diff --git "a/data/CHRG-106/CHRG-106hhrg55183.txt" "b/data/CHRG-106/CHRG-106hhrg55183.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-106/CHRG-106hhrg55183.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,3619 @@
+
+ - OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
+
+[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+
+
+OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
+
+=======================================================================
+
+ OVERSIGHT HEARING
+
+ before the
+
+ SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
+
+ of the
+
+ COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
+ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
+
+ ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
+
+ FIRST SESSION
+
+ FEBRUARY 25, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
+
+ __________
+
+ Serial No. 106-6
+
+ __________
+
+ Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
+
+
+ Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
+ house
+ or
+ Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
+
+
+
+
+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
+55-183 WASHINGTON : 1999
+
+
+
+ COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
+
+ DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
+W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
+JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
+JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
+ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
+JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
+JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
+JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
+WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
+KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
+RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
+BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
+HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
+GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
+WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
+ Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
+WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
+CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
+KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
+JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
+RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
+BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
+JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
+MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
+GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
+DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
+ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
+MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
+THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
+
+ Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
+ Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
+ Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
+ John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
+ ------
+
+ Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
+
+ JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
+W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
+JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah Samoa
+WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
+RICHARD W. POMBO, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
+WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
+ Carolina SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
+MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
+ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
+MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho Rico
+ ADAM SMITH, Washington
+ Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
+ John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
+ Jean Flemma, Democratic Legislative Staff
+
+
+
+ C O N T E N T S
+
+ ----------
+ Page
+
+Hearing held February 25, 1999................................... 1
+
+Statement of Members:
+ Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the
+ District of American Samoa................................. 2
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 3
+ Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
+ the State of Maryland...................................... 7
+ Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of Florida........................................... 4
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 5
+ Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from
+ the State of New Jersey, prepared statement of............. 44
+ Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
+ of New Jersey.............................................. 1
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 2
+ Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of Minnesota......................................... 7
+
+Statement of Witnesses:
+ Cooksey, Sarah W., President, Coastal States Organization.... 35
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 118
+ Fote, Thomas, Jersey Coast Anglers Association............... 22
+ Garcia, Terry D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
+ and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce..................... 9
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 68
+ Hershman, Marc J., Director and Professor, School of Marine
+ Affairs, University of Washington.......................... 33
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 52
+ Lytton, Gary D., President, National Estuarine Research
+ Reserve Association........................................ 38
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 130
+ Park, Howard, Consultant, Personal Watercraft Industry
+ Association................................................ 20
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 46
+ Savitz, Jacqueline, Executive Director, Coast Alliance....... 18
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 84
+ Shinn, Jr., Robert C., Commissioner, Department of
+ Environmental Protection................................... 31
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 110
+ Response to questions from Mr. Faleomavaega.................. 57
+ Letter to Mr. Garcia from Mr. Young.......................... 57
+ Response from Marc Hershman to questions from Mr.
+ Faleomavaega............................................... 58
+
+Additional material supplied:
+ Briefing Paper, Committee on Resources....................... 59
+
+Communications submitted:
+ Issues and Problems Associated with Personal Watercraft in
+ Barnegat Bay, Melissa Chin, Cook College Cooperative
+ Education Program, Rutgers, The State University of New
+ Jersey..................................................... 95
+ National Ocean Industries Association and the American
+ Petroleum Institute, prepared statement of................. 55
+
+
+OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ FEBRUARY 25, 1999
+
+ House of Representatives,
+ Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
+ Wildlife and Oceans,
+ Committee on Resources,
+ Washington, DC.
+ The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:38
+a.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Jim Saxton
+(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
+
+STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
+ THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
+
+ Mr. Saxton. We will now proceed to our second order of
+business. This section of the Subcommittee meeting is a
+hearing. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife
+and Oceans will come to order for this section.
+ Today, we are discussing the Coastal Zone Management Act,
+known as CZMA, enacted by Congress in 1972. CZMA provides
+grants to states that voluntarily develop and implement
+federally-approved Coastal Zone Management Plans.
+ It also allows states with approved plans the right to
+review Federal actions to ensure they are consistent with those
+plans. It authorized the National Estuarine Research Reserve
+System as well, which all of my friends from New Jersey know it
+is extremely important to us.
+ I am a sailor and protection of the fragile coastal
+ecosystem has been a priority of mine since I came to Congress
+in 1984. The Barnegat Bay Watershed includes portions of the
+Edwin B. Forsyth National Wildlife Refuge, which provides
+nesting habitat for migratory birds along the Atlantic flyway.
+ Threats to these creatures necessarily should be addressed
+within the context of CZMA. One such threat is the use or
+misuse of personal watercraft, also known as jet skis or PWCs,
+particularly when they are used in shallow water.
+ This environmental impact of PWCs is often cited as the
+following:
+
+ (1) Wildlife Disturbance: PWCs shallow draft and high
+maneuverability are not present in larger boats, and allow PWCs
+to enter sensitive areas not assessable by larger motorized
+boats.
+ Once there, they disturb nesting birds and wildlife. Some
+studies indicate that when startled by PWCs, nesting birds have
+trampled their eggs. Seals have abandoned their pups and other
+marine mammals have avoided certain areas.
+ (2) Destruction of Aquatic Vegetation: Again, because PWCs
+are able to enter shallow water, they have the ability to
+uproot aquatic plants and disturb kelp beds.
+ (3) Increased Erosion: PWC users typically spend longer
+periods of time in an area than traditional boats and can
+generate significant wave action. Increased and continuous wave
+action contributes to the shoreline erosion.
+ The Subcommittee is preparing legislation to encourage
+states to address the impacts of personal watercraft on the
+marine environment through the State Coastal Zone Management
+Plans.
+ At this point, I would ask Mr. Faleomavaega if he has any
+comments he would like to make.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
+ Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of New Jersey
+ Enacted by Congress in 1972, CZMA provides grants to states that
+voluntarily develop and implement federally-approvcd coastal zone
+management plans. It also allows states with approved plans the right
+to review Federal actions to ensure they are consistent with those
+plans, and it authorizes the National Estuarine Research Reserve
+System.
+ I am a sailor, and protection of the fragile coastal ecosystem has
+been a priority of mine. The Barnegat Bay watershed includes portions
+of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, which provides
+nesting habitat for migratory birds along the Atlantic Flyway. Threats
+to these creatures necessarily should be addressed within the context
+of CZMA. One such threat is the use of personal watercraft, also known
+as jet-skis or PWCs, in shallow water.
+ The environmental impacts of PWCs are often cited as the following:
+
+ (1) Wildlife Disturbance: PWCs shallow draft and high
+ maneuverability are not present in larger boats, and allow PWCs
+ to enter sensitive areas not accessible to larger motorized
+ boats. Once there, they disturb nesting birds and wildlife.
+ Some studies indicate that when startled by PWCs, nesting birds
+ have trampled their eggs, seals have abandoned their pups, and
+ other marine mammals have avoided certain areas.
+ (2)Destruction of Aquatic Vegetation: Again, because PWCs are
+ able to enter shallow water, they have the ability to uproot
+ aquatic plants and disturb kelp beds.
+ (3) Increased Erosion: PWC users typically spend longer periods
+ of time in an area than traditional boats and can generate
+ significant wave action. Increased and continuous wave action
+ contributes to shoreline erosion.
+ The Subcommittee is preparing legislation to encourage states to
+address the impacts of personal watercraft on the marine environment
+through state coastal zone management plans.
+
+STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
+ THE STATE OF HAWAII
+
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I do want to commend you and thank you for calling this
+hearing concerning this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, the
+Coastal Zone Management Act, which was enacted in 1972, this
+legislation has resulted in the State-Federal partnerships that
+promote smart development and conservation for our Nation's
+coastal areas.
+ Proactive planning and on the ground projects remain
+critical as stresses on the coast continue to increase. Our
+coastlines are the most developed areas in the Nation. These
+areas cover only 17 percent of the land, but contain more than
+53 percent of our Nation's population.
+ Fourteen of our 20 largest cities are along the coast.
+Since they also support a significant portion of our Nation's
+economy, including recreational fishing, shipping, oil and gas
+industries, we cannot afford to ignore threats to the health of
+our coasts.
+ Only by addressing problems such as pollution, decline in
+water quality, erosion, sea level rise, and loss of habitat for
+marine life can we derive maximum benefits from these areas.
+ Popularity of the Coastal Zone Management Act is evidenced
+by the fact that 33 of 34 eligible States have developed
+Coastal Zone Management Plans. The strengths of the Act include
+flexibility that allow states to address their unique needs and
+concerns, combine focus and plan development, and conservation,
+and public access, and consistency provisions giving states a
+voice and reviewing Federal activities that conflict with state
+plans.
+ One criticism of the Act has been that monitoring and
+enforcement are too weak. Provisions in the bill that will be
+introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, requiring that the Secretary
+of Commerce recommend measurable outcome indicators or other
+mechanisms by which the states could evaluate the effectiveness
+of their programs may address this concern.
+ I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning
+and commenting on the fact that you are a sea captain, Mr.
+Chairman. I would like to invite you to join me on a journey or
+a voyage on a double-haul Polynesian voyaging canoe to sail
+from Tahiti to Hawaii. That will really give you some coastal
+zone management appreciation.
+ Mr. Saxton. I think I look forward to that.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
+
+ Statement of Hon. Eni Faleomavaega, a Delegate in Congress from the
+ Territory of American Samoa
+
+ Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding a
+hearing on the Coastal Zone Management Act. Enacted in 1972,
+this legislation has resulted in state-Federal partnerships
+that promote smart development and conservation in our nation's
+coastal areas.
+ Pro-active planning and on-the-ground projects remain
+critical as stresses on the coast continue to increase. Our
+coastlines are the most developed areas in the nation. These
+areas cover only 17 percent of the land but contain more than
+53 percent of the population. Fourteen of our 20 largest cities
+are along the coast. Since they also support a significant
+portion of our nation's economy--including recreational,
+fishing, shipping, and oil and gas industries--we cannot afford
+to ignore threats to the health of our coasts. Only by
+addressing problems such as pollution, declining water quality,
+erosion, sea level rise, and loss of habitat for marine life,
+can we derive maximum benefits from these areas.
+ The popularity of the Coastal Zone Management Act is
+evidenced by the fact that 33 of 34 eligible states have
+developed Coastal Zone Management Plans. The strengths of the
+Act include:
+
+ flexibility that allows states to address their unique
+ needs and concerns;
+ combined focus on planned development, conservation,
+ and public access; and
+ consistency provisions giving states a voice in
+ reviewing Federal activities that conflict with state plans.
+ One criticism of the Act has been that monitoring and enforcement
+are weak. Provisions in the bill that will be introduced by Mr. Saxton,
+requiring that the Secretary of Commerce recommend measurable outcome
+indicators or other mechanisms by which the states could evaluate the
+effectiveness of their programs, may address this concern.
+ I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about this and other
+ways to improve this important legislation.
+
+ Mr. Saxton. I would now like to introduce our first
+witness, our colleague from--actually, I did not realize until
+I saw you sitting there, but the gentleman lives on Sanibel
+Island in Florida and in the summer on Fisher's Island off the
+coast of Rhode Island. Is that correct?
+ Mr. Goss. Correct.
+ Mr. Saxton. In any event, welcome and we look forward to
+hearing your testimony. You may proceed.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the Chairman yield?
+ Mr. Saxton. Yes.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to offer my personal
+welcome to the gentleman from Florida, who I certainly have had
+the privilege of knowing personally for the past 10 years.
+ I commend him for the tremendous contributions that he has
+made not only to this Institution, but to our Country. I
+welcome him.
+ Mr. Goss. Thank you very much.
+ Mr. Saxton. I ask unanimous consent that all Subcommittee
+members be permitted to include their opening statement in the
+record at this point. Mr. Goss.
+
+STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
+ FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
+
+ Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ranking Member, I
+appreciate those very kind words of welcome. I have many happy
+memories of working in this room with you all back when this
+Subcommittee had a different name.
+ It is interesting to me and pleasant to be back; especially
+talking about coastal zone management. I do have a statement
+officially prepared for the record, which I would ask be
+accepted in the record.
+ I would like to just emphasize a couple of major points, if
+I could. Thank you very much. I also started for the office
+this morning at an early hour, but I got here by 8 a.m., which
+is a good thing, because I only live 4 minutes away.
+ I would suggest that there are advantages to living on the
+Hill, Mr. Gilchrest, but nothing that would qualify with living
+where you do in Maryland on the coast. I miss the coast very
+much. I care very much about it and we in Florida do.
+ We think that the coastal zone management legislation has
+been extremely helpful. I think the proof is clearly in the
+pudding; 34 out of 35 eligible States participate. I understand
+something like 99 percent of our Gulf Lakes and ocean shore
+lines have a degree of protection from this law.
+ We have many good managers of our coastal activities all
+over the Country. One of them from Florida who I am very proud
+of, and I understand is here today, Gary Lytton, from Rookery
+Bay in my District, who has been recognized for the works he
+has done. We have many such people. We are proud of all of
+them.
+ The real purpose for me testifying today is to talk about a
+consistency proposal which I hope you would consider, the
+Subcommittee would consider, is legislation which would
+strengthen the CZMA.
+ It is simply this. In order for the states to do a better
+job of coming up with their conclusions on proposals,
+particularly outer continental shelf oil and gas proposals, it
+would be useful if they had the advantage of the results of the
+environmental impact studies that are required for those types
+of activities.
+ As it works now, if a state has a consistency review to
+deal with an OCS proposal, the process starts simultaneously.
+The Federal Government has 2 years to do its work and the state
+only 6 months.
+ Obviously, in all likelihood the state is therefore not
+going to have a final EIS to work from. What we are proposing
+is that the starting for the state's 6 month clock to begin
+tolling is at that time when the Federal EIS is completed.
+ That would give the state managers, the state authorities,
+and elected officials the opportunity to review the matter and
+have the advantage of the results of the EIS. I think this
+would strengthen this part of the Act.
+ It would make a great deal of difference in the State of
+Florida. We have cases actually active now that show us this
+would be a very good improvement. So, I ask the Subcommittee to
+consider this favorably and of course we will stand by to
+present all of the details on that.
+ On the subject of the personal watercraft, I join the
+Chairman in his crusade. We have had, regrettably, a number of
+deaths in Florida, which of course has a very high recreational
+boating use and a lot of boating activity in the littoral
+zones.
+ This is a subject that has been attempted to be regulated
+in different ways by different communities in different states
+with varying degrees of success. I do think it has certainly
+risen to the level of coming to the attention under the Federal
+Coastal Zone Management Act.
+ I wish you well in your efforts to find a better way to
+deal with this problem. Truthfully, it is not just an
+environmental concern, although I agree with everything the
+Chairman said and associate myself very much with his remarks
+on that because we have seen the kinds of damage he speaks of
+in what I will call estuarine areas in Florida.
+ Also, there is a public safety piece of this, which I am
+aware of, having been a mayor of a community where we have run
+into these problems. I also want to very much emphasize, again,
+the wholehearted support of the people of Florida for what the
+Coastal Zone Management Act has done and has provided.
+ Truthfully, our wealth in Florida is our beaches. It drives
+the economy. Shore line protection is a very important point
+for us. So, to have this kind of hearing going on, the
+reauthorization of this bill, the strengthening and improving
+of it, is very good news for the people of Florida.
+ I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member very
+much for undertaking this.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Goss follows:]
+
+ Statement of Hon. Porter Goss, a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of Florida
+
+ Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here this morning to
+discuss the Coastal Zone Management Act. As my colleagues know,
+I have been a longtime vocal supporter of the Coastal Zone
+Management Act--it is a rare example of a Federal environmental
+program that is both voluntary and effective.
+ CZMA is a cooperative effort that recognizes states as full
+partners--sharing the costs and responsibilities for setting
+standards geared toward protecting local coastal environments.
+It provides the flexibility for Michigan to do what's best for
+the Great Lakes, for instance, while allowing Florida to
+establish a program that works for the Gulf and Atlantic
+Coasts. The success of CZMA can be measured by the fact that
+since its creation in 1972, 34 of 35 states eligible for the
+program have become involved. Together, these programs protect
+more than 99 percent of the nation's 95,000 miles of oceanic
+and Great Lakes coastline.
+ Florida has been an active participant and beneficiary of
+this program. Indeed, I am pleased that one of our coastal
+managers is here this morning to share his thoughts with the
+Committee. Gary Lytton manages the Rookery Bay Research Reserve
+in Naples, Florida. The reserve has proven itself a tremendous
+asset and its work has value far beyond Southwest Florida.
+ Mr. Chairman, this morning I would like to discuss the
+consistency provisions of CZMA, which are of critical
+importance to my home state of Florida, particularly with
+regard to the issue of oil and gas exploration. CZMA provides
+states the opportunity to review Federal actions and permits
+for activities off state coasts, and in the case of OCS
+drilling permits, gives the state the authority to make the
+determination whether or not these activities are consistent
+with the state's Coastal Zone Management Plan. Florida has
+spent a great deal of time and effort developing a plan that
+protects both our unique environment and the state's largest
+industry--tourism. CZMA has proven itself to be one of the
+state's most effective tools in dealing with this issue.
+ Having said that, I believe we can make some improvements
+in the consistency provisions. Currently, a state's consistency
+review of development and production plans under CZMA must be
+completed within a set timeline and states are not permitted to
+delay beyond those deadlines. That timeline runs out in six
+months, well before the Environmental Impact Statements
+required for oil and gas development under the OCS Lands Act
+are completed, a process that tends to take approximately two
+years. In other words, the state is forced to determine whether
+development of a proposed site is consistent with the State's
+Coastal Zone Management Plan before having an opportunity to
+review the environmental impact statements that are developed
+to analyze primary, secondary and cumulative effects of the
+proposed site. It seems to me that the detailed information
+contained in the environmental impact statements is precisely
+the kind of information a state must have in order to make an
+accurate and responsible determination of consistency.
+ The State of Florida is currently experiencing this problem
+firsthand, given the proposed development of a natural gas site
+off the coast of Pensacola, Florida. As a result of the state's
+experiences, first Governor Lawton Chiles and now Governor Jeb
+Bush have supported revisions to CZMA that would allow the
+states to review the EIS information prior to making a
+consistency determination.
