Report text available as:

  • 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *