward migration of
vulnerable coastal habitats and identification of opportunities to
protect or restore ecological functions in newly submerged or emergent
lands
In order to develop robust adaptation strategies, additional
science will be required to inform planning efforts. Science needs
include baseline data for current coastal ecosystems as well as
possible scenarios for change and identification of conservation and
wildlife corridors.
Governance--Integration and Regional Approaches
The original vision of CZMA includes integrated management across
multiple levels of government. One of the greatest strengths of the Act
is the federal-state consistency provisions. The requirement that
federal actions affecting a state's coastal zone be consistent with
that state's CZM Program recognizes the states' rights to influence
decisions affecting their coastal resources. The consistency provisions
have helped us move toward the goal of integrated management, and have
provided strong incentives for state participation. These provisions
should be maintained and strengthened in the future.
While the federal-state consistency provisions have proven
invaluable in moving toward more integrated management, we are still
far from fulfilling the original vision of the Act. Much of current
coastal planning and CZMA implementation remains narrowly focused and
fragmented. There is not yet sufficient integration within and among
local, state, regional and federal levels in either planning or
implementation. The lack of adequate integration is in part due to
overlapping jurisdictions and lack of authority within the coastal zone
as well as the absence of provisions within the current CZMA language
to link state and local planning and implementation.
Under CZMA to date, there has also been a paucity of regional
planning and management. More recently, efforts around the country are
demonstrating that states with overlapping interests are willing to
self-organize and develop regional priorities and plans. A reauthorized
CZMA should support such efforts with authority and funding, but
carefully avoid creating unnecessary and ineffective layers of
bureaucracy. Additional management-relevant science will be necessary
to support both regional approaches as well as better integration
across levels of government.
Flexibility and Partnership
Two other powerful concepts from the existing CZMA are flexibility
for states to develop programs that meet their unique set of
circumstances, and the partnership approach between federal and state
entities. Both of these concepts are based on the understanding that,
while national leadership is valuable, decisions about coastal
resources are made at the state and local level. In order for
management to be effective it needs to be designed in a way that
accounts for local circumstances and priorities. With expanded
expectations for the range of issues each state should address, it will
continue to be important for states to have flexibility in designing
approaches that work. However, the role of the federal government as
partner needs strengthening. NOAA can provide resources, technical
assistance, research, and education to help states meet shared national
and state goals. NOAA can also play a leadership role within the
federal government by collaborating with and leveraging resources of
other federal agencies implementing programs and policies in the
coastal zone. A reauthorized CZMA needs to maintain an appropriate
balance between state and federal interests and authority in order to
strengthen this crucial partnership.
Improved Services from NOAA
NOAA has a number of programs that address coastal issues and
provide services, technical support, research, and education to the
coastal management community. A lack of coordination among these
programs, however, has diluted their impact and possible contribution
to advancing coastal management. The agency needs to embrace coastal
management as one of its primary missions and pursue it in a more
strategic and coordinated fashion. The Conservancy supports enhancing
existing NOAA coastal programs and improving coordination to support
implementation of CZM plans for the long-term goal of improved
conservation of the coastal zone. In addition, the Coastal Services
Center should be formally authorized as part of any CZMA
reauthorization.
Increased Funding
The broad and important objectives of CZMA have long outstripped
the resources provided to the program. Most states receive little more
than $2 million of federal support annually to operate their programs.
Coastal managers simply cannot achieve the current objectives of the
Act within current resources, let alone take on new programs and
authorities discussed above. Federal dollars should provide a stable
base of funding, supplemented by funds that are competitively awarded
and tied to performance. Specifically, new funding should be available
to broaden planning efforts to include state marine and lacustrine
waters and activities in coastal watersheds that are directly impacting
coastal waters; develop climate change adaptation plans; develop
multiobjective planning tools and implement demonstration projects;
design and implement performance measurement systems; and establish and
implement regional management priorities.