+ After extensive consultations, I have introduced
+legislation that will make this common-sense change. H.R. 720
+is a very straightforward piece of legislation--indeed, it is
+barely a page and a half long. In simple terms, the bill will
+prevent the timeline on a consistency determination from
+beginning until after the state has received the EIS
+information regarding the proposed site. Once the state has
+received this information, it will be under the time
+constraints already outlined in CZMA.
+ I believe this legislation will ensure that states making
+consistency determinations for proposed oil and gas activity
+will have all necessary information to make an informed
+decision about whether the proposed activity is consistent with
+the state's Coastal Zone Management plan. This change is
+consistent with the intent of CZMA and I am hopeful the
+Committee will look favorably on it.
+ Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity
+to discuss the Coastal Zone Management Act, a wonderfully
+successful piece of legislation, and offer my thoughts on ways
+to strengthen it. Thank you.
+
+ Mr. Saxton. Mr. Goss, thank you very much for your very
+fine articulate testimony. We appreciate your being with us
+this morning. Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have any questions for
+Mr. Goss?
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to thank the gentleman from
+Florida, too, for his comments. More specifically, if we do
+have some problems with the current law, as you stated earlier,
+that the states are not given sufficient time to review EIS's
+which have been put forth.
+ I think that is something that definitely we need to
+examine a little closer. I thank the gentleman for his
+observation.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Mr. Gilchrest.
+
+ STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
+ CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
+
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, Porter. Maybe you and I can
+exchange visits sometime. I can commute in with you and you can
+commute in with me.
+ Mr. Goss. I would love to live where you live, Mr.
+Gilchrest, but I do not want your commute.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. We are still waiting for you to come out
+there and ride that old horse.
+ Mr. Goss. I will.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
+ Mr. Saxton. He actually lives on Turner's Creek, which is
+off the Sassafras River in a very lovely anchorage, I might
+add.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. I have heard.
+ Mr. Goss. Jim is coming over with his sailboat sometime
+late spring. All of our colleagues who are now here this
+morning could jump on the sailboat in Havre D'Grace and come
+down to Turner's Creek and spend a day down there.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. It sounds like a good place to examine this
+whole issue. We try to protect those areas. You know, very
+quickly though, Porter, we appreciate your testimony.
+ This may be already happening, but an exchange of
+information between different states that are now beginning the
+process of implementing their management regimes or have
+already implemented their coastal zone management regimes,
+maybe it would be good for us to get together and exchange
+information with states that are in the process or who have
+completed that to see what the successes are and what the
+difficulties are in doing that.
+ Mr. Goss. I would certainly endorse that. I can tell you
+that the State of Florida borrowed a great deal of its Coastal
+Zone Management Planning Process in the 1970s and the 1980s
+from the State of Oregon.
+ We had a very fine manager. He happened to be able to be
+hired away from Oregon after he had done their plan. He came to
+Florida. We listened very closely to what he said and did a lot
+of the work in Florida, which has subsequently paid off very
+well.
+ A part of the beauty of this Act is it provides for that
+kind of exchange, if somebody will take the initiative. It also
+provides the flexibility to deal with the differences between
+the Great Lakes, New Jersey, Florida, Maryland, and wherever
+else. I think that is an excellent suggestion.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Vento.
+
+STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
+ FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
+
+ Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Last night, I read the staff material on this. I am sorry,
+Porter, that I was not able to be here to hear your statement.
+ I understand that what you are proposing is that, in the
+statute you formally require the EIS to be transmitted to the
+state prior to the consideration of its plan through the
+process of developing it.
+ Mr. Goss. That is correct.
+ Mr. Vento. The issue here is that they are not getting, in
+other words, NOAA is required to share all of the information.
+They are not sharing the EIS. They are developing that
+simultaneously. Is that the concern?
+ Mr. Goss. The problem is that they have 2 years to do the
+EIS and the states only have 6 months to do the consistency
+review. So, obviously unless the Federal Government happens to
+get the whole EIS done in 6 months, the states do not have the
+advantage of it.
+ Mr. Vento. The problem, of course, is this would obviously
+cause a delay in terms of the plan coming forth from the state.
+ Mr. Goss. It could or it could not. It would depend on how
+much of the time the Federal Government took. If the Federal
+Government routinely takes the 2 years, then yes, it could add
+as much as 6 months onto the end of it. My feeling is once the
+state has the material, the EIS, the state is not going to need
+the full 6 months. So, I am not sure that that is true.
+ Mr. Vento. You raise an important point about
+coordination. I do not know enough about it. I think that if it
+were to mean that the plan would be substantially late. I know
+there has been a flash point about some of these plans because
+they obviously mandate a sort of conduct in terms of the
+development, utilization, and protection of these resources.
+ I think it makes sense to try and coordinate this so that
+the information does not have to be developed independently. In
+many instances, as you know of course, we delegate the states
+to do the EIS or do much of this planning.
+ So, there may be that there is some agreement, a memorandum
+of understanding, that could be developed. I do not know
+enough, as I said, about this law. This is kind of a new topic
+to me.
+ I would be interested in learning more about that. There is
+no real reason that they should not have as much information as
+available. The EIS certainly is the process for developing
+that.
+ Mr. Goss. The purpose, Mr. Vento, is obviously to get a
+good result and not to cause delay. I would point out that the
+Minerals Management Service has now issued proposed
+regulations, or at least draft regulations, that would
+basically allow a state to review the draft EIS before making
+its consistency determination which is what I am asking.
+ So, the question is then this need has already been
+recognized and I am told that this happened in just this last
+week and it may have something to do with the fact that this
+proposal is here.
+ We believe the proposal is sound. I do not think it will
+cause undue delay. I think it will get better results.
+Certainly from the Florida perspective it will. The Minerals
+Management Service has drafted some regulations to give this
+thing a try.
+ I still think we ought to put it into law to make sure that
+the states have the opportunity to have the EIS and have their
+time start tolling once the EIS is completed. As I say, I do
+not think it is going to add a significant percentage of time
+to the process.
+ Mr. Vento. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Porter, thank you for being with us this
+morning.
+ Mr. Goss. Thank you, sir.
+ Mr. Saxton. We will excuse you at this point.
+ We will now move to hear from the Assistant Secretary of
+Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere at the Department of
+Commerce, Mr. Terry Garcia. We are glad you were able to be
+here this morning.
+
+ STATEMENT OF TERRY D. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
+ FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
+
+ Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ It is always a pleasure. Let me start by apologizing to the
+Subcommittee for the fact that my written statement was late.
+One of the frustrations that I continue to have is with the
+clearance process.
+ I will commit to you and to the other members that we will
+do our best to make sure that this does not happen in the
+future. Re-invention has its limits I am afraid. We will
+continue to work to make the system more efficient.
+ I would ask that the written statement be placed in the
+record. I have a few oral comments that I would like to make to
+focus on several issues of primary importance that we would
+like to draw to the attention of the Subcommittee.
+ First of all, I want to again thank you for the opportunity
+to appear before you to present testimony regarding the Coastal
+Zone Management Act and to express the Administration's
+steadfast and continuing support for programs authorized under
+the Act; the National Coastal Zone Management Program and the
+National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
+ The CZMA is one of the Nation's landmark natural resource
+management laws and stands today as our most successful
+voluntary tool, allowing comprehensive and cooperative
+management of our Country's coastline.
+ I commend you, Mr. Chairman, and this Subcommittee for
+holding this hearing. I urge the Subcommittee to move
+expeditiously in approving legislation to reauthorize the CZMA.
+ The importance of our Nation's coastal regions to the
+economy of the United States and its value to the environmental
+health of the Country should be a reminder to all of us as to
+the importance of CZMA.
+ The 425 coastal counties generate $1.3 trillion of the GNP
+and coastal industries account for over 1/3 of the national
+employment or 28.3 million jobs. In 1995, just under a billion
+tons of cargo worth $620 billion moved through coastal ports
+and harbors.
+ Moreover, coastal estuaries are among the most biologically
+productive regions in the Nation, as well as providing
+recreational opportunities for more than 180 million Americans
+each year.
+ Quite frankly, however, Mr. Chairman, our Country's coastal
+resources continue to be under siege. The need for the CZMA and
+its programs is greater now than ever.
+ The Administration's support for the CZMA was recently
+reinforced when the President announced his Lands Legacy
+Initiative. Under this initiative, which is a part of the
+President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, NOAA would receive
+an additional $105 million over current funding levels.
+ A significant portion of these funds is targeted for
+coastal zone management and the National Estuarine Research
+Reserve Programs to protect America's valuable ocean and
+coastal resources, and to strengthen our partnerships with
+state and local communities.
+ These funds will address the following three critical
+coastal concerns. It is these concerns that I would like to
+focus on today.
+ First, smart growth. Coastal communities, the most densely
+populated and fastest growing areas of the Nation are
+experiencing increased pressure as 3,600 people each day move
+to the coast.
+ Forty percent of new commercial development and 46 percent
+of new residential development is occurring in coastal
+communities. This population growth and resulting new
+development encroaches upon and diminishes natural and
+agricultural areas at the urban fringe and fuels sprawl.
+ Sprawl has impacted coastal communities by degrading water
+quality and marine resources, fragmenting coastal habitat, and
+reducing the quality of life for coastal residents. Many
+coastal communities do not have the capacity to confront
+successfully this coastal growth and its impacts on marine and
+coastal resources. Twenty-eight million dollars of the new
+funding that is proposed through the Lands Legacy Initiative
+for the Coastal Zone Management Program is to develop smart
+growth strategies and land use planning innovations, revitalize
+waterfronts, and improve public access to the coast.
+ With this proposed funding, coastal communities will be
+offered a comprehensive package of financial and technical
+assistance for planning through implementation. In addition, to
+ensure protection of our pristine estuary resources from the
+ever-growing pressures of urban sprawl, the Lands Legacy
+Initiative includes an increase of $14.7 million for the NERRS
+to purchase buffers, boundaries, and easements from willing
+sellers.
+ The second issue is protection of coastal habitat. Coastal
+habitats including mangroves, wetlands, estuaries, sea grass
+beds, and coral reefs provide critical spawning and nursery
+areas for living marine resources.
+ Wetlands serve as filters for land-based contaminants, and
+together with coral reefs, buffer against storm surges and help
+prevent coastal erosion.
+ In the Southeast, over 90 percent of the commercial catch
+and 50 percent of the recreational catch are fish and shell
+fish dependent upon wetlands. Human activities have changed,
+degraded or destroyed coastal habitats threatening many species
+of economic and recreational importance. Of significant
+importance is the protection of coral reefs where approximately
+50 percent of all federally managed marine fisheries spend a
+part of their life cycle.
+ However, coral reefs are being seriously degraded by
+pollution and sedimentation, development and over-use, and
+increased ocean temperatures and salinity. It is estimated that
+10 percent of the earth's coral reefs have already been
+seriously degraded and a much greater percentage are
+threatened.
+ Without aggressive conservation and protection measures,
+this decline is likely to escalate and may not be reversed. I
+would also note that next week, the Coral Reef Task Force is
+meeting in Hawaii to take up this very critical issue.
+ Under the Lands Legacy Initiative, more emphasis and action
+is given to estuaries and habitat protection, including funding
+for research monitoring, assessment, and effective resource
+community-based management measures to restore, protect, and
+conserve coastal habitat.
+ Seed money would be provided to catalyze cooperative
+restoration projects and to leverage additional funding to
+produce significant on the ground restoration.
+ The final point is controlling polluted run-off.
+Development pressures on the coasts can lead to problems
+associated with excess polluted run-off. These problems include
+cumulative sources, such as run-off from urban streets and
+parking areas, agriculture, forest harvesting activities,
+marinas, and recreational boating, and impacts from the
+construction and maintenance of dams, channels, and other
+alterations of natural systems.
+ Polluted run-off is a prime suspect in contributing to
+shell fish harvesting restrictions and conditions. This
+Subcommittee is well aware of harmful algal blooms and
+Pfiesteria.
+ Polluted coastal waters can result in closure of beaches to
+swimming. In 1995, for example, U.S. ocean, bay, and Great
+Lakes beaches were closed or advisories were issued against
+swimming on more than 3,500 occasions.
+ Under the President's Clean Water Action Plan, $12 million
+in funding, an increase of $4 million over fiscal year 2000, is
+requested under the Coastal Zone Management Act to fully
+develop and implement on the ground, state-polluted run-off
+control measures, and leverage other state and local resources
+working to control the flow of polluted run off into coastal
+waters and its impact on coastal habitats and human health.
+ Mr. Chairman, there is no better testament to the success
+of the Federal, State, and local partnership forged by the
+CZMA, than the fact that 32 of 35 eligible coastal States,
+Commonwealths, and Territories have received Federal approval
+of their Coastal Zone Management Plans and that two more
+states, Minnesota and Indiana, are seeking to join the national
+program in the months ahead.
+ Strong partnership developed with the States through the
+CZMA is also seen in the growth and importance of the National
+Estuarine Research Reserve System. There are now 23 federally-
+designated reserves. Most recently, New Jersey and Alaska have
+joined the system with new reserves.
+ In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as it was written within the
+CZMA more than 25 years ago, it is and should continue to be
+the national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where
+possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the Nation's
+coastal zones for this and succeeding generations.
+ I urge your active support for the reauthorization of CZMA.
+On behalf of the Administration, thank you again for this
+opportunity. I look forward to your questions and comments and
+to working with the Subcommittee as we move forward to develop
+a reauthorization.
+ Thank you.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia may be found at the
+end of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for a very
+good testimony. Let me just ask, with regard to CZMA, do you
+see any weaknesses that we ought to be addressing that we have
+not addressed in our reauthorization?
+ Mr. Garcia. Let me first, again, say that we strongly
+believe that CZMA has been a very successful program. We have,
+however, over the years learned a number of things.
+ There are several areas where we could improve CZMA with
+regard to habitat protection, controlling polluted run-off,
+ensuring that the National Estuarine Research Reserve System,
+is more strongly linked to the management programs of the
+states.
+ The Administration is preparing legislation for
+reauthorizing CZMA. We would like to work with the Subcommittee
+and its members in developing that proposal so that we can,
+together, strengthen this vitally important Act.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
+ Would you care to comment on the personal watercraft issue?
+ Mr. Garcia. I will comment on it, Mr. Chairman.
+ It is obviously a difficult issue. It has generated a lot
+of interest and controversy around the country. This is an
+issue that ultimately is going to have to be dealt with by the
+states.
+ We would be happy to work with you and work through this
+issue. I do not have any other points that I would make at this
+time. But I will concede to you that it is an issue of great
+importance.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I do want to thank Secretary Garcia for a very
+comprehensive statement. This President's Land Legacy
+Initiative, Mr. Secretary, there is a very broad brush that he
+has painted on this thing.
+ Have I gathered that only $105 million goes to NOAA out of
+this billion dollar proposed package? Are there some other
+grant programs that are added to it or am I misreading your
+statement here?
+ Mr. Garcia. You are correct that out of the billion
+dollars that are proposed for the Lands Legacy that $105
+million would go to NOAA. There are, of course, other programs.
+These monies would augment and complement existing NOAA and
+Administration efforts to deal with some of the critical
+coastal issues.
+ We think it is a substantial investment in these resources.
+As I had said in my testimony, the importance of these
+resources to the economy and to human health can simply not be
+over-stated. The Lands Legacy is designed to deploy resources
+in communities for on the ground projects. I would just urge
+the Subcommittee and the members to very seriously review our
+request.
+ I would urge your support for it. It is designed to do what
+we all know needs to be done, and that is to get resources to
+states and communities to work with us so that we can develop
+the partnerships that are going to be needed to address such
+problems as coral reef degradation, habitat degradation,
+polluted run-off, the problems of Pfiesteria that this
+Subcommittee dealt with several times last year, and harmful
+algal blooms.
+ So, I would commend it to you. We would be happy to come
+back to the Subcommittee to present a detailed analysis for you
+of the request and of the specific programs that would be
+funded by that particular request.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Is the Administration planning to offer
+any proposals in structural changes in the current Coastal Zone
+Management Act or are you just going to wait until the Congress
+comes up with its own proposed changes?
+ Mr. Garcia. No, sir. We are preparing a proposed
+reauthorization bill.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you also handle the weather
+observation stations that we have nationally.
+ Mr. Garcia. We do.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Correct me if I am wrong. Is the
+Administration proposing any cutbacks on the capabilities in
+providing weather station resources?
+ Mr. Garcia. No, Congressman. We have been engaged over the
+last several years in a process of modernizing the Weather
+Service which has involved the closure of some offices.
+ That is a consolidation of offices. It is a recognition
+that we have deployed new technologies that will allow us to
+better predict and forecast weather events.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. The gentleman from Maryland.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I am not sure what the status of the legislation is that
+this Subcommittee is developing on the recommendations to
+develop a structure to collect hard data on the success of the
+CZMA Program.
+ Is there a draft bill that we are going to hold hearings
+on, Mr. Chairman?
+ Mr. Saxton. The bill is currently being drafted. We will
+be holding hearings, yes.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any specific recommendations
+today, Mr. Garcia, to give to us as to how we would want to
+develop a structure so that sufficient data, hard data, could
+be collected and then be evaluated on the program? You may have
+said it. I apologize for being on the phone.
+ Mr. Garcia. I do address it in the written statement. We
+have taken several steps over the last year or so to improve
+the collection of data so that we can evaluate the
+effectiveness of the CZMA Program and the various programs
+within the states to ensure that the purpose of the Act is
+being fulfilled.
+ I think that we have made substantial progress. We have
+instituted within the agency an evaluation of the programs. We
+have prepared an effectiveness report. Our biennial report on
+the Coastal Zone Management Program I believe is due to be
+delivered within days, perhaps today, to the Subcommittee which
+contains information on the effectiveness of the program.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Do you feel that legislation is needed in
+order to collect sufficient data?
+ Mr. Garcia. No.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, you do not?
+ Mr. Garcia. We feel the legislation is needed to make some
+improvements in the Act. I want to be careful not to say that
+we feel there are any glaring deficiencies in the Act.
+ Rather, there are some areas that could be enhanced and
+improved. When we have finished--the Administration's
+legislation is now in the clearance process. We are receiving
+comments from other agencies.
