portion of the program beyond the initial 1 year currently provided for in the basic act. The second involves a technical change which would replace the percentage limitation on grant size with a figure limitation. This will accomplish the original purpose but in a more flexible manner. And the third requests an increase in the authorization amount for section 305, the program development provision, to aline it more closely with the needs of the States. Concerning the first change, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our estuaries are among the most valued parts of our Nation's resources. They are the fertile nursery grounds for our rich and varied coastal fisheries; they are the habitat and nesting areas for water fowl and migratory birds; they offer bountiful opportunity for recreation and leisure time pursuits of many kinds; and under certain conditions, with proper environmental safeguards, they can support important economic and commercial activities. The legislative history of the estuarine sanctuaries provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act makes it clear that this element of the program was intended to serve as an integral part of the overall coastal zone management programs of our coastal States. The sanctuaries program was designed to provide States with assistance in acquiring and operating natural field laboratories in which techniques and approaches proposed to be incorporated within their coastal management programs could be tested and perfected. The framers of the legislation also felt it important that the system of estuarine sanctuaries established through the assistance of the program be representative of the important types of estuarine systems found along our Nation's coasts. Studies have indicated that at least 15 sanctuaries will be needed to include the major types of ecosystems found in the estuaries of the United States. Discussions between the representatives of NOAA and those of the coastal States have shown that at least 20 States have a positive interest in participating in the estuarine sanctuaries program. This would suggest that at least 20 sanctuaries are going to be required to meet essential coastal State requirements and, at the same time, provide for the necessary regional and natural differentiation. Clearly, therefore, the sanctuaries program will need authorization for a period longer than the present 1 year in order to meet requirements. An extension of the authorization for this phase of the program for 3 additional years, that is, through fiscal year 1977, would be adequate to meet the needs presently anticipated. The amendatory language which I am introducing today extends this phase of the coastal zone management program through fiscal year 1977 to accomplish this purpose. This action will aline the authorization period of this phase of the coastal zone management program with the other major portions of the act. It holds the authorization level for each of the next 3 years at the $6 million amount currently contained in the act. Mr. Speaker, the second change I am proposing is a technical one. It pertains to language in the act which limits the size of grants to individual States to 10 percent of the amount of money available in a given year. In a normal year, with most coastal States participating, this provision would cause no problem and would serve its intended purpose as a desirable safeguard. However, during the initial year of a grant program, when only a few States are expected to participate, a problem will arise with the 10-percent limitation. For example, in the worst case, with only one State participating, that State could only receive one-tenth of the amount of money available that year for that type of grant. This means that 10 times as much money would have to be requested and appropriated for this purpose as was actually going to be given to the State requesting the grant. This matter should be dealt with now because it will arise during the present fiscal year in connection with administrative grants to be made under section 306 of the act. It is expected that not more than two or three States will be in a position to qualify for these grants this year. If that is so, the 10-percent limitation will create a major difficulty, without any attendant benefits. The amendment I introduce today simply substitutes a maximum dollar figure for the 10-percent limitation on maximum grant size for section 306 grants. This proposed change represents a more flexible means of accomplishing the same purpose. I do not foresee that this change will erode in any way the 10-percent safeguard that has been placed on the administration in this program. The limitation will simply be expressed in more effective terms. Mr. Speaker, the last change which the bill proposes raises the authorization level for management program development grants given under the Coastal Zone Management Act from $9 million to $12 million. Experience gained during the present fiscal year indicates quite clearly that the current maximum authorization of $9 million for program development grants will be inadequate during fiscal year 1975. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 1974, States applying to NOAA for management program development grants received, on the average, approximately 30 percent less than the amount requested. Furthermore, information provided by the States with regard to their anticipated second year requirements-fiscal year 1975 indicate that most States will be needing approximately 30 percent more money in their second year compared to their first year as they move to complete management programs consistent with the guidelines set out in the act. The magnitude of State needs both in fiscal year 1975 partly reflect the fact that NOAA is encouraging States to attempt to complete federally appropriate management programs in a shorter time than the 3 years allowed for in the act. I heartily support this acceleration of effort and strongly urge action on the bill in the present Congress in order that the necessary Federal resources can be made available. It is anticipated that the full $12 million may be critical only in fiscal year 1975 since, beginning in fiscal year 1976, States will be applying for and receiving administrative grants under section 306 of the act to operate approved management programs. However, the additional authorization should continue through 1977, should future developments require it. Actual appropriations sought should obviously be less, depending on the speed with which the States complete the development phase and move to administrative grants under section 306. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, given the importance of the coastal zone management program and the need for its continued vigorous implementation, I solicit the support of other Members in the prompt enactment of these amendments into law. Thank you. Mr. DOWNING. Today, we are scheduled to hear from representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and from a representative of the State of Michigan who also serves as a member of the executive commitee of the Coastal States Organization, a group which is directly concerned with the Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementation. Our first witness will be Mr. Robert W. Knecht, director, Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We welcome you, Mr. Knecht. Before you proceed I would like to ask unanimous consent that a letter addressed to the Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan, chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee from State Senator A. R. Schwartz who is chairman of the Coastal States Organization be inserted in the record at this point together with a letter and accompanying_material from Senator George D. Aiken addressed to the Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan dated September 13, 1974. [The letters of Mr. Schwartz and Senator Aiken follow :] COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION, Hon. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, DEAR MRS. SULLIVAN: The Coastal States Organization is concerned about H.R. 16215, which would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92–583), which is about to be heard by your committee. The Coastal States Organization supports the amendments proposed in H.R. 16215 and offers the following observations on the various sections: (1) Raising the Sec. 305 authorization from $9 million to $12 million per year-The states, in the development of their work programs in response to PL 92-583, have identified coastal management needs in excess of the original authorization, and have expressed a willingness to provide increased state matching funds. Considering the well-established importance of coastal resources, and adding to this the additional pressures resulting from increased energy production activities on the coast, this $12 million seems a very small amount. Thus, CSQ strongly endorses increased funding authorization under Sec. 305 of PL 92-583. (2) Modification of the 10 percent maximum under Section 306 CSO endorses the Congressional intent on this provision to insure that all states would have an opportunity to participate under the Act. However, since some states are several years ahead of others in terms of implementing a management program, we recognize certain administrative impracticalities with wording in the current Act which would prevent a substantial amount of currently authorized funds from being utilized since less than ten states are ready for Sec. 306. We believe the proposal contained in H.R. 16215 would alleviate this difficulty while still insuring that the original Congressional intent was followed, and thus we support this portion of H.R. 16215. (3) Extension of the estuarine sanctuary program-it seems logical that the authorization of the estuarine sanctuary program coincide with the authorization of the rest of the Act. Hence CSO supports extending this section until the end of FY 1977. We appreciate the opportunity for CSO to make our views known on H.R. 16215. If we can be of any further assistance, please let me know. The Coastal States Organization is in the process of developing some suggestions for further changes in PL 92-583. They will generally be some significant, substantative changes dealing with energy facilities, definition of national interest, etc., rather than the mechanical changes contained in H.R. 16215. These will be completed by the end of this year. Sincerely, Hon. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, A. R. SCHWARTZ, Chairman, Texas State Senator. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR LEONOR: In connection with your Committee's consideration of amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act, I am enclosing proposed amendments to the definition section of the Act for your consideration. The purpose of the amendments and the supporting material would be to include Lake Champlain under the definition of the Coastal Zone. Lake Champlain is an important part of the inland sea network and should be afforded the protection under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The State of Vermont supports this request and I will be sending along, when I receive it, a supporting statement from Governor Thomas Salmon. I know that time is running out in this Session, but I understand you will soon be reporting out a bill with some amendments to the Coastal Zone Act. I hope the Committee will favorably consider amending the law to include Lake Champlain. Sincerely yours, GEORGE D. AIKEN. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT LAKE CHAMPLAIN LANGUAGE Amend Section 304 (a) to read: "Coastal zone means the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends, in Great Lake and Lake Champlain waters, .." Amend Section 304 (c) to read: "Coastal waters' means (1) in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain areas, the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States consisting of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, . . . Amend Section 304 (c) to read: ""Coastal state means a state of the United States in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, Lake Champlain, or one or more of the Great Lakes..." Amend Section 304 (d) to read: 66 ''Estuary' means that part of a river . . . diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. The term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain." IMPACT OF AMENDMENTS These amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 would have the effect of: (1) adding the waters, shores and adjacent lands of Lake Champlain to