- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 631
116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-327
_______________________________________________________________________
LIVING SHORELINES ACT OF 2020
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1730
December 15, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
19-010 WASHINGTON : 2020
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixteenth congress
second session
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
John Keast, Staff Director
David Strickland, Minority Staff Director
Calendar No. 631
116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-327
======================================================================
LIVING SHORELINES ACT OF 2020
_______
December 15, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Wicker, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1730]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1730) to direct the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to make grants to State and local governments
and nongovernmental organizations for purposes of carrying out
climate-resilient living shoreline projects that protect
coastal communities by supporting ecosystem functions and
habitats with the use of natural materials and systems, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and
recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
This bill would direct the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to make grants
available to State and local governments and nongovernmental
organizations for the purposes of carrying out living shoreline
projects that protect coastal communities by supporting
ecosystem functions and habitats with the use of natural
materials and systems, and for other purposes.
Background and Needs
IMPACTS OF COASTAL EROSION
While coastal regions make up less than 4 percent of
Earth's land area, approximately one-third of the human
population lives within 60 miles of the coast, and these
regions contain some of the most valuable natural resources
globally.\1\ As coastlines continue to experience population
growth and urban development, they have become increasingly
vulnerable to natural hazards, coastal erosion, and sea level
rise.\2\ In the United States, over 350,000 structures are
located within 500 feet of the coastline.\3\ Average coastal
erosion rates vary across the country, with States along the
Pacific rocky coastline experiencing the slowest rate of
erosion and States along the Gulf and Atlantic coastlines
experiencing higher rates of erosion.\4\ These average rates
can vary significantly from year to year, with some coastlines
eroding by more than 100 feet following a major storm. Based on
average coastal erosion rates, it is estimated that without
beach nourishment or structural protection, thousands of
structures, including homes, will be lost to erosion each year
in the United States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.
\2\Wolfgang Kron, ``Coasts: The High-Risk Areas of the World,''
Journal of Natural Hazards, vol. 66 (2012), pp. 1363-1382 (https://
doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0215-4) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\3\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``What Is
Shoreline Armoring?'' (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/shoreline-
armoring.html) (accessed Oct. 29, 2020).
\4\U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, ``Coastal Erosion'' (https://
toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coastal-erosion)
(accessed Oct. 29, 2020).
\5\Darryl Cohen, ``About 60.2M Live in Areas Most Vulnerable to
Hurricanes,'' U.S. Census Bureau, Jul. 15, 2019 (https://
www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/07/millions-of-americans-live-
coastline-regions.html) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, it was determined that U.S. coastal erosion was
responsible for approximately $500 million in property damage
(land and structural) per year.\6\ As coastal populations have
increased by over 12.5 million people from 2000 to 2017,\7\ it
is likely that the annual costs associated with coastal erosion
have also increased. Previous work has shown a clear economic
incentive for investing in resilience measures, with every $1
spent on pre-event mitigation measures saving up to $4 in post-
event damages.\8\ For example, the Multihazard Mitigation
Council estimated that mitigation grant programs employed by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency yielded an $11.5
billion return on hazard mitigation investments. Economic
benefits alone show a clear motivation for the implementation
and improvement of coastal erosion mitigation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\The Heinz Center, Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, Apr. 2000
(https://www.fema.gov/pdf/
library/erosion.pdf) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\7\Darryl Cohen, ``About 60.2M Live in Areas Most Vulnerable to
Hurricanes,'' U.S. Census Bureau, Jul. 15, 2019 (https://
www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/07/millions-of-americans-live-
coastline-regions.html) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\8\Multihazard Mitigation Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves:
An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation
Activities, Vol. 1, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, 2005
(www.nibs.org/MMC/MitigationSavingsReport/Part1_final.pdf) (accessed
Oct. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHORELINE HARDENING AND LIVING SHORELINES
The Federal Government spends approximately $150 million
every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion
control measures to mitigate the impacts of coastal erosion.\9\
Traditionally, shoreline stabilization projects have consisted
of shoreline hardening, which is defined as an engineered
shoreline structure that prevents erosion and/or provides flood
protection, such as seawalls, groins, jetties, and breakwaters.