+ As soon as OMB has completed its process, we would like to
+sit down with the staff of the Subcommittee and the staff of
+the individual members to talk about these issues to see if we
+cannot jointly come up with recommendations on how to improve
+the Act. Effectiveness may be one of those. There may be some
+other things that we have not thought of.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Are one of the things that you would
+recommend in improving the Act that you want to work with us on
+is collecting hard data about protecting more acreage and
+improving the quality of small estuaries, or bay grasses, and a
+whole range of things?
+ Mr. Garcia. Yes.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Apparently, there is not much more than
+anecdotal information.
+ Mr. Garcia. I would not say that. I would agree with you
+that collecting data is something that we obviously as a
+science agency have a deep and abiding interest in.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Who do you collect it from; just from the
+states? So, you collect that data from the state authorities?
+ Mr. Garcia. Correct; from the NERRS system, from our own
+offices, and combine that information to evaluate the
+effectiveness of these programs.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any other area of the Act that you
+would recommend needs improvement through legislation?
+ Mr. Garcia. There are several. Again, these are not
+glaring deficiencies, but rather fine tuning of the Act.
+Ensuring that the NERRS Program, for example, links to the
+management programs are strengthened.
+ The NERRS Program provides us with valuable information on
+some very pristine resources around the country. We need that
+information and we need to link it to these management programs
+that are now in place.
+ We also need to make sure that the authorities under the
+Act for controlling run-off pollution are retained and, if
+necessary, strengthened on habitat concerns.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. When some of this $100 million filters down
+into this particular Act, there may be a way to do that now. Is
+there a way or could there or should there be a way in this Act
+similar to, let us say, the other part of the Lands Legacy
+Program that potential, as far as the purchase of easements or
+the purchase of land--is it now included in the Act?
+ Mr. Garcia. Yes, it is. For the NERRS Program, there is
+$14.7 million that we are proposing to add to the program for
+the purpose of allowing states to purchase easements, buffers
+from willing sellers.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. How much is in the program now?
+ Mr. Garcia. It is $4.3 million.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Four million dollars. Is that just for
+Maryland?
+ Mr. Garcia. Among others.
+ Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Vento.
+ Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ There are a couple of questions here. I have one that is
+sort of technical. I understand that Dr. Hershman is presenting
+a report today on the effectiveness. NOAA commissioned a
+conference on the effectiveness program.
+ Do you have any comments on the outcome data? I mean, there
+is a suggestion that is based primarily on assessments of
+policies, process, and tools rather than actual outcome data. I
+do not want you to go into a dissertation on this, but do you
+have any comment on that particular observation?
+ Mr. Garcia. I do not know that, that is quite accurate. I
+will let the next witness speak to that. Our conclusion from
+the report is that this program is generally very effective in
+accomplishing the goals of the CZMA.
+ Again, while there are some changes that should be made in
+the program, overall it has done its job. It has established or
+helped to establish and strengthen the necessary partnerships
+that we need to make with states and communities to deal with
+these coastal resources. So, we are generally quite pleased
+with the direction of the program and the results that this
+program has produced.
+ Mr. Vento. Mr. Secretary, there are a number of different
+requirements or laws obviously with regard to the Coastal Zone
+Management Act and one is voluntary participation.
+ In enhancing that plan, of course, we started out with, and
+you know pretty soon Minnesota is going to be involved with
+this.
+ Mr. Garcia. Right.
+ Mr. Vento. I am from Minnesota, as you know. That will
+affect our Great Lake Superior. In any case, by additional
+requirements to it, for instance, there is a suggestion that
+the plan ought to include non-point pollution type of issues.
+ I think one of the suggestions that is being made here is
+that it ought to include personal watercraft type of
+restrictions, or limits, or at least guidance that would come
+back.
+ Obviously, you have been asked about that. Some states no
+doubt are ready and have exercised some responsibility along
+both these lines. Do you have any comment about the non-point
+pollution requirement?
+ Mr. Garcia. Well, yes. On non-point I would just say that
+it is already in the Act. There is authority for the Non-Point
+Pollution Program. We have developed with States, and Congress
+has funded, Non-Point Pollution Programs around the country.
+ My point was simply that we need to retain that authority.
+We need to focus this Act on dealing with the habitat issues
+associated with non-point pollution, the degradation of
+habitat.
+ We have seen the consequences over the years of non-point
+pollution or of run-off pollution into bays and estuaries, into
+our coastal waters. The effects have frankly been staggering to
+the economy.
+ Unfortunately, we are seeing the problem continue to grow.
+So, it is a problem that must be dealt with. We just happen to
+think that the best way to deal with this is through programs
+such as the CZMA Program which develops partnerships with these
+communities so that each community is allowed to develop a
+program that best suits its needs and its citizens' desires.
+ Simply put, it is in the Act now. We would like to see it
+stay in the Act. We think it is critical. We would propose that
+we simply look at the current focus of the Non-Point Program to
+ensure that it is meeting the needs of the coastal states.
+ Mr. Vento. Your concern, I guess reading between the
+lines, is whether or not there has been adequate funding for
+that and whether or not the plans that are coming back actually
+sufficiently address the non-point pollution. Is that correct?
+ Mr. Garcia. That is correct.
+ Mr. Vento. It may, in some cases, not address it or need
+to be readdressed as we learn more about dirty diatoms. Is that
+correct?
+ Mr. Garcia. Among others. We do have a request for $22
+million under the Clean Water Initiative to deal with, among
+others, non-point pollution and harmful algal blooms.
+ Mr. Vento. On the issue of the personal watercraft, which
+apparently is going to be a special topic today, we have been
+through this in the State of Minnesota with all of our lakes.
+ The issue here, of course, is that we had a permitting
+process which assessed a $50 fee. We have come to find out that
+our new Governor has four or five of these. So, as you might
+imagine, he is not----
+ Mr. Saxton. They are probably big ones too.
+ Mr. Vento. Well, they have got to be. He uses two at a
+time, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. One for each foot, I suppose.
+ Mr. Vento. In any case, I think that one of the problems
+that this breaks down on, of course, we know that there is wave
+action. There is turbidity. I read some of the terms in here
+that are caused because they do not have much of a draft,
+obviously, and they can move around pretty quickly; besides
+being a pain in the neck to those of us that are fishermen.
+They have this $50 fee, obviously, with the idea of using those
+dollars to try and provide some sort of enforcement mechanism.
+ I suspect that we could ask in the Coastal Zone Management
+Act for the states to address this particular issue. I do not
+know exactly how the Chairman anticipates dealing with this.
+ That might be a reasonable way. Do we actually deal with
+other type of watercraft? For instance, if we have anchoring of
+various types of craft near a reef, and in some cases we see
+damage occurring, would it not be reasonable then to look in
+terms of actual damages that occur and ask for states to
+mitigate or to avoid that by virtue of their regulatory process
+and as a part of their plan in terms of coastal zone
+management?
+ Is that addressed at all today? I mean, obviously, you
+addressed the issue with regard to those that would be anchored
+in terms of damaging coral reef and so forth.
+ Mr. Garcia. I do not know whether other vessels are
+specifically addressed in CZMA. I think not. I am sure my staff
+will throw something at me if I am wrong. Other statutes do
+address the issue that you are raising.
+ Obviously if some activity, whether it is caused by a
+personal watercraft or other vessel is damaging, for example, a
+coral reef, there are other statutes that would govern the
+ability of the Federal Government or of states to seek redress
+in that case.
+ Mr. Vento. So, we are indemnified. You are actually
+involved in suits on occasion where there is coral reef damage
+that occurs as a result of some activity in these areas through
+the states that are involved.
+ Mr. Garcia. Absolutely; both under our Marine Sanctuaries
+Act and under the Oil Pollution Act, and under various other
+statutes. There is authority to seek redress for injuries to
+natural resources, whether it is coral reefs, or critical
+habitat for fisheries, or simply coastal areas that have been
+impacted by some human activity.
+ Mr. Vento. I think the problem here, Mr. Chairman, is it
+is a little tougher to measure some of this.
+ Thank you.
+ Mr. Garcia. If I could make one other point.
+ Congressman, you had been engaged in a discussion with
+Congressman Goss on this; just the issue of the EISs and the
+clock, when it starts running.
+ I believe, and will provide more information to the
+Subcommittee, that this can be dealt with administratively in
+the state plans. A statutory amendment or change would not be
+necessary to address the concern that the Congressman had
+raised. We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to work
+through that particular issue.
+ [The information referred to follows:]
+--------------
+ Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Activities and
+National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents; Starting
+the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Federal Consistency
+Review Period (Representative Porter Goss (R. FL) proposal).
+ NOAA does not recommend amending the CZMA to require that
+environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by the Minerals
+Management Service (MMS) for an applicant's proposal to drill
+for oil and gas on the outer continental shelf must be
+completed prior to the start of the CZMA Federal consistency
+review period. A statutory change is not required to address
+this issue. States may individually, pursuant to NOAA
+regulations, amend their federally approved coastal management
+programs to require that a draft EIS (or final EIS) is data and
+information that is necessary to start the state's Federal
+consistency review. This would be a routine program change,
+under 15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart H, that could be developed
+and approved within 4-6 weeks. In fact, a recent rule proposed
+by MMS acknowledges a state's ability to so change its coastal
+management program.
+ Moreover, the coordination of NEPA documents and CZMA
+Federal consistency reviews may vary greatly depending on the
+state and the Federal agency(ies) involved. Coastal states have
+informed NOAA that they want flexibility as to how they
+coordinate NEPA and Federal consistency reviews. Thus, some
+states may want to begin a consistency review prior to the
+completion of a draft or final EIS, or make some other
+arrangement to obtain information. Thus, since states want such
+flexibility and it is fairly easy for a state to amend its
+program to include NEPA documents as necessary information
+requirements needed for its consistency review, a statutory
+change is not desired or needed.
+
+ Mr. Vento. I thought that, Mr. Chairman, as I read further
+under Porter's comments that the issue is I think that they
+feel like they have to come up this very quickly.
+ In fact, the staff analysis said it is 90 days. I do not
+know if it is 90 working days. Porter was saying it was 6
+months. So, I do not know how you guys reconcile those two
+numbers.
+ In any case, I think the concern is that they quickly have
+to come up with this in a short period of time. Then the
+Minerals Management Administration--I guess I misspoke when I
+said it was NOAA.
+ They can string this out for 2 years. So, a lot of issues
+may come up that they did not even have a chance to look at, in
+terms of the consistency.
+ Mr. Garcia. To be frank, I think the issue is that some
+states like the system as it is. Others feel that they need to
+modify the timing.
+ My point is only that I believe that we can take care of
+this administratively through modifications of those state
+plans where the state feels that it needs more time rather than
+making a statutory change.
+ Mr. Saxton. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being
+with us this morning. We appreciate your input as always. We
+also appreciate your reference to the timing on the receipt of
+your material.
+ We appreciate your intent to try to get that to us earlier.
+ Mr. Garcia. We will strive to do better.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
+ Now, we will move on to our next panel. It consist of Ms.
+Jacqueline Savitz, who is the Executive Director of the Coast
+Alliance; Mr. Howard Park, who is a Consultant with the
+Personal Watercraft Industry Association; and Mr. Thomas Tote,
+who with the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, a marine
+conservation group from my State.
+ Welcome aboard. Ms. Savitz, you can proceed at your will.
+
+ STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE SAVITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COAST
+ ALLIANCE
+
+ Ms. Savitz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
+ Good morning, members of the Subcommittee. My name is
+Jackie Savitz and I am the Executive Director of the Coast
+Alliance, a national environmental coalition that works to
+protect our Nation's priceless coastal resources.
+ As you know, Coast Alliance leads a network of over 400
+conservation groups around the coasts, including the Great
+Lakes. We appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony today
+on the Reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, on
+behalf of the Coast Alliance and about a dozen other coastal
+conservation organizations.
+ The Alliance has a long track record with the Coastal Zone
+Management Act. We have consistently supported the
+reauthorizations. We have worked to educate the public about
+the value of the related Coastal Non-Point Source Pollution
+Control Program.
+ We have worked with NOAA and the EPA to maintain the
+consistency aspects of the Act and the enforceability aspects
+of the Coastal Non-Point Program. This week we released a
+report entitled ``Pointless Pollution: Preventing Polluted Run-
+off and Protecting America's Coasts.''
+ I have asked that it be distributed to this Subcommittee.
+This report was released by 40 organizations and 15 coastal
+states this week. It focuses on the number one threat to the
+coasts, polluted run-off, and on the need to continue to move
+forward with the Coastal Non-Point Program.
+ Since the Act was created in 1972, there has been little
+respite from human impacts in coastal areas. It is expected
+that by 2015, 25 million more people will move to the coasts.
+Where will our already crowded coasts put these 25 million
+people?
+ What impact will these new residents have? The answers, and
+our greatest hope for the coasts, lie in a carefully crafted
+and well-defined Coastal Zone Management Act. Coast Alliance
+believes that the Act has provided much needed attention to
+coastal issues, promoted inter-governmental coordination, and
+comprehensive solutions.
+ However, it has not sufficiently addressed coastal
+pollution. Through reauthorization, Congress should give the
+Coastal Non-Point Program a chance to be effectively
+implemented.
+ As Congress embarks on this important task, Coast Alliance
+and its affiliated organizations believe that the Act should
+reflect the following principles.
+ First, since polluted run-off is the number one cause of
+water quality impairment threatening coastal economies and
+aquatic resources, the Coastal Non-Point Program must be
+integrated into the Act, and sufficient funds must be
+authorized for its support. Second, the program's penalty
+provisions and its requirement for enforceable mechanisms
+should be maintained.
+ Third, any new projects or grant programs supported through
+appropriations under this Act, should be environmentally
+protective. While the impacts of some projects like beach re-
+nourishment, dredging, shore line stabilization may be a matter
+of debate--there are certainly many sources of funding
+available for those programs.
+ Therefore, the financial resources made available under the
+Coastal Zone Management Act should be focused on model projects
+that demonstrate agreed upon benefits to coastal resources, not
+those with definite or potential ecological impacts.
+ We feel strongly that Congress should only fund projects
+that serve as models of environmental protection through this
+Act to minimize rather than facilitate the impacts of growth.
+ As for run-off, besides contributing to the closure of
+nearly 3 million acres of the Nation's shellfish beds, polluted
+run-off is credited with degrading at least 1/3 of surveyed
+rivers and streams, and causing a dead zone covering more than
+6,000 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico every year.
+ Polluted run-off also promoted the toxic Pfiesteria
+outbreaks on the mid-Atlantic coast. It made bathers sick on
+beaches in California and clogged important shipping channels
+in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. However, compared to
+factories and sewage treatment plants, this source of pollution
+is essentially unregulated.
+ The Coastal Non-Point Program can help us begin to solve
+these problems. It is a policy tool that Congress created. It
+can stop run-off from taking its tool on local waterways. Coast
+Alliance has been working closely with citizens, and State and
+Federal Government agencies to ensure that the Federal
+investment in this program is well-spent.
+ We also have worked hard to help ensure adequate funding
+for the program. However, to date, the funding levels do not
+reflect the need or the degree to which run-off impairs the
+coasts.
+ Dr. Hershman's study, which was mentioned earlier, found
+that one failure of the CZMA Program, according to its senior
+managers, was that it had not adequately addressed water
+quality protection, watershed management or non-point
+pollution.
+ To ensure that its investment in the program pays off,
+Congress must incorporate the Coastal Non-Point Program into
+the Coastal Zone Management Act and provide funding to ensure
+its implementation.
+ In summary, it simply does not make sense with the
+increased recognition of run-off related impacts and the
+increased environmental awareness on the part of the public to
+pass a coastal management law that does not explicitly provide
+for environmentally sound projects, and does not reiterate our
+commitment to controlling polluted run-off.
+ Development and run-off pollution are the two greatest
+threats to the coasts. The Coastal Non-Point Program needs to
+be given a chance to work.
+ Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of this
+Subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to speak today.
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Savitz may be found at the
+end of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
+ Mr. Howard Park, a representative of PWC Industry. Welcome,
+sir. We are very anxious to hear what you have to say.
+
+ STATEMENT OF HOWARD PARK, CONSULTANT, PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
+ INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
+
+ Mr. Park. Thank you.
+ First, I would like to ask that my written statement be
+entered into the record with just one correction. There is a
+reference on the first page on a New Jersey bill that we
+support to deal with some of the concerns in Barnegat Bay.
+ I had given the wrong number for that bill. The bills we do
+support are Assembly Bill 2520 and Senate Bill 1384, not
+Assembly Bill 653 as I had said in my statement.
+ We know that there are a lot of problems and challenges
+with personal watercraft use and a lot of conflicts with
+sailors like yourself and other people who use the waterways.
+ We very much do want to work with government at all levels
+to address these problems. We feel that generally the best
+place is the state and local level. We have spearheaded efforts
+to reduce sound emissions from personal watercraft.
+ This year, one member company has new technology that
+reduces sound by 70 percent. One company is claiming 50 percent
+for another technology. We are proud of the progress we have
+made in that area. We want to continue it.
+ We also believe, just sort of in summary, that the language
+in this bill, especially as it concerns the definition of
+sensitive areas, is too broad. We would like, again, to work
+with you on it.
+ First of all, it has always been our position that personal
+watercraft do not belong in shallow waters under 2 feet. All of
+our safety materials and owner's manuals say do not operate in
+areas under 2 feet in depth.
+ So, we have no problem with rules or regulations that
+incorporate that. You can do damage to a personal watercraft if
+you operate in shallow areas because it can take in aquatic
+vegetation, sand, or other things. That is not good for the
+engines. So, we do not support operating in shallow waters.
+ It is not correct, however, that only personal watercraft
+can access those waters. Jet boats, which are not defined as
+personal watercraft, can also access many shallow areas as can
+some other types of vessels.
+ Many of those types of vessels are becoming more popular.
+So, that is something that we would like you to consider. There
+has been considerable research into the effects of personal
+watercraft on vegetation and wildlife.
+ I know there was a study done up at Barnegat Bay. I would
+also like you to note some other studies that have been done.
+ I have some of this material that I would like to enter
+into the record that comes to opposite conclusions from the
+study that was done in Barnegat Bay.
+ [The material referred to may be found at the end of the
+hearing.]
+ Mr. Park. I would like to read just two sentences from Dr.
+James Rogers, who is a biologist with the Florida Game Fresh
+Water Fish Commission, who has conducted extensive research
+into this issue.
+ According to him, ``a PWC moving at idle speed obliquely to
+the birds should produce the same flushing response as an
+outboard motor boat. Similarly, a fast moving motor boat headed
+directly at the birds with a deep V-bow throwing white spray
+should produce a flushing response similar to that of a PWC
+being operated in a similar manner.''
+ There has been work done in this area. I hope the
+Subcommittee and the staff takes a look at it. To address a
+little more specifically your concern about the language in the
+bill under discussion, it defines sensitive area as any area in
+the coastal zone that contains living marine resources and
+birds that may be impacted during the operation of a PWC.
+ We would like to see that narrowed. We would like to see it
+be something that could be measured; a definition that the
+boaters could know where they are going and what that does
+include. We think that the current definition, as I have said
+is a little broad.
+ I started off by talking about conflicts. We really feel
+that we are taking steps to address these conflicts with PWC
+use.
+ I mentioned the sound reduction. That has just been
+introduced this year. So, you will not be able to really notice
+it on the water for a while. As the newer craft become out
+there and older ones are phased out, we think it will make a
+big difference.
+ We also support mandatory education for personal watercraft
+operators. New Jersey was the second State to adopt mandatory
+education. There was a pretty significant accident decline in
+the year after that was adopted in New Jersey. Connecticut has
+also seen similar results.
+ We also support tough model legislation on controlling
+business that rent personal watercraft. We have an agreement
+with the EPA to reduce emissions from personal watercraft. We
+have loaned personal watercraft to well over 1,500 law
+enforcement agencies so they can enforce the laws on the water.
+ A lot of the marine law enforcement has been cut back. We
+also support a minimum age of 16 for personal watercraft
+operation. Only about eight states have adopted 16. Most are
+much lower.
+ Also, Mr. Vento mentioned before the concept of fees to
+support law enforcement or other impacts of personal
+watercraft. We have supported that concept. If it is earmarked
+for law enforcement, not just a tax, but if it is earmarked for
+activities that would help reduce impact, or law enforcement,
+or education, or other types of activities that would help deal
+with some of the challenges.
+ I do not know about Governor Ventura, but our association
+did not oppose those fees in Minnesota. I believe they were
+imposed on some other boats too.
+ I see the red light. Thank you very much.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Park may be found at the end
+of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Park.
+ We greatly appreciate your openness on this issue. We look
+forward to working with you. I have to apologize to Mr. Fote;
+however, we are about half-way through the time period that we
+have to get to the floor for a vote.
+ So, we are going to have to recess temporarily. We will try
+to be back within 10 or 15 minutes.
+ [Recess]
+ Mr. Saxton. We will proceed in the manner in which we were
+previously with Mr. Tom Fote, who is--are you President of the
+Jersey Coast Anglers or you were President?
+ Mr. Fote. I was President. Now, I am the Legislative
+Chairman for the Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New
+Jersey Federation of Sportsmen Clubs. They are non-paid jobs.
+They basically dump things on me.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. We have also shared some
+time on a boat together. So, welcome to the Subcommittee room.
+You may proceed.
+
+ STATEMENT OF THOMAS FOTE, JERSEY COAST ANGLERS ASSOCIATION
+
+ Mr. Fote. I would like to thank Congressman Saxton and the
+Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to testify on this
+important subject.
+ I would be remiss if I did not thank Congressman Saxton and
+this Subcommittee for all of their hard work in protecting the
+marine resource and assisting on fair and equitable treatment
+for everyone in fisheries management plans.
+ If you have been on a lake, river, bay, or ocean lately you
+realize there is a strong need for federally-mandated
+regulations for the approximately one million personal
+watercraft that are on U.S. waters.
+ The manufacturers estimate about 130,000 are sold each
+year. At this time, at least half of the states in this country
+have some form of proposed or disputed regulation restrictions
+or guidelines for the use of personal watercraft.
+ This is a growing problem that needs to be addressed
+federally. I have provided a list of the states who have
+restricted uses. The number is growing daily. Each region
+should not have to defend its ecosystem separately to regulate
+and document the misuses of personal watercraft.
+ With federally-mandated guidelines, each state could modify
+the guidelines to fit the needs of that particular region and
+body of water. No matter where you go in the U.S., local
+legislators are trying to find a suitable definition and
+Constitutionally-correct control for these crafts.
+ I have included two of these definitions in my written
+testimony. In New Jersey, the Barnegat Bay Watershed
+Association has been working in conjunction with several groups
+and the industry to negotiate with local and state legislators
+and state agencies to define and identify key areas of concern
+regarding personal watercraft.
+ In 1993, the Watershed Management Plan for Barnegat Bay
+included 12 action plan items to address personal watercraft.
+These action items included: increasing the presence of New
+Jersey Marine Law Enforcement Offices on Barnegat Bay during
+the peak boating season, posting No Wake Zones where vessel
+wakes are documented to be causing erosion of natural shore
+lines, identifying special use areas, and improving public
+awareness of existing vessel speed, and operating regulations.
+ These types of actions are applicable on a Federal level. I
+have attached an August 7, 1998, letter prepared by the
+Barnegat Bay Watershed Association to Governor Christine Todd-
+Whitman.
+ It identifies seven recommendations for protecting the
+public safety and preventing environmental damage by use of a
+personal watercraft. The results are in a research paper
+entitled ``Issues and Problems Associated With Personal
+Watercraft on Barnegat Bay'' by Melissa R. Chinn, which is
+included in my written testimony.
+ It details the environmental concerns of operating personal
+watercraft. The study by Dr. Joanna Burger entitled, ``Effects
+of Motorboats and Personal Watercraft on Flight Behavior Over a
+Colony of Common Terns,'' which I have included in my written
+testimony.
+ We urge Congress to review the attached documents and look
+toward creating Federal guidelines for the following issues.
+Environmentally, we need to restrict shallow water uses in
+sensitive habitat.
+ It is documented that when operating a personal watercraft
+in shallow waters, bottom sediments are suspended there and
+causes increasing turbidity and decreases light penetration and
+oxygen to aquatic life.
+ Operating personal watercraft close to birds, closer to
+shore near Colonial Water Nesting sites disturb the birds
+causing them to fly away from the nests and exposing the eggs
+to increased amounts of harsh sun rays, and also leaving them
+wide open to predators.
+ Peak use of personal watercraft corresponds with the
+nesting season for a variety of Colonial Water Birds that nest
+in Barnegat Bay, as well as other New Jersey estuaries, and as
+a matter of fact up and down the coast.
+ Education. We need a broader voter education curriculum for
+personal watercraft users. A recent death on a personal
+watercraft in Barnegat Bay was directly related to a lack of
+education and an unlicensed driver. I included that article in
+my written testimony.
+ One out of 10 accidents on water in 1997 were related to
+personal watercraft use. Fatalities involving personal
+watercraft have increased from 20 in 1988 to 83 in 1997.
+Although the average age of the owners is in the mid-40s, the
+operators involved in accidents are usually in their teens to
+mid-30s. More education and stiffer penalties for unlicensed
+users are clearly necessary.
+ Enforcement. To ensure the above happens, we need increased
+funding for our enforcement agents to patrol the water ways
+entailing the use of personal watercraft. Without more law
+enforcement on the water, all of the laws you pass will not
+make one bit of difference.
+ This legislation should include law enforcement grants for
+pilot projects to encourage local municipalities. They would
+allow local government to have an increased law enforcement
+presence on the water.
+ If all states require licenses and these licenses were
+treated like automobile privileges, such as fining those
+without a license, and confiscating the vessel of those
+operating personal watercraft without a license, personal
+watercraft problems would be greatly diminished.
+ A harsher penalty, such as paying for towing the vessel
+once it is confiscated, and regular enforcement to ensure the
+safe and appropriate use of personal watercraft by licensed
+users is recommended.
+ It is clear that this is a national growing issue. Congress
+can begin by focusing its attention on the coastal zone by
+strengthening laws that control personal watercraft in
+environmentally sensitive areas.
+ However, the problems are not isolated to coastal areas, as
+many inland fresh water lakes are encountering the same types
+of concerns. For the safety of the users, other boaters, and
+for the environment, we urge Congress to focus on the issues by
+synthesizing all state initiatives into one guiding piece of
+legislation, which every state can implement to their needs.
+ Two personal notes; one, we are affiliated with Coastal
+Alliance. We agree with all of their comments. Over the years
+in testifying before this Subcommittee, it has always been fun
+and very easy because of the work Sharon McKenna has been
+doing.
+ I hear she is leaving. Today is her last Subcommittee. I
+wish to thank her. The State of New Jersey wishes to thank her,
+the groups that are involved, when they come before this
+Subcommittee for all of the help she gives them. So, thank you,
+Congressman.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Fote may be found at the end
+of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Fote.
+ You are right. We will miss her. We have said that many
+times, but I have sneaky suspicion that she will not be a
+stranger.
+ Mr. Fote. Well, we are going to go fishing in New Jersey.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Fote, the issue that
+you concentrated on, that being, of course, personal watercraft
+and their use, it is fairly obvious that there are some issues
+to be addressed, including safety, noise, et cetera.
+ Our concern, obviously, involves those issues. Our concern
+for the purposes of this hearing had to do with the
+environmental impact, or the potential environmental impact
+brought about by the use or misuse of personal watercraft.
+ Can you comment relative to what your feelings are on those
+issues?
+ Mr. Fote. Yes. An example is Barnegat Bay. We have
+basically spent a lot of time, money, and energy in increasing
+the population of Ospreys. Fifteen years ago, there were no
+Ospreys in Barnegat Bay.
+ Now, they are starting to come back. We found that the
+personal watercraft or jet skis as I call them, start running
+around the nesting areas. The birds get off the eggs.
+ Those birds are not having chicks. We had the worst year
+last year. Pete McLane has documented it. Pete has done a lot
+of work on Barnegat Bay. That is one of the other concerns.
+ There is a picture I included in my testimony that shows
+what a personal watercraft is. You know, a motorboat runs from
+one location to another location. Usually it stops, fishes,
+crabs, does something.
+ Personal watercraft, the idea is to run the vehicle; run,
+run, run, run. There is a picture in there that just basically
+shows it going around, and around, and around. Well, we have a
+corresponding picture that shows the submerged aquatic
+vegetation after he got away from there.
+ It was going in that round circle that had went around and
+around. When you stir up the sediment, you also affect the
+clams in that area. So, the clams basically, the algae that is
+supposed to be feeding them is basically destroyed. That is
+what we are worried about.
+ Now, outboard motors do the same thing. I will agree with
+you that they will do some of that, but they are not running
+constantly. They are going from one location to another.
+ When you have got it going with jet propulsion, it keeps
+sucking in the algae, small embryos of the fish out there, the
+small embryos of the clams out there, suck them through the
+intake and heating them up and killing them. That is a concern.
+ The safety issues, yes. There are a lot of them. A couple
+of deaths in States like Florida have had and we have had. We
+have got to be concerned on how we deal with it.
+ We are not looking to put an industry out of business. The
+industry has been working hard. I think the thing about the
+license would very much help. One of the areas which we broke
+through and which you are doing a lot of work in Barnegat Bay
+with, the bay next to the ocean again; that one area there.
+ The jet skis started using it. There is only a foot of
+water. All of the wildlife is being destroyed there. It also
+helps to reinforce the cut, because every time they go through
+there, they push the water into the sod banks which makes the
+cut larger and larger.
+ Those are our concerns.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Tom.
+ Mr. Park, just so you know, I am a sailor, but my daughter
+and my son-in-law are both personal watercraft users. So, I
+just do not want you to think that I have a totally one sided
+point of view on this issue.
+ The personal watercraft industry, I think, Mr. Park, should
+be commended for your efforts to improve operator safety and
+awareness. I think that is extremely commendable. We appreciate
+that very much.
+ Mr. Park. Thank you.
+ Mr. Saxton. A large percentage of users do not appear to
+be following the recommended guidelines, particularly with
+regard to the shallow water issue and the use in those issues.
+Other than prohibiting uses in sensitive areas, what else can
+be done to try to modify this behavior?
+ Mr. Park. Well, one thing, obviously, is mandatory
+education. We were the first group in the marine industry to
+support mandatory education. That position has now been adopted
+by the National Association of State Boating Law
+Administrators.
+ I know that in Connecticut, which has the longest track
+record in requiring education, that they have seen a decline in
+complaints and a decline in accidents. Minnesota had a very
+aggressive personal watercraft education campaign where they
+mailed video tapes to all of the operators in the State.
+ They had a 50 percent decline in accidents last year. As I
+said before, operation in a shallow area under 2 feet in depth
+should not be allowed. Neither should other boats that can
+access such areas.
+ We would like to work with you on implementing that. We
+support legislation in the states to implement that.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
+ Ms. Savitz, obviously, we know the situation in New Jersey,
+that is Mr. Fote and I do and others that work for me know the
+situation in New Jersey. I am curious to know what your
+perspective would be from a more national viewpoint.
+ Ms. Savitz. Well, Chairman Saxton, we are obviously not
+working on this issue as closely as these gentlemen are. My
+experience with a jet ski was actually in New Jersey as well
+growing up on Long Beach Island.
+ It is pretty well-recognized that there are impacts to
+wetlands and shallow water habitats. We commend your continued
+work to protect those coastal areas.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I would like to ask Ms. Savitz to be the arbitrator between
+Mr. Park and Mr. Fote. I would like to ask Mr. Park, we are
+required to have licenses for dogs, for mopeds; just about
+everything that goes on the road.
+ Do you think that maybe we also should have licensing
+requirements for PWCs?
+ Mr. Park. We favor certification requirements that you
+must pass a course or an equivalency test. We favor that the
+certificate could be revoked any time. The only difference is
+when you kind of get caught up in the semantics with this, we
+would not favor something that you would have to renew, you
+know, go to some office and stand in line every 5 years to
+renew the so-called license. I think the certification would
+accomplish the same goal.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. As I recall, we had small water skis.
+Now we have huge ones. I mean theirs are as big as boats.
+ Mr. Park. That is right. There has been a craft introduced
+this year that can accommodate up to four people. The lines
+between boats and so-called personal watercraft has really been
+blurred lately. That is true.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think it is proper also that the
+government should be involved in, or state governments for that
+matter, in allocating certain areas where it is required that
+they can then use the PWCs or do you think they should go
+anywhere they want?
+ Mr. Park. I do not think they should go anywhere they
+want. I think they should go to areas where other forms of
+relatively high speed motorized boating is appropriate, but not
+in areas where it is not appropriate.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. So, they should be properly regulated as
+far as the use of PWCs.
+ Mr. Park. Yes. Mr. Fote talked about 25 states. I believe
+it is now about 47 states. I could be off by one or two that
+specifically regulate personal watercraft in some form.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think that we should do this by
+way of providing some kind of national legislation or the
+states themselves should be able to do this on their own?
+ Mr. Park. I think the states should be able to do it on
+their own. It is time that the states have responded.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Fote, do you agree with that?
+ Mr. Fote. My sister is a County Commissioner in Chelan
+County in Washington State. She is calling me up and I am
+sending her all of information on jet skis. The problem is
+every time you pass a regulation they wind up in court.
+ California has done it a number of times, Oregon,
+Washington State. We need you to setup a definition. We need
+you to setup what a sensitive area's control. We are not asking
+you to define it in a very particular way, just on a broad base
+to give the states some guidelines so when they go and put
+their regulations in, they have some ground to stand upon.
+ The definitions are important because California has
+lawsuits that are going on. There are about 20 of them right
+now in individual states. That is what we are looking for, a
+Federal law that would give us a definition so we could stand
+up in court.
+ The industry and us are not far apart. I am involved with
+marine trades. Jersey Coast Anglers Association represents 60
+fishing clubs. So, we are involved with them all of the time.
+We are trying to work together. The marine trades are working
+very hard. It is the unlicensed persons.
+ A simple example is I have a house on the water. The person
+next to me lives on the water also. He throws a party on the
+weekend. You have got 40 guests. They have not been trained.
+They do not know any of the rules and they all just get the
+keys and they jump on the jet skis.
+ He does not support that. I do not support that. The
+problem is they are the ones that go out and cause trouble.
+That is what the two deaths on Barnegat Bay were. Well, that is
+what I am saying.
+ If you license them, if you can confiscate the vehicle,
+like you would not give your 14 year old nephew the keys to
+your car. You should not give him the keys to the jet ski.
+ If you had to pay a $250 towing bill because it got
+confiscated, you would think twice before you gave him the keys
+to the car. If you lost your insurance because you gave him the
+key, you would also think twice before.
+ That would eliminate a lot of the problems. Both of us
+support that position. They should be trained. They should be
+certified. If you are on the water without a certification--
+because we are working in New Jersey doing aquatic education.
+ So, you will learn these things. You have got to make them
+responsible for going to the school. If you do not have them
+going to school, all of the training--the other point I really
+want to make is that we need law enforcement on the water.
+Every time we pass a law, and he agrees with me 100 percent.
+ Barnegat Bay, we do not have enough law enforcement. You
+should be basically--where you really could help is funding
+some local municipality grants. Give them some money to hire
+local law enforcement.
+ I guarantee you that industry will come up with the jet
+skis to supply those law enforcement officials so they could
+come out and enforce the laws, but we need some money there.
+Once it is proved to the municipalities that this can be done
+because it is very effective, then they will support us.
+ They will pickup the funds, you know, a 3 year grid. That
+is it. Then you take it over and operate it.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. I think, Mr. Fote, your point is well-
+taken. I am sure the Chairman and certainly myself if there is
+such a strong feeling among the states, you know, sometimes we
+get the impression that the states are telling the Congress,
+get off our backs. Let us do it ourselves.
+ As you well know, Mr. Fote, there have been countless
+examples where the Congress has enacted laws and we still end
+up in court.
+ Mr. Fote. Well, on this one, you got Commissioner Shinn
+coming up after I am, so you can ask him. He is the
+Commissioner of New Jersey. We are working on the Barnegat Bay
+Estuarine Program. Some of the environmentalists wanted to put
+three opening shutters--of a jet ski getting shot or blown up
+as the opening to the video.
