<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:55183.wais]
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:
<bullet> flexibility that allows states to address their unique
needs and concerns;
<bullet> combined focus on planned development, conservation,
and public access; and
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> new technology introduced in the past year which
reduces sound emissions from PWC by 50 percent;
<bullet> our support of mandatory education for PWC operators,
several states have adopted legislation based on our model;
<bullet> tough model legislation, at the state level, to
regulate businesses that rent PWC;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> lending, free of charge, over 1,500 PWC each year to
law enforcement agencies to assist them in on-water enforcement
and rescue efforts;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Does the Administration support this change? Why or
why not?
<bullet> 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.''
<bullet> Does the Administration support this change? Why or
why not?
<bullet> 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