[Senate Hearing 105-819]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-819
ESTUARY RESTORATION AND COASTAL WATER CONSERVATION LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 1998
__________
ON
S. 1222
A BILL TO CATALYZE RESTORATION OF ESTUARY HABITAT THROUGH MORE
EFFICIENT FINANCING OF PROJECTS AND ENHANCED COORDINATION OF FEDERAL
AND NON-FEDERAL RESTORATION PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 1321
A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO PERMIT
GRANTS FOR THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM TO BE USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN,
TO REAUTHORIZE APPROPROPRIATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 2207
AN ACT TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT CONCERNING A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A DEEP OCEAN OUTFALL OFF THE COAST OF MAYAGUEZ,
PUERTO RICO
------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-625 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 9, 1998
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 2
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 5
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 4
WITNESSES
Breaux, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana...... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Burkholder, Joann R., Research Coordinator, Botany Department,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC...................22, 24
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Davis, Hon. Michael L., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works, Department of the Army.................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Reponse to additional question from Senator Chafee........... 88
Faircloth, Hon. Lauch, U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina....................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Martinez-Cruzado, Juan C., Past President, Mayaguezanos for
Health and Environment, Inc.................................... 34
Letter, followup to testimony................................ 123
Prepared statement........................................... 138
Milon, J. Walter, Professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL............. 26
Appendices: Estimated value of the Indian River Lagoo 104, 113, 121
Prepared statement........................................... 103
Response to additional questions from Senator Chafee......... 123
Morton, Ted, Counsel, Coastal Protection Program, American Oceans
Campaign....................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Rodriquez, Hon. Charles A., President, Senate of Puerto Rico..... 38
Romeu, Xavier, Executive Director, Puerto Rico Federal Affairs
Administration................................................. 32
Prepared statement of Perfecto Ocasio, Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority........................................ 117
Spalding, H. Curtis, Executive Director, Save the Bay,
Providence, RI................................................. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 97
Torricelli, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Wayland, Robert H., III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, Environmental Protection Agency.................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 84
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Bills:
S. 1222, A bill to catalyze restoration of estuary habitat
through more efficient financing of projects and enhanced
coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration
programs, and for other purposes........................... 40
S. 1321, A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
act to permit grants for the national estuary program to be
used for the development and implementation of a
comprehensive conservation and management plan, to
reauthorize appropropriations to carry out the program, and
for other purposes......................................... 66
H.R. 2207, An Act to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act concerning a proposal to construct a deep ocean
outfall off the coast of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico............. 70
Letters:
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., Resident Commissioner, Puerto
Rico....................................................... 133
Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc................. 140
Rosello, Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico...................... 140
Statements:
Association of National Estuary Programs..................... 141
Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana 78
Mills, David R., Sarasota, Florida........................... 144
Ocasio, Perfecto, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority... 134
Restore America's Estuaries.................................. 142
ESTUARY RESTORATION AND COASTAL WATER CONSERVATION LEGISLATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Allard, Sessions, Lautenberg, and
Lieberman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. The committee will come to order.
I would like to welcome everyone and thank all the
witnesses for appearing here this morning.
The purpose of this hearing is to learn more about three
bills pending before the committee that pertain to the quality
of the Nation's estuaries and other coastal waters.
Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, we've
made great progress in cleaning up the waters in our lakes and
rivers and streams and the coastal waters of the U.S. It's
really been remarkable. It hasn't just been the Federal
Government, it's been the wonderful cooperation of industry
and, obviously, the municipalities have been deeply involved
with it likewise.
Despite the marked success of the last 25 years, we still
face many challenges. Two of the bills before us today, S.
1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, and S.
1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act, are dedicated to
protecting and restoring estuaries in our coastal communities.
Now, what are estuaries? Estuaries are bays and gulfs and
inlets and sounds where fresh water meets and mixes with salt
water from the ocean. They are some of our most valuable
natural resources. Regrettably, in recent years millions of
acres of estuarine habitat have been destroyed and degraded by
pollution, development, or overuse.
The good news is that estuaries can be brought back to
life. I had the opportunity to visit an effort in connection
with that in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island last Monday,
where I saw the planting of eel grass that is taking place
there. It's a small start, but it's a start.
S. 1222, which I introduced in September of last year, will
help rebuild degraded estuarine habitat by providing real
incentives for communities to carry out estuarine restoration
projects. That bill creates strong and lasting partnerships
between public and private sectors and among all levels of
Government to restore, hopefully, a million acres of estuarine
habitat by the year 2010, which isn't so far away, that's only
12 years from now. To ensure that restoration efforts buildupon
past successes, S. 1222 brings together the existing Federal,
State, and local restoration plans, programs, and studies.
S. 1321, which was introduced by Senator Torricelli last
year, would reauthorize the National Estuary Program under
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Since the establishment of
the National Estuary Program, which is part of the Clean Water
Act, in 1987, 28 estuaries of national significance have been
designated to receive funds for the development of conservation
and management plans. Senator Torricelli's bill would allow
these plans to be set in motion.
In addition to the two estuary bills, the committee will
receive testimony on H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction
Act, which the House passed last year. H.R. 2207 would allow
the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, better known as
PRASA, to apply to the EPA under Section 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act for a waiver of its secondary treatment requirements
for waste water. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been
involved in a 15 year dispute with EPA over its failure to meet
secondary treatment requirements under the Clean Water Act.
The condition of estuaries and other coastal waters is an
important national priority. I look forward to hearing our
witnesses' views on the bills before us and their suggestions
for what we can do to improve the quality of the Nation's
estuaries and other coastal waters.
Senator Chafee. I see our esteemed colleague is here.