+ We do not want things like that. I think the states will
+work closely with you and they really want the regulations and
+the help from Congress.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Fote, I am sure that the Chairman
+and certainly myself will be more than willing to help in any
+way that we can. If you have some good wording, or language, or
+a draft, or whatever that maybe you and Mr. Park could work
+out, maybe that is something we can look at.
+ Ms. Savitz, I have got one question for you. With reference
+to the Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Program, I think
+your statement suggest that we ought to incorporate that
+program into the Coastal Zone Management Act? Can you elaborate
+why we should do this?
+ Ms. Savitz. Well, thank you for asking. I just want to
+note that my arbitration skills were very well displayed. They
+did not fight at all.
+ The Coastal Non-Point Program really has not been given a
+chance to work. It was setup by Congress in 1990 because of a
+recognition that existing programs were not working and that
+our coasts were continually being barraged by non-point source
+pollution.
+ The way the program is setup is that states develop these
+plans to control run-off and then eventually implement them.
+After a while, we have progress. As you know, things do not
+happen over night.
+ States have all developed these plans, or the states that
+are participating in the Coastal Zone Program have. It is time
+to start putting them into practice. So, we have moved pretty
+far down the road, but we have not actually seen the benefits
+of that work yet.
+ We feel very strongly about this program. We think it is
+something that can be done that can really make a difference on
+the coast and really provide some of the kinds of outcomes that
+are being looked for. We are concerned about the state of the
+program, if it is not taken up and reauthorized.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Vento.
+ Mr. Vento. Well, on that point, is the reauthorization
+expired for the non-point? Does it expire? Is that the point?
+ Ms. Savitz. The funding authorization has expired.
+ Mr. Vento. So, that is why it should be taken because it
+is an integral part. I mean, that obviously touches on a couple
+of different areas of responsibility I guess in Congress.
+ It is integral to what happens in terms of these coastal
+zone management of plan and the outcome. That is your point?
+ Ms. Savitz. Exactly. Thank you.
+ Mr. Vento. I am just trying to understand it. You probably
+made it well the first time. On the personal watercraft, I
+think there is a lot of agreement here in terms of having this
+as a part of the plan, some way to deal with it, and have the
+states address it.
+ So, I do not know that you need to get into anything more
+on it than that as long as there is agreement. Obviously,
+definition of sensitive areas has to take in safety and other
+areas.
+ Some of this is common sense, I guess, they cannot go where
+there are swimming areas and so forth. I suppose the issue you
+get into is whether they are treated differently than other
+types of watercraft.
+ I think they probably need to be in order to effectively
+deal with them which is one of the problems. I think one of our
+problems in Minnesota is we have got sort of a split
+personality on this is because we have produced some of these
+products too.
+ So, I do not know. I hear comments, Mr. Fote, about law
+enforcement. I think you are exactly with regards to licensure
+and so forth, but most of those issues can be left up to the
+states.
+ There has been an increasing interest both in personal
+watercraft and I might say snowmobiles in Minnesota in terms of
+licensure and treating them more in terms of training. There is
+also a big pollution problem that occurs with these because of
+the amount of fuel with the two-cycle engine where it throws a
+lot of fuel out.
+ I know that, that occurs with other types of outboard
+motors as well, but these tend to be going at a high
+performance rate most of the time. So, they tend to throw out a
+lot more.
+ It is mostly for recreation and it is not from point-to-
+point where you stop and so forth. The same is true,
+incidently, of air quality problems in automobiles. It is very
+serious, putting out 50 times more than a car puts out.
+ Mr. Park. Can I comment briefly?
+ Mr. Vento. Yes, yes.
+ Mr. Park. There is an agreement with the EPA to phase in
+the cleaner engines gradually by 2006. I just wanted to note
+that for the record on the pollution issue.
+ You also talked about treating them differently than other
+boats. With the definition blurring between a personal
+watercraft and other types of boats, I would hope that is
+something that you would take into account, if you do believe
+they should be treated differently. Many of the same types of
+activities can occur with other types of boats that are not
+defined as personal watercraft. Again, we would like to work
+with you on that.
+ Mr. Vento. Yes. Well, I understand the Chairman will have
+to make that. I understand that they probably have to have
+rules to just keep all of these, especially this type of craft,
+because there are so many other types of craft that can also
+get into shallow waters that are motorized.
+ Obviously, in the case of the fuel, you have such an
+accumulation, such an intensity of use in some of these bays,
+you could literally have a situation where it is having an
+impact in terms of the ecosystem.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
+ Thank you very much for traveling as far as you each did to
+come and visit with us today. We appreciate your perspectives.
+Now, we will move on to the next panel.
+ The first witness on our fourth and final panel is Mr.
+Robert Shinn, who is no stranger to those of us who have known
+him for many, many years. He not only until very recently had a
+house on the water on Barnegat Bay, but also has served as the
+mayor of a small community, as a Tree Holder on the County
+level, which for those of you who do not know, a Tree Holder is
+the legislator on the County level in New Jersey, and is now
+the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection
+in the Whitman Administration in New Jersey. Also, Dr. Marc
+Hershman, Director and Professor, the School of Marine Affairs
+at the University of Washington; Ms. Sarah Cooksey, President
+of the Coastal States Organization, also no stranger to us; and
+Mr. Gary Lytton, President, National Estuarine Research Reserve
+Association.
+ Welcome aboard. Bob, you may begin. Welcome.
+
+STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. SHINN, JR., COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
+ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
+
+ Mr. Shinn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this
+Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today and
+the importance of this issue to the residents of New Jersey.
+ Before I go on with my testimony, I just have to compliment
+you, Mr. Chairman on the lens from the lighthouse. I am a
+lighthouse fan. I was sitting in the audience and I was struck
+by the potential of the magnification of the lens verses these
+lights.
+ I was thinking if that light was situation in the middle of
+that globe, you would have a lot more magnification of the
+yellow and red light and it may, in essence, save the
+Subcommittee time in testimony. It might be a thought. It
+certainly would enhance the lens which is gorgeous.
+ Mr. Saxton. That is a great suggestion. It would only take
+100 years around here to get something like that done.
+ Mr. Shinn. I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
+focusing on this issue and for your support and diligence in
+working with all sorts of issues in New Jersey from the Jacques
+Cousteau Research Center to dredging the Tuckeren Seaport
+Project and working through the issues with us that are very
+controversial. You have made a great difference and a great
+contribution to our efforts. I thank you for that.
+ It was just roughly 10 years ago that, and I know you
+remember it well, Mr. Chairman, that we had 803 beach closings
+in New Jersey. We had an intensive monitoring program in New
+Jersey.
+ I can tell you, it created absolute chaos in the
+legislature. Our tourism took a nose dive. Sometimes it is hard
+to find indicators of progress. This last summer, we had three
+beach closings in New Jersey, with a more intense monitoring
+program than we had in 1988.
+ So, a 10 year time frame, and if you think of 1988 from an
+economic perspective, we had good economic times in 1988. Good
+economic times puts pressure on the environment because you
+have more traveling with cars.
+ You have more industry, more activity. People go on
+vacations more, et cetera. I think it is a pretty good
+indicator that we have made significant progress in good
+economic times with minimizing our impact on the coast.
+ Not to say we do not have a lot more work to do because we
+do. At the same time, we have decreased our bad air days in New
+Jersey under the One Hour Ozone Standard. In 1998, again, in
+good economic times we had 45 one hour violations of the Ozone
+Standard.
+ This past year, we had 4. So, we are pretty proud of that
+record ourselves. So, we are making a significant progress in
+both air and water quality.
+ I want to state up front that the Coastal Zone Management
+Act is a Federal-State partnership that works and works quite
+well. The flexibility it offers the states in meeting their
+priorities, while maintaining non-obtrusive Federal oversight
+has served as a model for Federal and State voluntary
+agreements.
+ In fact, it is the same kind of results-based performance
+partnership that we are striving to achieve with EPA through
+our National Environmental Performance Partnership Process.
+ We have not quite got to where we want to be, yet, but we
+are trying awful hard on both sides. I think we are making
+significant progress. I also wanted to point out that the
+Coastal Zone Management Act was 20 years ahead of the curve in
+its effort to promote the principles of sustainability by
+balancing the goals of a vibrant economy and a healthy natural
+resource.
+ I can tell you that it has only been about 5 short years
+ago that we integrated in our mission statement in New Jersey
+the integration of environmental quality and economic
+prosperity.
+ That was quite controversial at that time. The Coastal Zone
+Management Act was really ahead of that and recognized that
+compatibility before certainly we did as a state and many
+states did not.
+ Although New Jersey is a small State, it has an extensive
+coast line zone with nearly 1,800 miles of tidal shore line.
+Most of our 20 major watersheds containing 6,450 miles of
+rivers drain directly into tidal waters.
+ Our coastal zone is the lifeline of some of New Jersey's
+largest industries, including recreation, tourism, shipping,
+commercial fishing, and shell fishing. Needless to say, our
+coast is a vital economic and environment resource to New
+Jersey.
+ Managing this resource for sustainability poses major
+challenges, as you know; the challenges of promoting smart
+growth, a vibrant economy, a clean environment, and ample open
+spaces, and a healthy and abundant natural resources.
+ In fact, our report to the public this year on our cover is
+a picture of our coast line. Our coast line is our major
+tourist attraction and our major promotion of the State of New
+Jersey.
+ Take for example the Barnegat Bay region in your District.
+The Barnegat Bay is 42 miles in length. It is a relatively
+shallow, low flushing bay making it especially vulnerable to
+pollution.
+ Its watershed drains 550 square miles of land. In 1995, the
+U.S. EPA designated Barnegat Bay as a National Estuary ordering
+the southern end of the Barnegat Bay as, of course, you know
+the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Preserve at Mollica
+River and Great Bay, so designated by NOAA in 1997; thank to
+your efforts.
+ The Mollica River Great Bay System is considered one of the
+most pristine coastal estuaries of the coast and provides
+excellent scientific baseline data for managing Barnegat Bay,
+which has much greater development pressures and much greater
+indicators of those pressures.
+ It looks like I am getting the hook. So, I will try to
+expedite my testimony to the close. I just want to say that New
+Jersey has been very advanced over the past 2 years in putting
+its Watershed Management Program together and basing it on a
+Geographic Information System, or GIS as you noted.
+ It is well on its way. We have both our coastal program
+funding. We have our corporate business tax funding. We are
+working in 96 individual watersheds in New Jersey. We have
+our--Program and our State Planning Program in place.
+ We have the new Governor's commitment for $98 million a
+year for a 10 year period for the million acre acquisition, and
+then another $98 million a year for up to 20 years for debt
+service satisfaction.
+ Acquisition is a major part of this. Flexibility is a major
+part of it. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We need to
+enhance partnerships. I think you have got a good history of
+doing that. So, my suggestion is not to make major changes.
+ Let us just fine tune what is working well and we are
+finally into the non-point pollution business and smart
+watershed planning. Let us continue it.
+ Thank you.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Shinn may be found at the
+end of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
+ Let us move now to Dr. Hershman.
+
+ STATEMENT OF MARC J. HERSHMAN, DIRECTOR AND PROFESSOR, SCHOOL
+ OF MARINE AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
+
+ Dr. Hershman. Thank you very much for permitting me to
+come and tell you about a study that was commissioned by the
+Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management within
+NOAA.
+ This study was called the Coastal Zone Management
+Effectiveness Study. It was undertaken between 1995 and 1997.
+Our goal was to determine how well the state management
+programs were implementing the goals of the Coastal Zone
+Management Act.
+ We studied five of the core objectives of the Coastal Zone
+Management Act: protection of estuaries and wetlands;
+protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores;
+providing public access to the shore; revitalizing urban
+waterfronts, and accommodating seaport development as an
+example of a coastal-dependent use.
+ In carrying out the study, we examined all of the 29 state
+programs that were approved at the time that we were doing the
+study. We reviewed documents and data and conducted interviews
+with state officials.
+ We sought information on governmental processes, but we
+also tried to seek information of on the ground outcomes of the
+program efforts. This was the way our study differed from many
+that had been done in the past.
+ Detailed state profiles were developed. There are five
+national technical reports on file with the OCRM, which soon
+will be on their Home Page. Article-length summaries will be
+published in Coastal Management journal in Spring of 1999.
+ We have three major conclusions which I would like to share
+with you briefly. Our team included six investigators. I am
+joined here today by Virginia Lee, from the Rhode Island Sea
+Grant Program, one of the other co-PIs and co-author.
+ Our team concluded that state CZM Programs are effectively
+implementing the five CZMA objectives we examined. This
+conclusion is based on policies, processes, and tools used, and
+only on limited outcome data and case examples that we could
+find.
+ Here are some examples of conclusions. For about 1/3 of the
+states, there was sufficient outcome data to show effectiveness
+in protecting wetlands and estuaries. These 12 states, for
+which we had adequate data, we believe are representative of
+all states. This is an area where we think the CZMA is
+achieving its goal.
+ Beach and dune resources are being protected based on the
+high number of regulatory tools in use, and the fact that these
+tools are being upgraded year-by-year. In fact, there have been
+over 60 upgrades over the history of the program. Beach and
+dune protection is the most difficult area to show outcomes on
+because the protection of the resource must be balanced with
+pressures to provide recreational opportunity and to protect
+private property rights.
+ Public access to the coast is being advanced using
+regulatory acquisition, technical assistance, education and
+outreach programs. Roughly, 455 public access related projects
+were funded in the late 1980s. Coastal managers estimate over
+12,000 public access sites are available in 26 of the 29
+states.
+ Over 303 Urban Waterfront Revitalization Districts in the
+U.S. have benefited from Coastal Zone Management Program funds
+and design assistance. On average, these districts are half-way
+to full revitalization. ``Half-way'' means that infrastructure
+has been improved and at least one redevelopment project has
+been completed.
+ Of 12 ``port-active'' states, where large scale general
+cargo ports operate, there are specific policies and regulatory
+tools to expedite port development, including financial grants,
+specific port development zones, and expedited regulatory
+reviews.
+ Despite these findings which indicate substantial
+achievement of goals, we believe there are insufficient data
+for systematic outcome-based performance evaluation of the
+state programs.
+ What we need is a common set of outcome indicators that
+would link state management activities to the national CZMA
+objectives. Outcome indicators must be developed that balance
+State and Federal perspectives.
+ Our study suggest many possible indicators, a selected
+number of which could be adopted. For example, one measure of
+wetlands protection could be the area of annual permitted loss
+per year as a percent of all regulated wetlands. Over a 5 year
+period, the trends in wetland loss would indicate whether we
+are moving forward in the protection area.
+ An indicator of beach and dune protection could be
+stewardship projects induced by the CZM Program providing
+access ways, dune cross overs, and designated protected areas.
+ Progress in waterfront revitalization could be tracked
+through an accounting of stages reached in the revitalization
+process, and the scope of the CZM goals achieved.
+ We believe the time is ripe for Congress to initiate a
+national outcome monitoring and performance evaluation system.
+The OCRM should take the lead in implementing this process.
+Systematic outcome monitoring reporting and evaluation needs
+external stimulus and leadership.
+ Coastal managers are already over-burdened with
+implementation tasks and they face political, legal, and
+financial pressures administering their programs. Congressional
+leadership will encourage a common set of indicators allowing
+comparisons across states and conclusions about national
+performance.
+ In this way, on the ground outcomes from the national
+investment in CZM can be credibly measured. The rest of the
+testimony, I will ask to be included in the record, if that is
+possible.
+ Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to present
+the findings of this study.
+ [The prepared statement of Dr. Hershman may be found at the
+end of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, sir. Ms. Cooksey.
+
+ STATEMENT OF SARAH W. COOKSEY, PRESIDENT, COASTAL STATES
+ ORGANIZATION
+
+ Ms. Cooksey. Thank you, Chairman Saxton and other members
+of the Subcommittee for the invitation to testify. I am the
+Administrator of Delaware's Coastal Management Programs, where
+we have one of the oldest CZM Programs and one of the newest
+reserves.
+ Today, I am testifying in my role as Chair of the Coastal
+States Organization, which you have said you are very familiar
+with.
+ My written statement includes specific draft legislative
+amendments which we hope you will include in CZMA
+reauthorization. Please include it in the record.
+ This morning you have heard testimony from many people
+representing many different interests. I am here to represent
+the people that are working in the trenches making the day-to-
+day decisions that will have long-term impacts on the uses of
+the Nation's coastal zone.
+ For example, communities in North Carolina, Florida, and
+Puerto Rico that need tools to make tough decisions regarding
+where to allow building after hurricanes have hit. Communities
+in Louisiana and other states that need assistance to protect
+and restore wetlands.
+ States from Oregon to Maryland need to provide better
+assistance to communities to help them help themselves to make
+better informed local decisions regarding the cumulative impact
+of the hundreds of coastal management decisions that are being
+made every day.
+ I will focus my oral comments and recommendations on
+amendments that will build on the CZMA's inherent strengths,
+and that will provide coastal managers and communities with
+three important things.
+ We need tools to assist communities to address the
+unprecedented growth and development in these precious areas.
+We need to improve management oriented research, technical
+assistance, and support so that science is used to make better
+informed decisions regarding coastal issues.
+ We also need to increase support for the administration and
+enhancement of coastal zone programs to further the protection
+and restoration of coastal resources while allowing for
+reasonable coastal dependent growth.
+ This morning we have all talked about all of the good
+things in the CZMA. I am not going to repeat them. You know
+that the term ``smart growth'' and ``sustainable development''
+were movements 20 years ago before the terminology became into
+vogue.
+ Again, there are three fundamental issues which the CZMA
+can help us address. They are the pervasive and persistent
+affects of land-based sources of coastal pollution. The
+cumulative and secondary impact of increased development in
+coastal areas on habitat and water quality, and the potential
+for inefficient investment in public infrastructure resulting
+from urban sprawl.
+ The CZMA should be amended to include a new section to
+provide dedicated support to states to assist in the
+development and implementation of local community-based
+solutions to the impacts of coastal uses and resources caused
+by increased development and urban sprawl.
+ In 1998 alone, 124 ballot initiatives were approved by
+voters calling for improved management of development and
+conservation of open space. I would like to acknowledge the
+leadership of Commissioner Shinn and Governor Whitman in these
+areas.