As of 2015, shoreline hardening accounted for approximately
14,193 miles, or 14 percent of the continental U.S.
coastline.\10\ Although shoreline hardening methods have been
used for centuries, the effects of shoreline hardening on
coastal ecosystem functions and services have only recently
begun to be evaluated.\11\ Hardened shorelines have been shown
to result in habitat loss, habitat connectivity loss, reduction
in biodiversity, and increased seaward erosion and erosion of
non-hardened adjacent properties.\12\ Because of these impacts,
emerging nature-based stabilization techniques, such as living
shorelines, are gaining attention as an alternative coastal
stabilization measure, with the potential to maintain or
improve ecosystem services, while simultaneously reducing
coastal erosion and damages from storms.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, ``Coastal Erosion,'' Sep. 13,
2019 (https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coastal-
erosion) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\10\Roberta Kwok, ``Rise of `Shoreline Hardening' Threatens Coastal
Ecosystems,'' Conservation, Aug. 6, 2015 (https://
www.conservationmagazine.org/2015/08/rise-of-shoreline-hardening-
threatens-coastal-ecosystems/) (accessed Oct. 29, 2020).
\11\National Research Council, Mitigating Shore Erosion Along
Sheltered Coasts, 2007, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
\12\Rachel Gittman et al., ``Ecological Consequences of Shoreline
Hardening: A Meta-Analysis,'' Journal of BioScience, vol. 66, no. 9
(Sep. 1, 2016), pp. 763-773 (https://academic.oup.com/
bioscience/article/66/9/763/1753956) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020); Gary
Griggs, ``The Impacts of Coastal Armoring,'' Journal of Shore and
Beach, vol. 73, no. 1 (Jan. 2005), pp. 13-22.
\13\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Guidance for Considering the Use of Living Shorelines, 2015, pp. 4-9
(https://www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NOAA-
Guidance-for-Considering-the-Use-of-Living-Shorelines_2015.pdf)
(accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to NOAA, ``living shoreline'' is a broad term
encompassing a range of shoreline stabilization techniques that
use plants or other natural elements in combination with hard
infrastructure along tributaries, estuaries, coasts, and
bays.\14\ These techniques have been shown to offer numerous
technical, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits as
compared to hardened shoreline installations.\15\ Living
shorelines have been shown to better stabilize shorelines and
exhibit less erosion than hardened shorelines.\16\ They have
been shown to support and increase fish and wildlife
populations, while improving water quality through natural
filtration.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Guidance for Considering the Use of Living Shorelines, 2015, pp. 4-9
(https://www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NOAA-
Guidance-for-Considering-the-Use-of-Living-Shorelines_2015.pdf)
(accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\15\Federal Emergency Management Agency, Bioengineering Shoreline
Stabilization, Jul. 2018 (https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/
1532021309766-274c41b3c5ed9c1e6e2150b16166e2c0/
BioengineeredShorelineStabilizationJobAid.pdf) (accessed Oct. 19,
2020).
\16\Ibid.
\17\Ibid; M.S. Peterson et al., ``Habitat Use by Early Life-History
Stages of Fishes and Crustaceans Along a Changing Estuarine Landscape:
Differences Between Natural and Altered Shoreline Sites,'' Journal of
Wetlands Ecology and Management, vol. 8, no. 2-3 (2000), pp. 209-219;
Steven Scyphers et al., ``Oyster Reefs as Natural Breakwaters Mitigate
Shoreline Loss and Facilitate Fisheries,'' Journal of PLoS ONE, vol. 6,
no. 8 (Aug. 5, 2011) (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022396)
(accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, they can be more cost-effective than
hardening techniques, minimizing maintenance requirements,
increasing property value, and, in some cases, reducing impacts
from severe storms.\18\ Despite these benefits, there are some
challenges to constructing living shorelines. As an emerging
field, there is still a lack of experience in using these
methods, which results in some residual risk.\19\ The current
permitting process is geared towards hardening techniques,
which makes permitting lengthier and more challenging for
nature-based techniques.\20\ In some areas, these techniques
may also not be suitable, such as in urban environments where
there is not enough natural land to construct a living
shoreline.\21\ Additionally, there is a lack of public
awareness of the added benefits and performance of living
shorelines compared to traditional stabilization
techniques.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Katie Arkema et al., ``Coastal Habitats Shield People and
Property From Sea-Level Rise and Storms,'' Journal of Nature Climate
Change, vol. 3 (2013), pp. 913-918 (https://www.nature.com/articles/
nclimate1944) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020); Rachel Gittman et al.,
``Marshes With and Without Sill Protect Estuarine Shorelines From
Erosion Better Than Bulkheads During a Category 1 Hurricane,'' Journal
of Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 102 (Dec. 2014), pp. 94-102
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.016) (accessed Oct. 19,
2020).
\19\Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering (SAGE), ``Natural
and Structural Measures for Shoreline Stabilization,'' Feb. 2015
(https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/living-
shoreline.pdf) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\20\National Wildlife Foundation, Softening Our Shorelines: Policy
and Practice for Living Shorelines Along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts,
Washington, DC: Island Press, 2020 (https://www.nwf.org/-/media/
Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2020/Softening-Our-Shorelines.ashx)
(accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\21\Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering (SAGE), ``Natural
and Structural Measures for Shoreline Stabilization,'' Feb. 2015
(https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/living-
shoreline.pdf) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\22\National Wildlife Foundation, Softening Our Shorelines: Policy
and Practice for Living Shorelines Along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts,
Washington, DC: Island Press, 2020 (https://www.nwf.org/-/media/
Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2020/Softening-Our-Shorelines.ashx)
(accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximizing coastal erosion reduction will not come from any
one stabilization technique, but most likely a diverse
portfolio of stabilization techniques.\24\ As outlined by NOAA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), stabilization
measures used will depend on geophysical parameters, such as
wave energy, overall objectives, cost reliability, and numerous
other factors.\25\ To promote an integrated approach, NOAA and
USACE have developed a forum to engage partners and
stakeholders in a Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering
(SAGE). SAGE promotes a hybrid engineering approach, using both
living and hardening shoreline stabilization techniques, to
develop tailored solutions to coastal communities. For example,
in areas with low to moderate wave energy the two agencies
recommend vegetation with minimal hard infrastructure to
minimize habitat impact and cost of installation while still
preventing coastal erosion. Alternatively, in areas highly
vulnerable to storm surge and wave forces, hardened structures,
such as seawalls, might be necessary to prevent storm surge
flooding and landward coastal erosion.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Risk Reduction and
Resilience: Using the Full Array of Measures, Sep. 2013.
\25\Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering (SAGE), ``Natural
and Structural Measures for Shoreline Stabilization,'' Feb. 2015
(https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/living-
shoreline.pdf) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\26\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIVING SHORELINES WORK
Federal agencies, including NOAA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and USACE, have provided funding and design
assistance for living shorelines installations. In addition,
several States have enacted regulations to encourage
installation of living shorelines over hardened shoreline
structures.\27\ NOAA is considered one of the leading agencies
in living shorelines work, providing technical assistance,
funding for pilot projects to develop shoreline stabilization
techniques, and conducting biological research to evaluate the
effectiveness of various living shoreline projects. For
example, the NOAA Restoration Center has worked with partners
on over 100 living shoreline projects. NOAA has also worked
with post-disaster communities in redevelopment planning,
highlighting projects that withstood disaster impacts with the
hope of incorporating lessons learned in future development.