Specific Comments on H.R. 3223, H.R. 5451, H.R. 5452, and H.R. 5453
H.R. 3223, Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007
H.R. 3223, the Keep Our Waterfronts Working Act of 2007 would
establish a new grant program as part of CZMA to provide funding for
state and local governments to acquire areas or interest in areas to be
managed and used as working waterfronts. The Conservancy recognizes the
important services these areas provide, including public access and
services for commercial and recreational fishing, as well as other
water dependent industries. A vibrant coastal zone can accommodate
these water dependent activities, while maintaining ecological
functions that draw many of these interests to the coasts. The
Conservancy supports the consideration of potential impacts of projects
funded through this program on coastal ecosystems. H.R. 3223 currently
requires this, but additional language could be added to enhance and
more clearly define this requirement. In addition, The Conservancy
suggests ensuring that the non-federal matching requirements are
equivalent to those of the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program (CELCP) so as not to provide incentives that would favor one
type of project over the other.
H.R. 5451, The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008
H.R. 5451, The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008
reauthorizes funding for existing grant programs under the CZMA. While
the specified funding amounts represent much needed increases in
funding, The Conservancy supports a broader reauthorization effort to
improve the program and provide new tools and incentives for better
coastal management. Additional funding beyond what is provided in H.R.
5451 would be needed to implement these program improvements.
H.R. 5452, the Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008
The Conservancy supports the intent of H.R. 5452, the Coastal State
Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2008. Renewable energy will be an
important component of our nation's strategy to meet increasing energy
demands in an environmentally sustainable way. The site-specific nature
of these projects makes them ideal candidates for spatial planning
approaches. H.R. 5452 encourages the identification of sites that are
appropriate places for these projects, as well as those areas that are
unsuitable. The CZMA program, with its focus on multi-objective
planning mechanisms within the coastal zone, and its state-federal
partnership mechanism, is an ideal program to implement this effort.
While the direction to identify areas unsuitable for renewable
energy projects inherently includes consideration of other values and
uses for marine waters, The Conservancy would support legislation that
allows for a broader planning effort to identify suitable and
unsuitable areas for a range of uses. In addition to renewable energy
projects, aquaculture facilities, sensitive habitat areas, and other
site specific marine uses could be included in these surveys.
It will also be important to link these spatial plans for marine
areas to spatial planning on the shore. For example, in choosing where
a renewable energy project might be sited, managers should also
consider the implications for shore side development in that area. In
addition, the impacts of future development to coastal water quality
may need to be evaluated in siting near-shore aquaculture operations.
Finally, we suggest expanding the agencies specifically authorized in
section 2(l) to provide technical assistance to coastal states in
implementing this Act. The Department of the Interior's Mineral
Management Service will be an important partner in these efforts.
H.R. 5453, the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008
As stated above, The Conservancy sees climate change as one of the
most significant issues that coastal managers will face in the near
future. Efforts to plan for adaptation, both for coastal communities
and coastal resources should commence as soon as possible. H.R. 5453,
the Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act of 2008 would provide
funding and assistance for states to start taking on this challenge.
The multi-objective focus of the CZMA and the historical focus on
addressing both human and ecological needs make it the ideal program to
address these issues. However, we are concerned that the elements
listed in new Section 320(c)(2), as currently written, may be too
narrowly focused for consideration of the full range of climate change
impacts to coastal communities. As such, these plans may not take full
advantage of the broad scope covered by the community and land-use
planning tools of the CZMA.
Beyond specific authority for climate change adaptation plans,
additional aspects of CZMA may need to be adjusted to fully address
climate change, including increased and better coordinated science and
technical support from NOAA to assist states in developing these plans,
and authority and funding for regional strategies and approaches.
Finally, we are also concerned the Section 320 (d) that requires the
Secretary to publish program requirements only after a state plan has
been approved may place that state at a disadvantage in meeting those
requirements and successfully participating in the program.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
views on reauthorization and amendment of the Coastal Zone Management
Act. We would be pleased to provide the Subcommittee with additional
information. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Emily Woglom,
Senior Policy Advisor, at (703) 841-5374, if you have any questions.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. Our on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation work
is carried out in all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries and is
supported by approximately one million individual members. We have
helped conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States
and Canada and more than 102 million acres with local partner
organizations globally.
The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves
throughout the United States--the largest private system of nature
sanctuaries in the world. We recognize, however, that our mission
cannot be achieved by core protected areas alone. Therefore, our
projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human uses to
address sustained human wellbeing.
______
[A letter to Congressman James E. Clyburn submitted for the
record by The Honorable Burley L. Lyons, Mayor, Town of Edisto
Beach, South Carolina, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A letter submitted for the record by Bruce J. Stedman,
Executive Director, Marine Fish Conservation Network, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]