+ Last year, Congress approved billions of dollars for
+highway development. In the State of Delaware, a significant
+portion of these funds will undoubtedly go, as they should go,
+to improve access to our increasingly popular coastal resource
+communities.
+ Those communities, however, will need our assistance if
+they are going to properly understand, plan for, and reduce
+potential impacts. In Delaware alone, $700 million was spent to
+manage 10 summer weekend traffic tie-ups and only $1 million
+was spent on beach nourishment.
+ While the development of computer generated Geographical
+Information Systems, GIS, have expanded greatly the ability to
+identify the relation of existing development, future growth
+patterns and natural resources, few local governments have the
+capacity to utilize these or other sophisticated tools to plan
+to accommodate the inevitable future growth of these
+communities, while preserving the quality of life and ecosystem
+vitality.
+ I have brought with me a brief description of GIS projects
+in Delaware that were undertaken with Kent County, which is
+designed to build their capacity to create build-out scenarios,
+determine prime areas for environmentally compatible
+development, and to control urban sprawl.
+ This project has also resulted in decreasing preliminary
+permit review time from weeks to hours. We would like to expand
+this to other counties, but we cannot because of the lack of
+adequate resources.
+ We recommend that $30 million be authorized to support
+these community growth management projects. This is consistent
+with the levels recommended in the Administration's Land Legacy
+Initiative.
+ We can also improve NOAA's commitment to the application of
+science and research to on the ground decision-making. This was
+clearly demonstrated last year during the Pfiesteria crisis.
+ Current provisions under section 310 of the CZMA calling
+for management oriented research and technical assistance from
+NOAA to the states should be strengthened. The Secretary should
+be required to provide a report and recommendation to this
+Subcommittee regarding the effectiveness of NOAA in providing
+such research and assistance.
+ Finally, despite clear national benefits, Federal support
+for coastal zone management has not kept pace with growing
+challenges. Finding for state coastal programs in real terms
+has declined due to inflation and the addition of new States:
+Texas, Ohio, Georgia.
+ The member from Minnesota soon will have a new CZM Program.
+In larger states, grants have been kept at $2 million a year
+for the past 8 years. The states recommend increasing
+authorization levels for base programs for administration and
+enhancement to $75 million in order to address this shortfall.
+ This increase will also help states address polluted run-
+off, including intrastate and state local coordination of
+initiatives to address the causes and impacts of non-point
+pollution; particularly as they relate to land use and linking
+water quality with other coastal resource protection.
+ In addition, the CZM provides great general authority to
+undertake projects to preserve, restore, and provide public
+access to special areas of the state with conservation,
+recreation, ecological, and aesthetic value. Current
+limitations on the use of these funds should be removed and
+specific funding authorized to enable states to address
+preservation and restoration of these priority areas.
+ CSO has proposed a modest annual funding increase of $12
+million. I have included specific projects in Delaware where we
+have worked together with parties that commonly disagree,
+agricultures, developers, and environmentalists, to show the
+processes that are in place in the CZMA can be effective.
+ Before I conclude, Mr. Saxton, I would like to briefly
+address two issues of which I know you are concerned. First,
+the personal watercraft that we have talked about a little bit
+this morning.
+ Many states are struggling with the impact of personal
+watercraft, as well as other recreational watercraft in
+sensitive coastal areas. CZM Programs are most effective when
+we are able to work collaboratively with communities.
+ If the Subcommittee considers amendments to the CZMA to
+address personal watercraft, we suggest that state programs be
+permitted to work with communities to identify those areas
+where personal watercraft or other watercraft should be
+restricted.
+ In the long run, the effectiveness of any restrictions will
+depend upon adequate enforcement and to have adequate
+enforcement you need the support of the local community. I
+would also like to bring your attention to Delaware's
+Environmental Indicators Project, which I have a handout on.
+ We are seeking to identify environmental goals and
+prioritize environmental indicators to assess and track our
+progress in meeting these goals. Other states have similar
+projects which seek to focus on outcome rather than process
+goals.
+ The states would like to work with your staff and NOAA to
+design appropriate outcome indicators for the CZMA. In summary,
+the CZMA should be amended to take advantage of its inherent
+strengths.
+ I thank you very much for the opportunity to testimony. I
+look forward to working with you on this.
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Cooksey may be found at the
+end of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Ms. Cooksey. Mr. Lytton.
+
+ STATEMENT OF GARY D. LYTTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ESTUARINE
+ RESEARCH RESERVE ASSOCIATION
+
+ Mr. Lytton. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
+my name is Gary Lytton. I am the President of the National
+Estuarine Research Reserve Association which represents the
+interests of the managers and staff of the 23 designated and 4
+proposed research reserves in the national system.
+ I am the Director of the Rookery Bay National Research
+Reserve in Southwest Florida. I work for the Florida Department
+of Environmental Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to
+come before you today to provide comments on the
+reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
+ I request that my written testimony be included as a part
+of the record. Mr. Chairman, one of the most significant
+challenges in coastal management that we face is the
+increasingly important need to link relevant science- based
+information to the needs of coastal communities that are faced
+with making local decisions that have long term and profound
+consequences on the coast.
+ We see that the CZMA is providing a very important
+framework for Federal, State, and local governments to address
+that need. The reauthorization of the Act provides a
+significant opportunity to address local decisions by coastal
+communities, by improving our ability to assess specific
+information needs at the local level, to strengthen the
+capacity of the Federal-State partnership to support relevant
+science meeting the needs of our coastal communities, and
+lastly to improve the delivery of science-based information and
+technology to coastal communities.
+ The Research Reserve System is designed to promote informed
+coastal decisions. As I mentioned, we have 23 designated sites
+and 4 proposed sites. It is important to recognize that
+research reserves represent biogeographic regions that are
+dealing with common issues and resources.
+ Each research reserve represents a biogeographic region
+with similar issues. We, in the last several years, have
+developed technical training workshops targeting local decision
+makers to help improve decision-making at the local level.
+ We developed graduate research fellowship projects, as many
+as two, at each one of the research reserves that address non-
+point issues and other science information needs relevant to
+local and regional communities.
+ Lastly, we have developed a system wide monitoring program
+that is enabling us to assess changes in estuaries relevant to
+land use activities within our watersheds. I would like to also
+point out that resource stewardship and education and training
+have become very important components of the National Research
+Reserve's Core Mission. Some of our specific recommendations
+deal with changing some of the language in section 315 to
+reflect that.
+ In fact, we have five specific recommendations that I will
+quickly review with you. We would recommend revision of the
+section 315 language to recognize the role of resource
+stewardship, restoration, education, and training, and the
+NERRS Core Mission.
+ Secondly, we are proposing in addition to section 315 to
+recognize the need for a construction and acquisition fund to
+support the research reserves at the site level. There is this
+significant need to continue to complete the core research
+education and training facilities at our research reserves.
+ Also, to acquire priority core lands in our reserves.
+Thirdly, we are asking for increased support for research
+reserves through increased authorization levels in section 318.
+Specifically, our association is recommending $12 million for
+section 315 operational funds in fiscal year 2000.
+ Then an additional $12 million for construction and
+acquisition funds in a construction fund in section 315. We
+feel very strongly that these levels will help us meet our
+needs in completing our mission in the research reserves. Just
+quickly, I will mention that in 1993 an independent panel
+recommended a minimum of $10 million to operate research
+reserves when we had 22 sites. We are now moving to 25 sites.
+ We also strongly support the Administration's efforts in
+the Land Legacy Initiative to increase levels for research
+reserves.
+ The fourth point I will quickly mention is that research
+reserves are developing a new initiative that we are calling
+coastal institutes that will strengthen the research reserve
+capacity to deliver quality technical training delivered to
+coastal decision makers.
+ We see coastal institutes as an opportunity to increase our
+partnership with our state CZM colleagues and also with NOAA.
+We look forward to working with you to develop the coastal
+institute initiative.
+ Lastly, I will mention that research reserves are strongly
+supportive of the concept of measurable objectives for the
+CZMA. We look forward to working with our state CZM colleagues
+and also with NOAA to develop relevant outcome indicators that
+reflect the direction of the Research Reserves Program and its
+role in the CZMA.
+ I do want to quickly mention that research reserve managers
+are also dealing with the issue of personal watercraft. I will
+give you an example. In Rookery Bay in Southwest Florida, we
+have developed a cooperative research project with the U.S.
+Fish and Wildlife Service to identify the science-based
+information relevant to not just personal watercraft, but to
+air boats and conventional watercraft operating in shallow
+water environments.
+ We see this research effort to basically increase our
+understanding of the nature of the environmental impacts of
+these watercraft in these shallow water environments. The
+results of our research would then be shared with our state CZM
+Programs with our state and local agencies to help develop
+management recommendations to address this issue.
+ Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to give
+comments. I will be glad to answer any questions you might
+have.
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Lytton may be found at the
+end of the hearing.]
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
+ We are going to go to Mr. Faleomavaega, the gentleman from
+American Samoa.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. John Wayne, if it is all right with you.
+ Mr. Saxton. John Wayne.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Commissioner Shinn, I was listening to
+your testimony which I appreciate very much. Do I gather from
+all of the four witnesses on the panel, and any of you can
+respond, that pretty much you are satisfied with the way the
+CZMA authorization law is being written.
+ Do you recommend major surgery in any specific area,
+besides increasing the funding level, a little trimming here
+and there, and refinement there?
+ Is there a major portion of the current law that you feel
+very strongly about that there should be some major changes?
+ Mr. Shinn. I feel very strongly that we do not need major
+surgery. I think we have got a very successful program. I think
+we do need a common set of indicators in the system. I do not
+think we ought to convert the whole system to something
+different to gain that.
+ We use indicators in New Jersey. We set goals and we look
+at indicators for water quality improvements. Certainly beach
+closings is one of our indicators.
+ I think if we change the system too much, we are going to
+lose the foresightedness of this system that is built into it
+now. It is highly cooperative. I think there was a lot of
+vision in the Coastal Zone Management Act.
+ We are using it very beneficially now. So, finally we are
+getting coordination among our programs for a successful
+result. We really do not want to see major changes because it
+is finally working very well.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, now that we have no problems on
+the east coast, how about the west coast, Dr. Hershman.
+ Dr. Hershman. I do not believe major changes are necessary
+at all. I agree with the Commissioner very much that we have a
+program that has been 20 years in evolution now.
+ It is a relatively stable program. Funding levels have gone
+up and down, but within a relatively narrow range. It has shown
+a lot of resilience to deal with new issues that have come
+along. In the 1970s, it was oil and gas. In the 1980s, it was
+restoration. In the 1990s, it is water quality. To me, it is a
+mechanism that is really working well. Keeping that structure
+in place is very important.
+ The other thing that is extremely important is allowing the
+flexibility at the state level for each state or territory to
+respond in a way that is appropriate for it with some guidance
+at the national level. So, I think we are talking about fine
+tuning the Act.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Ms. Cooksey.
+ Ms. Cooksey. I just would like to add that in general I
+agree. I think as we move, I would like the analogy on the
+decade now that we are moving into the next millennium. I think
+we recognize that the easy tasks have been handled.
+ Now, we are dealing with the more difficult decisions that
+have to be made in my opinion to be successful. You need to get
+buy-in from the local communities. That is what we are focusing
+on. We think you get more bang for the buck that way.
+ Mr. Lytton. I would agree with the other comments. Major
+surgery is not necessary. The frame work is in place. It is a
+model that works. I would also agree that we really need to do
+refinements here that would increase our ability to work more
+closely with coastal communities.
+ Again, in my opinion, that is where the decisions are made
+that have perhaps the most profound impacts on our coastal
+resources. That is where we need to move in the
+reauthorization.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. As you know, we discussed earlier, Mr.
+Park and Mr. Fote's concerns, about the PWC. Should this be
+incorporated into the CZMA in some way or somehow by the
+Congress?
+ Should we put in some form of regulatory format as far as
+addressing the problems that have been addressed earlier by the
+PWCs? Should this be left entirely to the states and do not let
+the Congress do this?
+ Dr. Hershman. I would argue to leave it to the states and
+for Congress not to get involved. The reason for that is that
+it is so much a local issue. The way the draft is written at
+this stage, it requires each state to respond with rules and
+then provides definitions which I think will cause
+difficulties.
+ I agree with the comment that was made earlier. The
+amendments are out of character with the National Act. The Act
+has really not included this kind of specific standard on the
+states, as many of the EPA statutes have. So, I would be
+cautious in this area.
+ Mr. Saxton. May I just ask, our motivation for doing this
+in this bill is that my experience at least has been that our
+State legislature has had a difficult time dealing with this
+issue.
+ Our motive was not to do it for the states, but to try to
+provide a little extra push to make it more feasible for
+something to happen in the state legislatures. Is there a
+different way that we could go about doing this?
+ Obviously, something needs to be done in order to
+facilitate the kinds of things that have been talked about here
+today to have them happen on the state level. So, we do not
+want to mandate. We do not want to burden. We do not want to
+provide for concrete types of steps to be taken.
+ We want to encourage progress to be made in this area. How
+can we do that if we do not address it in this bill or in some
+other vehicle that we have at our disposal?
+ Dr. Hershman. The draft that I saw calls for requiring an
+inclusion in the program of an enforceable policy on this area
+with the definitions involved. That is a departure from the way
+the CZMA has operated in the past.
+ In the past, there have been requirements to study
+particular areas, come up with an assessment of them. Certainly
+the 309 assessment process was one of those in which states
+could identify areas of particular concern and then develop
+strategies for that and there were extra funds available for
+that.
+ I guess I go back to the point I made earlier, the
+initiative has always been with the state to define the
+specific problem within the broad parameters laid out in the
+Federal Act.
+ I think that is one of the strengths of the program. I do
+not have an alternative to propose at this time. I would
+certainly be happy to think more about it and see if one comes
+to mind.
+ Mr. Saxton. I am sorry.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. No, Mr. Chairman.
+ I am trying to follow the Chairman's train of thought here.
+Not necessarily on a regulatory basis, but giving some sense of
+guidelines for the states to follow, but not mandating the
+states to do so because of the varieties of circumstances that
+the states are involved.
+ It is too bad the National Governors Association met
+recently. Maybe the Governors among the 50 States could have
+put their heads together, come out with some kind of a
+resolution or exchange ideas or problems that maybe they cannot
+resolve at that level. I do not know.
+ I just wanted to raise that question with the members of
+the panel. If we are in a position to address the issue from
+the Congress, or could this be done more effectively among the
+various states. I just wanted just to raise that issue.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
+ Let me just bring up an issue that has been discussed
+throughout the testimony today. Mr. Shinn mentioned correctly
+that our State, in fact the Northeast, has made great progress
+in terms of the ocean environment.
+ Ms. Cooksey also said that we have made progress, but we
+have dealt with the easy problems which she is correct about.
+Obviously when you can see a source of pollution, and fashion a
+response to the problem, and have the resources to do it with,
+then it gets done. We have done that. We have upgraded waste
+water treatment systems in the Northeast. We have prohibited
+chemical dumping in the ocean.
+ We have prohibited sludge dumping in the ocean. We have
+been able to control floatables, to a large degree, in the
+Northeast. These are all problems that you can see and
+unfortunately experience from time-to-time.
+ We have had the political will therefore to identify them,
+to develop the resource base to deal with them, and we have
+dealt with them. The issues that we have not been successful
+and the more difficult issues that Ms. Cooksey referred to I
+think are generally referred to as non-point sources of
+pollution.
+ It is our desire to provide an incentive to deal with them
+as well on the state level. What we have done to-date has been
+moderately, I guess, successful. That is probably being
+generous.
+ What do you think? Is there a way that we can better
+address this issue in CZM? If so, elaborate for us.
+ Bob, would you like to start?
+ Mr. Shinn. I think that is a very thought provoking
+suggestion because what we are finding is that more and more
+the impacts, as we regulate sewage treatment plants and get
+into secondary and tertiary treatment, et cetera, where the
+investment, once you got beyond tertiary treatment to get that
+last 3 or 4 percent of treatment processes, is huge. You never
+get to 100 percent.
+ We did a specific study in the Barnegat Bay on phosphorous
+and the origins of phosphorous. I think we had more than 12,000
+data points. It was more data points than we have ever had in
+any study.
+ The conclusion was that 91 percent of the phosphorous was
+coming from fertilizers and pesticides relative to individual
+lawns in the Barnegat Bay system. So, I think a part of the
+mission ahead of us, if we are going to solve our non-point
+problems, is really a strong educational program.
+ That needs to be in our school system. Certainly, GIS is
+something that I see a great future for in environmental
+education in school settings. I think that is a challenge that
+is hard to get our arms around as an environmental agency
+because we are not traditionally ``educators.''
+ Now, we have got a mandatory curriculum in New Jersey that
+the legislature passed last year. I think that is a good first
+step. I think environmental education and knowing the
+individual's impact, we like to think of pollution as someone
+else polluting our resource.
+ We like to point across the way. It is sort of we found the
+enemy and it is us. I think the secret to that is education in
+our school systems, much the way we got good buy-in for
+recycling.
+ I think non-point pollution, which is sort of a little bit
+of a mysterious word generally, needs to be defined as to what
+that is and what part individuals play in that.
+ When you find out it is the car you drive, and maybe some
+litter that happens inadvertently, and lack of recycling and
+the way we apply fertilizers and pesticides, and some of the
+chemicals we use, it is not recognized that the things we do
+and the drainage from our homes end up in the river, the bay,
+or the ocean.
+ It is the only place they can go. So, the whole watershed
+debate is very, very interesting. If guess if you had a perfect
+world, you would go back to those 566 municipalities in New
+Jersey and design them around 96 watersheds.
+ Everyone would have a lot better feeling about how their
+basin drains and a lot more recognition. Of course, that is
+impossible. Just thinking in that context leads you down a path
+that really ends up with environmental education at the end of
+this to really solve our problems in a partnership way.
+ Ms. Cooksey. I will comment just briefly. I agree with
+what the Commissioner said. However, I also think we just need
+to use every single tool we have. I think it is going to take a
+long time. I think it is going to take a lot of money to clean
+it up.