Given NOAA's other resource management responsibilities, the
agency incorporates information in living shoreline project
design and installation that will protect essential fish
habitat and the habitat critical for threatened or endangered
species, while protecting coastal communities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Donna Marie Bilkovic et al., ``The Role of Living Shorelines as
Estuarine Habitat Conservation Strategies, Journal of Coastal
Management, vol. 44, no. 3 (2016), p. 161 (https://doi.org/10.1080/
08920753.2016.1160201) (accessed Oct. 19, 2020).
\28\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Guidance for
Considering the Use of Living Shorelines, 2015, pp. 13-15 (https://
www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NOAA-Guidance-
for-Considering-the-Use-of-Living-Shorelines_2015.pdf) (accessed Oct.
19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions
If enacted, S. 1730, the Living Shorelines Act of 2020,
would do the following:
Authorize appropriations of $25 million for fiscal
years 2021 to 2024 for natural and nature-based
projects to increase the resilience of shorelines from
both the National Sea Grant College Program and the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
Require the National Sea Grant Advisory Board to
advise the Secretary of Commerce on strategies for
using the National Sea Grant College Program to address
the resilience of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources.
Provide the Secretary of Commerce the authority to
waive coastal state grant-matching requirements based
on coastal state justification.
Require data to be collected and annual reports to
be produced on performance of nature-based shoreline
project grants by coastal states.
Direct the Secretary of Commerce to take into
account annual report performance measures when making
grant eligibility determinations.
Legislative History
S. 1730 was introduced on June 5, 2019, by Senator Harris
(for herself and Senators Murphy, Blumenthal, Menendez, Wyden,
Booker, Merkley, and Feinstein) and was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate. Senators Carper, Markey, and Baldwin were later added
as cosponsors. On July 22, 2020, the Committee met in open
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 1730 reported
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute with
amendments). This includes a substitute amendment sponsored by
Senator Blumenthal and one (modified) first degree amendment
sponsored by Senator Rick Scott.
A related bill, H.R. 3115, the Living Shorelines Act of
2019, was introduced on June 5, 2019, by Representative Pallone
(for himself and Representatives Coleman, Lowenthal, Bonamici,
Cartwright, Wasserman Schultz, Soto, Demings, Khanna, Blunt
Rochester, Lee [D-CA-13], and Davis [D-CA-53]) and was referred
to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives. There are 32 additional cosponsors. On
November 26, 2019, the Committee on Natural Resources reported
H.R. 3115 favorably with amendments proposed by Representatives
Cunningham and Graves.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 1730 would amend the National Sea Grant College Act and
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to authorize the
appropriation of $50 million annually over the 2021-2024 period
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
provide grants to states and university partners to research,
design, and implement projects that restore or stabilize
shorelines using nature-based approaches.
Using historical spending patterns for similar grant
programs, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1730 would cost
$174 million over the 2021-2025 period and $26 million after
2025, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
The costs of the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall
within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER S. 1730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2021-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization..................... 50 50 50 50 0 200
Estimated Outlays................. 10 33 43 48 40 174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 7, 2019, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 3115, the Living Shorelines Act of 2019, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources September
25, 2019. Portions of the two bills are similar and CBO's
estimates of their budgetary effects differ because the two
bills would authorize appropriations totaling different amounts
over different time periods.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Robert Reese.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
Because S. 1730 does not create any new programs, the
legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, and will
result in no additional reporting requirements. The legislation
will have no further effect on the number or types of
individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals,
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section. 1. Short title.
This section would provide that the bill may be cited as
the ``Living Shorelines Act of 2020''.
Section. 2. Modifications to National Sea Grant College Program.
This section would amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, to include the need to increase our understanding
of the resilience of our Nation's ocean, coastal and Great
Lakes resources. This section would require the National Sea
Grant Advisory Board to advise the Secretary of Commerce on
strategies for using the National Sea Grant College Program to
address the resilience of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources. This section would add resilience to the list of
qualifications for voting members of the Advisory Board.
