SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
55–183 l
1999
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
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
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
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto 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
Hearing held February 25, 1999
Statement of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the District of American Samoa
Prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland
Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Prepared statement of
Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, prepared statement of
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Prepared statement of
Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota
Statement of Witnesses:
Cooksey, Sarah W., President, Coastal States Organization
Prepared statement of
Fote, Thomas, Jersey Coast Anglers Association
Garcia, Terry D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce
Prepared statement of
Hershman, Marc J., Director and Professor, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington
Prepared statement of
Lytton, Gary D., President, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
Prepared statement of
Park, Howard, Consultant, Personal Watercraft Industry Association
Prepared statement of
Savitz, Jacqueline, Executive Director, Coast Alliance
Prepared statement of
Shinn, Jr., Robert C., Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from Mr. Faleomavaega
Letter to Mr. Garcia from Mr. Young
Response from Marc Hershman to questions from Mr. Faleomavaega
Additional material supplied:
Briefing Paper, Committee on Resources
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
National Ocean Industries Association and the American Petroleum Institute, prepared statement of
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
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(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.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(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.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The popularity of the Coastal Zone Management Act is evidenced by the fact that 33 of 34 eligible states have developed Coastal Zone Management Plans. The strengths of the Act include:
• flexibility that allows states to address their unique needs and concerns;
• combined focus on planned development, conservation, and public access; and
• consistency provisions giving states a voice in reviewing Federal activities that conflict with state plans.
One criticism of the Act has been that monitoring and enforcement are weak. Provisions in the bill that will be introduced by Mr. Saxton, requiring that the Secretary of Commerce recommend measurable outcome indicators or other mechanisms by which the states could evaluate the effectiveness of their programs, may address this concern.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about this and other ways to improve this important legislation.
Mr. SAXTON. I would now like to introduce our first witness, our colleague from—actually, I did not realize until I saw you sitting there, but the gentleman lives on Sanibel Island in Florida and in the summer on Fisher's Island off the coast of Rhode Island. Is that correct?
Mr. GOSS. Correct.
Mr. SAXTON. In any event, welcome and we look forward to hearing your testimony. You may proceed.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the Chairman yield?
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[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.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.''
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 wo