+ I think we need research into treatment. We all know that
+no matter what your land use is, whether it is agricultural or
+urban, it contributes. We need to come up with something to
+implement change.
+ We have books on best management practices, but I think we
+need more work in that area. I think we are going to have to
+spend money in my State for the agricultural community to help
+them along.
+ We do not have enough resources right now to do it. Our
+plan is to base it on a watershed based by impact. It is going
+to be tough.
+ Mr. Lytton. Mr. Chairman, I think there are two
+contributions that the National Research Reserves can bring to
+the table on non-point pollution.
+ The first is going back to our system wide monitoring
+program. We have all 25 sites as we develop our national
+system. We are developing the capability to assess change in
+water quality linked directly to land use activities within our
+watersheds.
+ As we increase our understanding of the linkage between
+those changes, we can work more efficiently with our coastal
+communities to help them deal with their non-point issues.
+ The second and perhaps more to the point, I agree with Mr.
+Shinn on environmental education. Research reserves do have
+professional staff that not only do environmental education for
+K-12, but we have taken on technical training as a very
+important part of our mission. Specifically, we target decision
+makers, including land use planners, the regulatory agencies
+and coastal managers that deal with non-point issues.
+ It is very important that we take the science that Sarah
+was talking about and link that to the decision makers that are
+dealing with non-point. Research reserves, again, are well-
+placed to help us get there.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
+ The gentleman from American Samoa.
+ Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the
+members of the panel for traveling such long distances to come
+and to testify in our Subcommittee this morning.
+ I sincerely hope that whatever our Subcommittee will
+produce as a part of the authorization to the CZMA will be to
+their satisfaction. If not, we look forward to hearing from
+them as well.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you for coming long distances to be with
+us today. We appreciate it very much. We also appreciate the
+fact that you have hung in here with us for the better part of
+3 hours.
+ We do not always have hearings that last this long, but
+this one was very interesting, and the part that you all played
+in helping us to understand this issue a little better is much
+appreciated.
+ [The prepared statement of the NOIA may be found at the end
+of the hearing.]
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
+
+Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
+ the State of New Jersey
+
+ Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this oversight hearing
+on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). I am pleased to see
+that you have invited two distinguished individuals from New
+Jersey to testify today. Tom Fote of the New Jersey Coast
+Anglers Association is respected throughout the state for his
+expertise in coastal issues. New Jersey Department of
+Environmental Protection Commissioner Robert Shinn has worked
+at the local, county, and state levels of government, and has
+devoted much of his career in public service to resource
+management.
+ Congress last authorized the CZMA in 1996, and the current
+authorization expires at the end of this fiscal year. As the
+Committee works to develop a CZMA reauthorization measure, I
+want to express my hope that it reflect our strong commitment
+to the protection, enjoyment, and responsible management of our
+coast.
+ As a native of the New Jersey shore, I know firsthand the
+importance of safeguarding our coastal resources. The CZMA
+gives states the resources necessary to protect the fisheries,
+wildlife, and coastal interests that are so important to our
+states' economies.
+ The CZMA governs important aspects of our coastal
+resources--far too many to be included in my statement today.
+However, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a few that are of
+particular concern to me.
+ The CZMA was amended in 1990 to incorporate the Coastal
+Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, also known as Section 6217.
+Nonpoint source pollution is one of the most significant
+sources of water pollution affecting our nation's coastal
+waters. It contributes to beach closures, threatens our
+commercial and recreational fisheries, compromises public
+health, and has an overall negative effect on coastal tourism.
+States and the Federal Government have devoted much time and
+effort into developing plans to curb contaminated runoff into
+our coastal waters. I hope today's witnesses will address the
+benefits of including a sufficiently funded Coastal Nonpoint
+Pollution Control Program in a CZMA reauthorization measure.
+ Living in a coastal community has allowed me and my family
+unlimited opportunities to enjoy the shore. Sadly, the public's
+access to our nation's beaches is declining. More than twenty
+five years ago public access to the shoreline was established
+as a focal point for coastal zone management. Resource
+Management Improvement Grants under Section 306A and Coastal
+Zone Enhancement Grants under Section 309 provide funds for
+states to encourage public access. Despite substantial
+accomplishments, however, the goal of a highly accessible coast
+remains unfulfilled. I am particularly interested in learning
+more about states' efforts to enhance universal public
+coastline access and in knowing how changes to these grants
+will affect access programs.
+ Finally, the use of personal watercraft is of growing
+concern. I have recently received letters from constituents
+expressing their concerns about ``jet ski'' use within inshore
+waters. I would like to hear from those closely involved in
+this issue. This relatively new form of coastal recreation
+presents many questions. What are the effects of personal
+watercraft on wildlife and fisheries? Do ``jet skis'' in fact
+detract from coastal aesthetics and add to noise pollution?
+What constitutes a ``no wake'' speed when these small craft are
+designed to skim over water at high speeds. Answers to these
+questions are needed to help us decide if we should address
+this issue in a reauthorization measure.
+ In closing Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this
+hearing on something that is so very important to us all. I
+look forward to working with you to develop a thoughtfully
+crafted Coastal Zone Nanagement reauthorization.
+
+ Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
+ The hearing is adjourned.
+ [Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
+ [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
+ Statement of Howard Park, Consultant, Personal Watercraft Industry
+ Association
+
+ Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee
+today. My name is Howard Park and I represent the Personal
+Watercraft Industry Association. PWIA represents the five major
+manufacturers of personal watercraft (PWC), Arctic Cat Inc.
+based in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, Bombardier Motor Corp.
+of America, based in Melbourne, Florida, Kawasaki Motors Corp.-
+USA, based in Irvine, California, Polaris Industries, Inc.,
+based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Yamaha Motor Corp.-USA of
+Cypress, California. PWC are often referred to as ``Jet Skis,''
+Kawasaki's brand name and a trademark of that company. Three
+PWIA member companies also make motors for larger types of
+boats.
+ This is the first time that I have ever testified before
+Congress. My colleagues and I have, however, testified in
+numerous states on countless occasions. We believe that
+regulation of PWC and other forms of boating belongs at the
+state and local level. Apparently, the concerns that led to
+inclusion of PWC regulation in this legislation before the
+Subcommittee originated with concerns about PWC operation in
+Barnegat Bay, in New Jersey. Prior to seeing the language of
+the bill before you, we were (and still are) in support of
+state legislation, Assembly Bill 653, to keep PWC out of
+shallow areas of Barnegat Bay. It is early in the legislative
+session in New Jersey, regardless of the outcome of the
+legislation before this Subcommittee, we would welcome the
+opportunity to work with those who are concerned with the issue
+in New Jersey.
+ It has always been our position that PWC (and other
+motorized boats) should not operate in shallow waters less than
+two feet in depth. We have never opposed--and in fact support--
+legislation that prohibits such operation. Our safety materials
+reflect this position. There is no basis to suggest that PWC
+should be singled out for such prohibitions. No motorized boat
+should operate in such shallow waters. Some say that only PWC
+should be prohibited from operating in shallow waters because
+only PWC can access such areas. That is simply false. Many
+types of jet-propelled boats and hovercraft, not defined as
+PWC, can access waters of two feet or less in depth.
+ There has been considerable research into the effects of
+PWC, boating and other human activities on wildlife and aquatic
+vegetation. Probably the most extensive studies of this subject
+were conducted for the Florida Department of Environmental
+Protection and Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council. Neither
+study found any basis to single out PWC for special
+regulations.
+ In addition, according to Dr. James Rodgers, a biologist
+with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, who has
+conducted extensive research into this issue, ``A PWC moving at
+idle speed obliquely to the birds should produce the same
+flushing response as an outboard motorboat. Similarly, a fast
+moving motorboat heading directly at the birds with a deep V
+bow throwing white spray should produce a flushing response
+similar to that of a PWC being operated in a similar manner.''
+ I will leave copies of several studies related to wildlife
+disturbance with Committee staff and I have a limited number of
+copies for members. In any case, our recent progress with noise
+reduction technology promises to reduce any disturbance that
+PWC operation may cause.
+ Our most serious concern is that the bill would require
+that personal watercraft (PWC) be operated at no-wake speed or
+less in ``sensitive'' areas, defined as ``any area in the
+coastal zone that contains living marine resources and birds
+that may be impacted during the operation of a PWC.'' PWC
+should not be operated in areas where they have a negative
+impact on the resource--where good science supports such a
+conclusion--we have no problem with that. We believe that all
+boats should always be operated in an environmentally
+responsible manner.
+ We do have a serious concern, however, with the extremely
+broad definition of ``sensitive area'' in this bill which can
+be interpreted to include any area with any marine life, even
+microscopic organisms. Thus, this bill could cover the entire
+coastal zone and all the waters within it. We are especially
+concerned that this would be interpreted by the media and the
+public as a ``ban'' on PWC operation. This would have a
+chilling effect on our industry and the rights of over 5
+million PWC owners and operators.
+ We believe that the approach of segregating one type of
+vessel is unreasonable and not supported by good science.
+ We know there are sincere concerns about PWC operation. The
+steps we are taking to meet these concerns include:
+
+ new technology introduced in the past year which
+ reduces sound emissions from PWC by 50 percent;
+ our support of mandatory education for PWC operators,
+ several states have adopted legislation based on our model;
+ tough model legislation, at the state level, to
+ regulate businesses that rent PWC;
+ under a voluntary agreement reached with the EPA,
+ spending at least tens of millions of dollars (so far) to
+ develop cleaner engines that meet or exceed EPA targets;
+ lending, free of charge, over 1,500 PWC each year to
+ law enforcement agencies to assist them in on-water enforcement
+ and rescue efforts;
+ supplying free print and video safety materials with
+ each PWC that is sold and many thousands of these materials to
+ law enforcement and education institutions;
+ supporting a minimum age of 16 for PWC operation.
+ Our model legislation for regulation of PWC is tougher than
+all but a small handful of states.
+ Thank you. I would like to submit several written materials
+for the record and I would be pleased to answer questions.
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.001
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.002
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.003
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.004
+
+Statement of Marc J. Hershman, James W. Good, Tina Bernd-Cohen, Robert
+ F. Goodwin, Virginia Lee, and Pam Pogue*
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+ * Marc J. Hershman is Director and Professor, School of Marine
+Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle. James W. Good is Sea Grant
+Coastal Resource Specialist and Professor, Marine Resources Management,
+Oregon State University, Corvallis. Tina Bernd-Cohen is Coastal
+Consultant, Helena, Montana. Robert F. Goodwin is Coastal Resource
+Specialist and Affiliate Professor, Washington Sea Grant and School of
+Marine Affairs, Unversity of Washington, Seattle. Virgnia Lee is U.S.
+Program Manager, Coastal Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea Grant,
+University of Rhode Island. Pam Pogue is a Project Manager, Coastal
+Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island,
+Narragansett, RI.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was adopted
+by the U.S. Congress in 1972. It provides a national framework
+for improved state management of the coastal lands and waters
+of the nation's coastal zone.
+ The Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study was
+undertaken between 1995 and 1997 to determine how well state
+coastal management programs in the U.S. were implementing the
+CZMA. The study was commissioned by the Office of Ocean and
+Coastal Resources Management (OCRM) within NOAA, and carried
+out through the National Sea Grant Program, also within NOAA.
+ We studied five of the core objectives of the CZMA:
+
+ protection of estuaries and coastal wetlands
+ protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores
+ provision of public access to the shore
+ revitalization of urban waterfronts
+ accommodation of seaport development (a coastal dependent use)
+ In carrying out the study we examined systematically all of the 29
+state programs that were approved at the time, reviewed documents and
+data, and conducted interviews with state officials. We sought
+information on the governmental processes as well as ``on the-ground''
+outcomes of the program efforts. Detailed state profiles, five national
+technical reports, and article-length summaries are on file with OCRM
+and will be on their Home Page. The articles will be published in the
+Spring of 1999 in Coastal Management journal.
+ We offer three major conclusions:
+
+ State CZM programs are effectively implementing the five CZMA
+objectives examined. However, this conclusion is based on assessment of
+the policies, processes and tools used, and on only limited outcome
+data and case examples that were available.
+ For about one-third of the states there was sufficient outcome data
+to show effectiveness in protecting coastal wetlands and estuaries. If
+these states are ``representative'' of all states, then outcome data
+shows that this CZMA objective is being met.
+ Beach and dune resources are being protected based on the number of
+regulatory tools in use and the upgrades to these tools over the years.
+Beach and dune protection must be balanced with pressures to provide
+recreational opportunity and to protect private property rights.
+ Public access to the coast is being advanced using regulatory,
+acquisition, technical assistance and education/outreach programs.
+Roughly 455 public access-related projects were funded by coastal
+programs in the late 1980s, and an estimated 12,000 public access sites
+are available in 26 of the 29 states.
+ Over 303 urban waterfront revitalization districts in the U.S. have
+benefited from CZM program funds and design assistance. On average
+these districts are halfway to full revitalization--infrastructure has
+been improved and at least one redevelopment project has been
+completed.
+ Twelve ``port-active'' states, where large scale general cargo
+ports operate, use special policies and regulatory tools to expedite
+port development, including financial grants, specific port development
+zones, and expedited regulatory reviews.
+
+ There are insufficient data for systematic, outcome-based
+performance evaluation of state CZM programs. Needed is a common set of
+outcome indicators that would link state management activities to
+national CZMA objectives.
+ Outcome indicators must be developed that balance state and Federal
+perspectives. Our study suggests many possible indicators, a selected
+number of which could be adopted. For example one measure of wetlands
+protection could be the area of annual permitted loss per year as a
+percent of all regulated wetlands. A measure of beach and dune
+protection could be a count of stewardship projects induced by the CZM
+program which provide beach accessways, dune crossovers, and designated
+protected areas. And, progress in waterfront revitalization could be
+tracked through an accounting of stages reached in the revitalization
+process and the scope of CZM goals achieved.
+
+ The time is ripe for Congress to initiate a national outcome
+monitoring and performance evaluation system. OCRM should take the lead
+in implementing the process.
+ Systematic outcome monitoring, reporting and evaluation will not
+occur without external stimulus and leadership. Coastal managers are
+already over-burdened with implementation tasks and they face political
+and legal pressures administering their programs. Congressional
+leadership will encourage a common set of indicators allowing
+comparisons across states and conclusions about national performance.
+In this way on-the-ground outcomes from the national investment in CZM
+can be credibly measured.
+ SUMMARIES OF THE FIVE NATIONAL STUDIES OF THE CZME*
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ * An Overview article surmmarizing the entire study is at Hershman,
+et al., 1999.
+
+ Protecting Estuaries and Coastal Wetlands. Good et al. (1999) found
+sufficient outcome data to make ``probable'' effectiveness
+determinations for about one-third of the states examined. Of these,
+they found that 80 percent were performing at expected or higher levels
+in protecting wetland and estuary resources considering issue
+importance and strength of processes used in the state. If these states
+can be shown to be representative, they argue, then the national
+program as a whole can be considered effective for this objective.
+ Good et al. (1999) followed a four-step process in their study,
+first examining issue importance, next the potential effectiveness of
+CMPs based on process indicators, then outcome effectiveness based on
+on-the-ground outcome indicators, and finally, overall performance
+based on a comparison of outcome effectiveness with issue importance
+and potential effectiveness.
+ To rate and compare the importance of estuary and coastal wetland
+protection as a CZM issue in each state, the authors chose seven issue
+importance indicators--three environmental, two social-demographic, and
+two perception-based. To them, issue importance serves as context for
+determining the level of program performance.
+ Next, Good et al. (1999) defined a ``model state CMP'' for estuary
+and wetland protection based on the most important processes and tools
+identified by all the states. From the model CMP, criteria were
+developed and applied to estimate the potential effectiveness of each
+state program ``on paper.'' Potential effectiveness ratings increased
+as the state approached the model.
+ Outcome indicators were defined as ``measures of on-the-ground
+protection provided by the CZM processes and tools.'' An example is the
+area of wetland compensatory mitigation required in a CZM regulatory
+program as documented in the permit process. This indicator, along with
+other measures of regulatory, planning, acquisition, and nonregulatory
+outcomes, were used to estimate outcome effectiveness. The authors
+found data sufficient to make at least ``probable'' outcome
+effectiveness determinations for just 12 of the 29 CMPs. They rated ten
+of these 12 (83 percent) as either ``effective'' or ``very effective''
+using model-based rating criteria.
+ Finally, Good et al. (1999) compare outcome effectiveness ratings
+with issue importance and potential effectiveness ratings in order to
+place program performance in the unique context of each state. To rate
+overall performance, they compare outcome effectiveness results with
+the seriousness of the problem in the state (issue importance) and with
+the ability of the state's decision-making institutions to deal with
+the issue (potential effectiveness). As they put it, this allows a
+determination of overall performance for a state that suits its
+particular situation, rather than a determination based on a ``one size
+fits all'' approach. Thus a state with a low issue importance rating is
+not held to the same standard as one that rates that issue as high.
+ Protecting Beaches and Dunes. Bernd-Cohen and Gordon (1999)
+conclude, based on process indicators and case examples, that coastal
+programs are effectively addressing the goal of protecting beach and
+dune resources. To support their conclusion they cite to the wide range
+of tools in use, the progressive upgrading of these tools over the
+years, and numerous case examples of sophisticated tools now in use.
+Outcome data were inconclusive and available in only a few states.
+ The authors outline 26 tools used by the states to protect beaches
+and dunes, from which they derive ten key ``process indicators of
+effectiveness.'' The majority of these indicators are regulatory,
+including controls over construction and public access where these may
+damage natural resources. They highlight one commonly used device,
+coastal setback regulations, to show its potential utility to protect
+resources and reduce hazards. However, they also point out that a
+carefully developed setback law often includes many exceptions designed
+to enhance recreation or protect private property rights. And because
+outcome data that show the results of implementation are inconclusive
+and revealed mostly in case study examples, they cannot make definitive
+conclusions about the effectiveness of setbacks, or other regulatory
+and planning devices, that are designed to protect the resources.
+ Bernd-Cohen and Gordon (1998) highlight the wide range of tools in
+use, including regulatory programs, planning coupled with regulations,
+stewardship of publicly owned lands, research and public education.