Additionally, this section would authorize additional
appropriations of $25 million for fiscal years 2021 to 2024 for
competitive grants for cooperative research, implementation,
and extension regarding natural, nature-based, and restoration
approaches to increasing the resilience of shorelines. The
Committee believes that using existing, successful programs,
such as the National Sea Grant College Program, to promote
living shorelines will lead to the most effective outcome.
Section 3. Modifications to resource management improvement grants to
coastal states.
This section would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, expanding projects eligible for State resource management
improvement grants, to include the design and implementation of
climate-resilient living shoreline projects and materials, and
systems that protect coastal communities, habitats, and natural
system functions. This section would also allow the Secretary
of Commerce to reduce or waive the State grant-matching
requirement if the eligible coastal state makes a justification
for why it cannot meet the matching requirement. This section
would require each eligible coastal state (or representative of
the State) receiving a grant to monitor and collect data on the
benefits of the project to the coastal community and the
performance of the project in providing those benefits. NOAA
would make this data available on a publicly accessible
website. Within 1 year of receiving the grant, and annually
thereafter until completion of the project, the State would be
required to submit a report to the Secretary with the data
collected and an assessment of the ultimate effectiveness of
the project in increasing coastal protection in the coastal
community. The Secretary would be directed to take into account
the successes or failures of each grantee based on these data
and reports in making eligibility determinations for grants
under this section. Additionally, this section would authorize
appropriations of $25 million for fiscal years 2021 to 2024 to
be used toward living shoreline projects grants authorized in
this section.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT
* * * * * * *
[33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.]
SEC. 202. CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds and declares the
following:
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(4) The vitality of the Nation and the quality of
life of its citizens depend increasingly on the
understanding, assessment, development, management,
utilization, resilience, and conservation of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources. These resources
supply food, energy, and minerals and contribute to
human health, the quality of the environment, national
security, and the enhancement of commerce.
(5) The understanding, assessment, development,
management, utilization, resilience, and conservation
of such resources require a broad commitment and an
intense involvement on the part of the Federal
Government in continuing partnership with State and
local governments, private industry, universities,
organizations, and individuals concerned with or
affected by ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
(6) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, through the national sea grant college
program, offers the most suitable locus and means for
such commitment and engagement through the promotion of
activities that will result in greater such
understanding, assessment, development, management,
utilization, resilience, and conservation of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources. The most cost-
effective way to promote such activities is through
continued and increased Federal support of the
establishment, development, management, and operation
of programs and projects by sea grant colleges, sea
grant institutes, and other institutions, including
strong collaborations between Administration scientists
and research and outreach personnel at academic
institutions.
(b) Objective.--The objective of this title is to increase
the understanding, assessment, development, management,
utilization, resilience, and conservation of the Nation's
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources by providing
assistance to promote a strong educational base, responsive
research and training activities, broad and prompt
dissemination of knowledge and techniques, and
multidisciplinary approaches to environmental problems.
(c) * * *
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this subchapter--
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(4) The term ``field related to ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes resources'' means any discipline or field,
including marine affairs, resource management,
technology, education, or science, which is concerned
with or likely to improve the understanding,
assessment, development, management, utilization,
resilience, or conservation of ocean, coastal, or Great
Lakes resources.
(5) * * *
* * * * * * *
(16) * * *
SEC. 204. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 209. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) * * *
(b) Duties.