the area included within the purview of the Act, (2) adding one State-Vermont-to those eligible for funding under the Act, (3) permitting New York State and Vermont-perhaps in concert with Canadian authorities-to plan together to create a comprehensive management program for this valuable inland lake and its resources. RATIONAL FOR INCLUSION OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN (1) The coastal zone as presently defined in the Act includes the Great Lakes, The Lakes create an integral system which forms the drainage pattern for a good portion of the north central part of the United States. The coastal zone also includes the connecting waterways of the Great Lakes, such as the St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers, as well as Lake St. Clair. This vast lake and river system shapes the boundary between the United States and Canada, except towards its point of confluence with the Atlantic Ocean, where it lies entirely within the confines of Canada. Were it not for this politico-geographic configuration, it would be more commonly recognized that Lake Champlain is an integral part of this inland sea network. This 490-square mile body of water is fed by waters from the Adirondack and Green Mountains and in turn drains north through the Richelieu River in Quebec into the St. Lawrence below Montreal. It thus is an American tributary to the Great Lakes drainage basin and should be included as part of this Nation's coastal zone. (2) Increasing population and affluence in the northeastern part of the United States are imposing new developmental pressures upon upstate New York and Vermont, particularly for second-home and recreational use. Much of this pressure will be directed toward the basic amenities embodied in Lake Champlainits relatively unpolluted waters for swimming and boating; its scenic views of mountains and lake; its quiet two ndoT.seat 12356dl,fil,2sI 12356 612435665 mountains and lake; its quiet towns. To date, this unique resource has been spared the fate of much of the industrial development of the Great Lakes or the rampant urban growth of Long Island or Southern California. But in view of what has been happening in Vermont and elsewhere, this way may not last much longer. The fragility of the lake's shore will be subjected to new development proposals in the next few years and will require a rational plan for protecting the lake's environmental resources. (3) The State of Vermont is recognized as a national leader in enacting and implementing environmental legislation, particularly relating to land use issues. Its activities merited 34 pages of discussion in the Council on Environmental Quality's publication, "The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control." Vermont's program is generally considered as the most outstanding reflection of a State's concern for its future environmental well-being. It is likely that the State's land use program as exercised along the shores of Lake Champlain will fit quite closely with the concept of an approvable State coastal zone management program as envisioned by the Coastal Zone Management Act. Inclusion of Vermont among the coastal States of the nation will not only enable it to obtain administrative grant funding upon approval of its management program, but would have the additional advantage of requiring consistency of Federal actions along the Lake's shoreline. (4) By including Lake Champlain within the Nation's coastal zone, a unique opportunity would be created where New York and Vermont (and possibly Quebec) could cooperate in developing a unified management program. This conceivable could become a model for resource management action to an interstate, and perhaps international basis, to protect a vital and unique resource. Mr. DOWNING. I would like to say that Senator Aiken requested an amendment to the bill which would allow Lake Champlain to be included in the coastal zone and he suggested an amendment to section 304 (A) which reads as follows: Coastal zone means the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends, in Great Lake and Lake Champlain waters, * * I read that so the witnesses who appear this morning have an opportunity to comment on that. Mr. Knecht, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. KNECHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BRENNAN, ESQ., OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, NOAA Mr. KNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here and to speak to your subcommittee on the issue of possible amendment of the Coastal Zone Management Act. I have a statement that has been prepared for the record, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to submit it in its entirety and simply highlight certain portions in my oral testimony, if that is satisfactory. Mr. DOWNING. That is perfectly all right. Mr. KNECHT. Thank you. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed about 2 years ago and funding became available in December of 1973, about 9 months ago. I would like to give you a brief sketch of the progress to date, and comment specifically on the three amendments proposed in H.R. 16215. We are very happy to report that essentially all of the coastal States are now participating in the coastal zone management program. As of September 1, management program development grants have been awarded to 28 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. One more State, New York and one Territory, the Virgin Islands will join the program very shortly and that will mean that 31 of the 34 coastal entities will be in the program and that $8.1 million in Federal funds will have been made available to those entities to begin the program. Needless to say, we who are charged with the administration of the program are very gratified by this response but more important than simply the delivery of Federal dollars are the actions that are being taken by coastal States as a result of the existence of the Federal act. I think the existence of the Federal coastal zone management legislation has clearly stimulated a substantial level of activity at the State level. The process of applying for a Federal grant, has required the States to analyze their coastal problems, to review the strengths and weaknesses of their present land and water use controls along their coasts 43-881-75-13 |