+They point out that CZM programs have progressively upgraded their
+management tools to improve how they deal with development impacts and
+long-term effects. And, they present case examples that show some
+highly sophisticated tools now in use to address the technical and
+legal issues. These achievements, when viewed against the backdrop of
+conflicting policies and multiple governmental programs concerned with
+beach and dune resources, suggest to them good progress toward the
+protection goal.
+ The authors believe that meaningful outcome monitoring and
+evaluation are possible for this topic area. The outcome data
+collected, though inconclusive, suggest that states are both capable
+and desirous of more rigorous documentation of results. Bernd Cohen and
+Gordon (1998) present a list of outcome effectiveness indicators that,
+if systematically monitored and reported across all states, could serve
+as the basis for a national performance evaluation system for this
+issue area.
+ Providing Public Access to the Coast. Pogue and Lee (1999) conclude
+that state CZM programs are national leaders in improving access to the
+coast, first through a wide range of acquisition, regulatory and
+planning tools, and more recently through innovative technical
+assistance and public education and outreach programs.
+ The authors note that the CZMA was the first Federal law to
+establish a public access policy for the U.S., and that the state CZM
+programs are in the forefront implementing this goal. States use a wide
+range of tools to achieve the goal including acquisition, regulatory
+and land use requirements, technical assistance and public education
+and outreach. The diversity of approaches is illustrated through a
+variety of case examples.
+ Although hard numbers for measuring outcomes were not available,
+Pogue and Lee (1998) note that $35 million (unadjusted 1988 $$) were
+spent on 455 public access related projects between 1985 and 1988,
+roughly 12 percent of the total CZM funding available in that period.
+The authors report an estimate of over 12,000 public access sites
+available in 26 of the 29 states, though the linkage with CZM program
+actions could not be studied. The states with the most sites tend to
+have the greatest number of processes available for promoting access.
+The authors note a policy shift in the 1990s away from direct
+acquisition and regulation toward technical assistance and public
+outreach--a recognition of the overall decrease in funds available for
+access. Innovative approaches such as design standards, legal research
+and signage are highlighted. They also stress the role of CZM programs
+in balancing resource protection needs with growing public demand for
+beach recreation opportunities.
+ Chief among their recommendations is that CZM programs conduct
+needs assessments to determine the kind of access needed in the future
+and where it should be located. And, due to the creativity and
+innovation used to achieve access they argue for a clearinghouse, or
+register, for documenting and sharing information on innovative tools
+and programs.
+ Revitalizing Waterfronts. Goodwin (1999) found 303 urban waterfront
+districts which have benefited from state CZM programs. Districts on
+average are roughly halfway to full revitalization (infrastructure has
+been improved and at least one redevelopment project is completed).
+Fourteen coastal programs are determined to be the most effective in
+waterfront revitalization because of their on-the-ground outcomes and
+the close linkage between CZM policies, processes and the outcomes.
+Revitalization is occuring mostly in those areas of the country
+experiencing industrial change--the rust belt, the Pacific Northwest,
+and New England.
+ Goodwin (1999) found that providing funds for waterfront planning
+and public improvements was considered the most important of all the
+tools used by coastal managers to revitalize waterfronts. He documents
+CZM funds of over $30 million leveraging over $430 million of non-CZM
+funds, an amount he believes is an underestimate. In addition to
+identifying funding and the wide range of additional tools used by the
+coastal management programs, he defines key process outcomes such as
+adopted waterfront revitalization plans and design studies performed to
+achieve on-the-ground outcomes. Goodwin develops an ideal waterfront
+revitalization program and determines, in a similar way to Good, et al.
+(1999), the degree to which each of the states approaches the ideal.
+ Outcomes themselves were in three forms: extent of revitalization
+in the state measured by the number of districts involved; stage of
+revitalization achieved in each district; and scope of resulting on-
+the-ground improvements that revitalize and achieve coastal management
+goals. For example he shows the number of districts where
+revitalization is complete, the number having reached certain
+milestones such as completed plans, infrastructure, or projects, and
+the number of districts achieving different types of uses.
+ Goodwin finds that the greatest needs nationally are to formulate
+an urban waterfront data base that would describe the amount of
+waterfront revitalization that has occurred and that still remains
+unfinished, and to elevate waterfront revitalization to a national
+objective under section 309 of the CZMA.
+ Accommodating Seaport Development. Hershman (1999) concluded that
+12 ``port-active'' states are effectively achieving the goal of the Act
+because of their specific policies and management tools which
+facilitate port development, and because of preliminary evidence of
+``organizational learning'' in CZM and port agencies derived from case
+studies in ten of the twelve states.
+ Seaport development is one of the coastal dependent uses to which
+CZM programs are to give priority consideration. Hershman focused on
+large-scale general cargo ports because of the role they play in global
+trade and their importance to the nation, as well as the state in which
+they are located. He found that most states give port development only
+general consideration in policies and procedures, similar to any other
+coastal developer, but that twelve states stand out as ``port-active''
+states. These states have significant port facilities from a national
+perspective (or relative to their size), and correspondingly these CZM
+programs have more specific policies and techniques to help review and
+facilitate port development. These specific tools include financial
+grants, specific port zones, expedited regulatory processes, and other
+tools.
+ According to Hershman, measuring outcomes in meeting the seaport
+development goal is problematic; whether a port is built or not is
+dependent primarily on economic and locational factors. CZM can
+influence the timing, shape and manner of port development, but this
+depends on the context in every case and normally reflects other CZM
+objectives such as wetland protection or public access. He relies,
+therefore, on the notion of ``organizational learning,'' where the
+manner in which the port and CZM organizations interact to accommodate
+their mutual needs becomes a measure of effectiveness. If what they
+learn from each other results in changed objectives within each
+organization and helps resolve differences, then the port and CZM
+organization are being effective in meeting the objectives of a multi-
+purpose Act like the CZMA. Through case examples he suggests that they
+are, in effect, beginning to integrate the multiple objectives of the
+CZMA within each organization.
+
+ Bernd-Cohen, T., and M. Gordon, 1999. State coastal program
+effectiveness in protecting natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky
+shores''. Coastal Management 27: ---------.
+ Good, J. W. J. W. Weber, and J.W. Charland, 1999. Protecting
+estuaries and coastal wetlands through state coastal management
+programs. Coastal Management 27: ---- to ----.
+ Goodwin, R. F., 1999. Redeveloping deteriorated urban waterfronts:
+The effectiveness of U.S. coastal management programs. Coastal
+Management 27: ---- to ----.
+ Hershman, M. J., J. Good, T. Bernd-Cohen, R. Goodwin, V. Lee, P.
+Pogue, 1999. The effectiveness of coastal zone management in the United
+States. Coastal Management 27: ---- to ----.
+ Hershman, M. J., 1999. Seaport development and coastal management
+programs: A national overview. Coastal Management 27: ---- to ----.
+ Pogue, P, and V. Lee, 1999. Effectiveness of state coastal
+management programs in providing public access to the shore: A national
+overview. Coastal Management 27: ---- to ----.
+ ______
+
+ Statement of National Ocean Industries Association and the American
+ Petroleum Institute
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate
+this opportunity to provide our views on reauthorization of the Coastal
+Zone Management Act (CZMA).
+ This statement is being made today on behalf of the members of the
+National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) and the American Petroleum
+Institute (API). The over 270 members of NOIA constitute the only trade
+association representing all segments of the domestic offshore oil and
+gas business, including drillers, producers, service companies and
+equipment manufacturers. The API represents over 400 companies involved
+in all aspects of the exploration, production, transportation, refining
+and the marketing of oil and natural gas.
+ Together these associations represent an important and nationally
+significant marine business. A business that has provided the energy
+necessary to fuel the nation's growing economy. A business that has
+contributed significant reserves to the Federal Treasury ($5.2 billion
+FY 1997 from bonus bids, rents and royalties alone) and employs
+hundreds of thousands of American workers. In addition, it is a
+business that has conducted its operations in an environmentally
+responsible manner.
+ As an important coastal and marine stakeholder, the oil and gas
+business holds significant interest in the CZMA. While we support the
+Act's goal to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated management
+program to achieve marine economic development and coastal resource
+protection, we believe improvements can be made that can benefit the
+coastal environment as well as all coastal and marine stakeholders.
+ Mr. Chairman, NOIA and API testified before this Subcommittee in
+1995, during a hearing on your bill that reauthorized the CZMA (H.R.
+1965). During that hearing we raised concerns over the Act's failure to
+satisfy a key national objective to coordinate and simplify the
+``administrative procedures to ensure expedited governmental decision-
+making'' for multiple-use coastal resource management.
+ Our comments and experience with the timeliness of appeals for
+comprehensive federally approved plans for oil and gas exploratory
+drilling, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA),
+proved the CZMA process is ``complex and anything but expedited.''
+Through your leadership, Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee responded to
+these concerns by adding much-needed statute of limitations for the
+Commerce Secretary's review. NOAA is now in the process of promulgating
+regulations to implement this streamlining measure.
+ Today we would like to comment briefly on several other areas where
+we believe this Subcommittee can enhance and improve certain aspects of
+the CZMA. Highlighted below are a few recommendations. They are not
+inclusive, but rather illustrate areas where we wish to work with you
+and the Subcommittee during the 1999 CZMA reauthorization process to
+improve the implementation of the Act.
+
+ Federal agencies, states and the business community
+ agree that many Federal activities have only a de minimis
+ impact on coastal uses. Requiring extensive consistency
+ determinations for each and every activity regardless of the
+ significance of the environmental impacts adds undue cost and
+ resource expenses to coastal managers and Federal agencies. As
+ an example, certain Federal activities involve no more than the
+ publication of schedules or calendars of anticipated actions or
+ other like policy documents. It appears unnecessary to require
+ an extensive consistency determination for these actions.
+ We suggest that the Subcommittee seek adoption of a legislative
+ solution to this matter. A process to limit the required review
+ of de minimis Federal activities similar to the categorical
+ exclusion process in the National Environmental Policy Act
+ (NEPA) may be one area to explore.
+ We endorse your suggestion to evaluate the
+ effectiveness of state coastal zone management programs and
+ their level of achievement in meeting the objectives of the
+ CZMA. We expect that such a review might find several programs
+ simply do not meet CZMA's national objective of ``priority
+ consideration for coastal dependent uses and energy facility
+ siting.''
+ We recommend that you consider addition of language requiring
+ NOAA to consult with ocean and coastal stakeholders, including
+ the oil and gas exploration, marine transportation and other
+ commercial users of coastal and marine resources, as it
+ prepares such an evaluation.
+ Similarly, we suggest that the Subcommittee emphasize
+ economic development opportunities under the Act. The added
+ pressures of population and infrastructure on the coastline are
+ well documented. Given this fact, it seems the Act should
+ emphasize sound coastal multiple-use development. This might be
+ best accomplished through a better articulation of the Act's
+ national multiple-use objectives.
+ The Act offers a significant opportunity to base
+ coastal management decisions on sound science. Too often, in
+ our experience, CZMA decisions objecting to offshore oil and
+ gas operations have been made absent equal attention to
+ science, engineering capabilities and economics. The CZMA
+ should be used to link both scientific expertise, technical
+ practicability and coastal and ocean policy making. It is in
+ our collective best interest to ensure that this link is made.
+ During state CZMA reviews of oil and gas operations,
+ the states are provided with a large flow of information,
+ including environmental impact analyses already conducted under
+ NEPA and the OCSLA, and other necessary information. Working
+ with the Federal permitting authorities, the states are also
+ given opportunities for direct and detailed comment and
+ consultation during the development of this information under
+ the OCSLA process. In addition, the oil and gas business and
+ the states currently communicate on an ongoing basis with
+ respect to aspects of the operations and the regulating
+ policies of the coastal zone management plan.
+ This information gathering and dissemination process is an
+ open, exhaustive, complete and costly process. We believe it
+ should not be expanded as it would result in redundancies and
+ further delays in the CZMA review process and no additional
+ understanding of the environmental impacts would be gained.
+ Mr. Chairman, the members of NOIA and API appreciate this
+opportunity to comment on the Coastal Zone Management Act and look
+forward to working with you and the members of the Subcommittee as you
+prepare legislation to reauthorize the CZMA.
+ Thank you.
+ ______
+
+ Response to questions from Rep. Eni F. H. Falemavaega
+ The reauthorized Coastal Zone Management Act introduced changes to
+the structure of the grant program, incorporating Resource Management
+Improvement Grants and Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants into one
+section, Costal Community Conservation Grants.
+
+Question
+
+ Does the Administration support this change? Why or
+ why not?
+ What do you see as the drawbacks and benefits to this
+ structural change? Do you think it will result in more money
+ going into on-the-ground, outcome-based projects.
+
+Answer:
+
+ NOAA's Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) met with
+Committee staff on March 3, 1999, to discuss the latest draft of the
+bill which now differs from the version for which you requested
+comments. NOAA's views on both versions follow.
+ The initial draft bill combined Resource Management Improvement
+Grants and Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants into one section, titled
+Community Conservation Grants. This combination of two very distinct
+program purposes could have posed problems for some state, territorial
+and commonwealth Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs by forcing them
+to select between the immediate need to support high priority community
+projects versus long term program improvements.
+ The revised draft bill reviewed on March 3rd no longer combines
+these sections. It establishes separate authorizations for core Coastal
+Zone Management Program Administration Grants (section 306), Coastal
+Zone Enhancement Grants (section 309), and Coastal Community
+Conservation Grants (arevised section 306A). These revisions continue
+to provide CZM Programs with the ability to address all of these
+significant issues including funding for addressing the type of on-the-
+ground, outcome-based projects NOAA is seeking through the Lands Legacy
+Initiative.
+ NOAA believes that Section 310, Providing for Community-Based
+Solutions for Growth Management and Resource Protection, is the
+appropriate place to accomplish the Coastal Community Conservation
+Grants instead of the revised Section 306A. Our goal is to encourage
+states to participate in coastal community conservation. By requiring a
+match as set out in the committees Section 306A, we are concerned that
+states will have difficulty participating. We have already witnessed
+the problems States encounter in raising funds to participate in the
+current Section 306 basic grants program. For that reason we urge the
+Committee not to require a match for the Community Project planning and
+include it in Section 310.
+ The newly required section 309 match, however, may pose a problem
+for some CZM Programs and discourage experimentation in program
+improvement. Overall, the March 3 draft appears to meet many of the
+objectives important to NOAA.
+ ______
+
+ Letter to Mr. Garcia from Mr. Young
+Dear Mr. Garcia:
+ Thank you for your testimony at the hearing on the Coastal Zone
+Management Act on Thursday, February 25. I have some additional
+questions regarding the Act's reauthorization. Please submit your
+written answers by March 12, so that they may be included in the record
+and also considered when the reauthorization bill comes before the full
+Committee on Resources.
+ During the hearing, the final panel of witnesses agreed that the
+Coastal Zone Management Act has been successful in creating Federal-
+state partnerships that work fairly well. The reauthorization bill that
+will be introduced changes the structure of the grant program,
+incorporating Resource Management Improvement Grants and Coastal Zone
+Enhancement Grants into one section, Coastal Community Conservation
+Grants. The proposed grant system requires matching funds and must be
+implemented in conjunction with a ``qualified local entity.''
+ Does the Administration support this change? Why or
+ why not?
+ What do you see as the drawbacks and benefits to this
+ structural change? Do you think it will result in more money
+ going into on-the-ground, outcome-based projects?
+ Thank you for your prompt response.
+ Sincerely,
+
+Eni Faleomavaega
+ ______
+
+ Response to questions from Mr. Faleomavaega from Marc J. Hershman
+Dear Mr. Faleomavaega:
+ This letter responds to your questions about the proposal to
+combine the enhancement grants (old 309) and resource improvement
+grants (306a) portions of the CZMA into one section dealing with
+Coastal Community Conservation Grants. The intent appears to be to push
+more funds down to the local level for ``bricks and mortar'' projects
+or for specific policy or planning initiatives.
+ I am concerned that many of the problems identified in Sec. 4 (b)
+of the discussion draft (CZMA99.004) require a statewide perspective
+and approach. The structure of the grants would emphasize local
+entities to the exclusion, or diminishing, of the state's role. I
+assume that states are not precluded from participating in any of these
+grants but if the Act were to emphasize the use of ``qualified local
+entities'' for implementation then it would likely result in a
+competitive grants program with insufficient state oversight and ad hoc
+implementation.
+ For example, the eligible projects for which this money can be
+spent include shellfish production, access to coastal waters,
+protection of estuaries, reefs and SAV, effects of SLR, marine debris,
+plans for cumulative impacts, plans for ocean resources, plans for key
+energy and government facilities, and aquaculture. In many states these
+issues must be addressed from a state perspective because the resources
+are controlled by state agencies, the effects and impacts are of
+concern beyond the boundaries of a local government, and there is local
+competition to include or exclude the uses. In each case the state is
+needed to provide a more objective process of decision, or to propose
+solutions that are statewide in application and can benefit many local
+entities.
+ I believe it would be very helpful to re-invest in the old 306a
+process and to give local governments a pot of funds for special
+``brick and mortar'' projects. But linking that mechanism with the
+broader goals of the enhancement grants program seems to mix two
+different program objectives.
+ If there is a strong interest in getting more ``on-the-ground''
+projects at the local level then I would suggest revisiting the
+enhancement objectives and writing them in a way that makes it clear
+what type of specific locally based projects would advance those
+objectives. A good example that you now have is ``providing clutch
+material'' which can enhance shellfish production.
+ Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
+
+Sincerely,
+Marc J. Hershman
+
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.005
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.006
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.007
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.008
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.009
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.010
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.011
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.012
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.013
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.014
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.015
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.016
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.017
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.018
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.019
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.020
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.021
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.022
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.023
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.024
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.025
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.026
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.027
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.028
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.029
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.030
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.031
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.032
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.033
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.034
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.035
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.036
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.037
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.038
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.039
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.040
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.041
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.042
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.043
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.044
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.045
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.046
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.047
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.048
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.049
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.050
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.051
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.052
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.053
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.054
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.055
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.056
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.057
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.058
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.059
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.060
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.061
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.062
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.063
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.064
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.065
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.066
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.067
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.068
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.069
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.070
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.071
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.072
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.073
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.074
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.075
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.076
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.077
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.078
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.079
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.080
+
+[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]55183.081
+
+
+