(1) In general.--The Board shall advise the
Secretary and the Director concerning--
(A) strategies for utilizing the sea grant
college program to address the Nation's highest
priorities regarding the understanding,
assessment, development, management,
utilization, resilience, and conservation of
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources;
(B) * * *
(C) * * *
(c) Membership, Terms, and Powers.--(1) The Board shall
consist of 15 voting members who shall be appointed by the
Secretary. The Director and a director of a sea grant program
who is elected by the various directors of sea grant programs
shall serve as nonvoting members of the Board. Not less than 8
of the voting members of the Board shall be individuals who, by
reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially
qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields included
in marine science. The other voting members shall be
individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or
training, are especially qualified in, or representative of,
education, marine affairs and resource management, coastal
management, extension services, State government, industry,
economics, planning, or any other activity which is appropriate
to, and important for, any effort to enhance the understanding,
assessment, development, management, utilization, resilience,
or conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
No individual is eligible to be a voting member of the Board if
the individual is (A) the director of a sea grant college or
sea grant institute; (B) an applicant for, or beneficiary (as
determined by the Secretary) of, any grant or contract under
section 205; or (C) a full-time officer or employee of the
United States.
(2) * * *
* * * * * * *
(8) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization.--
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) Coastal hazard reduction activities for fiscal
years 2021 through 2024.--In addition to other amounts
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title,
there are authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024 for competitive
grants for cooperative research, implementation, and
extension regarding natural, nature-based, and
restoration approaches to increasing the resilience of
shorelines.
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972
* * * * * * *
[16 U.S.C. 1455a]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 306A. COASTAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary may make grants to any eligible coastal
state to assist that state in meeting one or more of the
following objectives:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) * * *
(5) The design and implementation of climate-
resilient living shoreline projects and the application
of innovative uses of natural materials and systems to
protect coastal communities, habitats, and natural
system functions.
(c)(1) * * *
(d)(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(4) The Secretary may reduce or waive the matching
requirement under paragraph (1) for an eligible coastal state
if--
(A) the eligible coastal state submits to the
Secretary in writing--
(i) a request for such a reduction or
waiver and, in the case of a request for a
reduction, the amount of the reduction; and
(ii) a justification for why the state
cannot meet the matching requirement; and
(B) the Secretary agrees with the justification.
(e) * * *
(f) * * *
(g) The Secretary shall require each eligible coastal state
(or a representative of the state) receiving a grant under
subsection (b)(5) to carry out a living shoreline project--
(1) to monitor and collect data on--
(A) the benefits of the project to the
coastal community in which the project is
carried out, including--
(i) mitigating the effects of
erosion;
(ii) attenuating the impact of
coastal storms and storm surge;
(iii) mitigating shoreline
flooding;
(iv) mitigating the effects of sea
level rise and extreme tides;
(v) sustaining, protecting, or
restoring the functions and habitats of
coastal ecosystems; or
(vi) such other forms of coastal
protection as the Secretary considers
appropriate; and
(B) the performance of the project in
providing such benefits;
(2) to make data collected under the project
available on a publicly accessible internet website of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
and
(3) not later than one year after the eligible
coastal state receives the grant, and annually
thereafter until completion of the project, to submit
to the Secretary a report including--
(A) the data described in paragraph (1);
(B) an assessment of the ultimate
effectiveness of the project in increasing
coastal protection in the coastal community in
which the project is carried out, including a
description of--
(i) the project;
(ii) the activities carried out
under the project; and
(iii) the techniques and materials
used in carrying out the project; and
(C) a detailed description of any
deficiencies or failures of the project to
perform as originally intended.
(h) In making eligibility determinations for grants under
subsection (b)(5), the Secretary shall take into account the
successes or failures of each grantee demonstrated by the
compliance of the grantee with the requirements under
subsection (g).
* * * * * * *
[16 U.S.C. 1464(a)]
SEC. 318. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, to remain available until expended--
(1) for grants under sections 306, 306A, and 309--
(A) $47,600,000 for fiscal year 1997;
(B) $49,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
(C) $50,500,000 for fiscal year 1999; [and]
(2) for grants under section 315--
(A) $4,400,000 for fiscal year 1997;
(B) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
(C) $4,600,000 for fiscal year 1999[.]; and
(3) for grants under section 306A(b)(5),
$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024.
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