Senator Lieberman, if you have some comments, this would be a
good chance.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
holding this hearing. I would like to speak about two of the
bills that we're considering this morning, S. 1222, of which
you were the principal sponsor of, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act, and S. 1321, the National Estuary
Conservation Act.
These are especially important to the State of Connecticut
and to our region. I'm very pleased to be a cosponsor of both
of the bills. I particularly thank you for your leadership on
them.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that we share the view that our
estuaries are national treasures which are often not adequately
appreciated. Without a healthy and productive Long Island
Sound, and might I add as well Narragansett Bay, the quality of
life in our States would be greatly diminished.
As John Atkin, the executive director of our Save the
Sound, has said, ``Not only is Long Island Sound an invaluable
economic and recreational resource, it is also a provider of
immeasurable pleasure and happiness for tens of thousands of
residents and visitors alike.'' I'm pleased to note that John
is with us today. He came down to show his strong support for
this legislation, and I thank him for the work that he has
done.
The water surface of Long Island Sound is an example. It
measures 1,320 square miles. It is located in one of the most
densely populated and developed areas of our country; 15
million people live within 50 miles of its shores. Despite
years of heavy industrial use, Long Island Sound is still known
for its distinctive habitat types, including tidal wetlands,
tidal flats, beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky tidal areas, eel
grass, kelp beds, and natural and artificial reefs, and its
shellfish and finfish production is extraordinary. The
shellfish industry alone is a $70 million industry annually.
And the Sound is actually the leading producer of oysters along
the entire East Coast.
The Sound supports more than $5 billion a year in water
quality-dependent uses----a remarkable number----which includes
beaches, swimming, and boating, but does not include the more
difficult to quantify assessments of the importance of good
water quality, the nature habitats, and near shore residential
property values. Unfortunately, pollution has had an immediate
impact on the quality of life and the economic benefits from
Long Island Sound, which was described by one observer as an
``urban sea under siege.'' It is to turn back this siege and
defeat it that I think these two pieces of legislation before
us are devoted.
The State of Connecticut itself has had an aggressive
effort to restore the Sound which has certainly helped the Long
Island Sound program, one of the most successful efforts under
the National Estuary Program. After years of study and public
participation, which has mirrored the public interest in the
Sound, it has produced a comprehensive plan for action and, in
fact, implementation is underway.
Real progress is being made. In 1997, water quality
monitoring results were among the best conditions ever
observed. Of course, this is only a start. There is a lot more
to be done. In February, the program adopted two critical
elements of the clean up and restoration phase; a Phase III
nitrogen reduction plan which calls for a 60 percent cut in
nitrogen loadings over the next 15 years, and a habitat
restoration plan. The effort is expected to cost New York and
Connecticut $650 million, of which Connecticut has already
pledged $100 million of its Clean Water State funds to
implement the Phase III program.
This is where I come to your bill, Mr. Chairman, because it
will go a long way toward helping Connecticut meet the second
goal of its Phase III program for Long Island Sound, which is
habitat restoration. By making Federal funding available in
partnership with local Government and private sector
contributions, this bill can help meet the Long Island Sound
Study Committee's goal of restoring more than 2,000 acres of
critically important tidal wetlands and 100 miles of streams in
Connecticut and New York.
The fact is that Long Island Sound has already lost almost
70 percent of its original wetlands, with far reaching impacts
on the biological diversity of not just the Sound, but the
region and, certainly, the water quality of the estuary. I'm
very pleased that a major habitat restoration project is
already underway in the Sound with grant money from the Long
Island Sound program office which this committee, in its
wisdom, established in 1990. Funding from your bill would
greatly enhance those efforts.
S. 1222 is based on I think a very sensible concept of
community-based restoration efforts. It would leverage up to
$10 of on-the-ground restoration work for every $1 in Federal
funding, and would create market-based incentives for the
private sector to work with community-based organizations and
local Governments on restoration efforts.
Mr. Chairman, the second bill, very briefly, we're
considering today, the National Estuary Conservation Act, is
also critical to our efforts to clean up Long Island Sound
because the cost of implementing the Sound's comprehensive
management plan is high; it cannot be met without Federal
grants for implementation. S. 1321 would, to make a long story
short, ensure that the funding is available.
So these are two very important bills for the Sound, for
the region, and I think ultimately for the country. I thank you
for your leadership on them, and I hope we can move forward
with them in this Congress. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Sessions, we're delighted you are here. If you've
got some comments, this would be a good chance.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
leadership on this issue. I had the opportunity earlier this
spring to tour the Mobile Bay Estuary program. We travelled in
boats through the delta and observed what was going on there. I
met the people who had been working on it.
I am very favorably impressed with this concept of how to
deal with environmental problems on an area like an estuary.
What I have observed over the years is that the problem is
complicated by so many different governmental agencies and
private institutions that are involved. You may have two or
three counties, several cities, regional boards and planning
agencies, as well as Federal, State agencies involved.
This estuarine program provides a way to have an inventory
and an analysis and evaluation of the problems, what is causing
them, and how to go about fixing them. I think it is a real
good concept. I would like to see it continue, and I appreciate
your leadership in this regard. It's a volunteer program. The
only thing I think that would threaten it would be that if our
program becomes some sort of management or directing agency
rather than a community coordinating effort, because these are
non-elected people, in effect, unaccountable to the public.
So if we can create a way in which all the leadership in
the whole estuary area can come together to identify the
problems that are the primary threats to the estuary and
develop a voluntary plan with some support from the Federal
Government to help fix it, I think we can achieve great results
and maintain harmony and maintain the voluntary support of the
local governments and private industries. I think it is a very
attractive program, and I appreciate your leadership.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg, we're just about to start. Do you have
a comment that you want to make at this time?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. I'm pleased to have a chance to
participate in today's hearing on two important bills before
the committee, both of which I'm happy to cosponsor, one
drafted by the chairman, Senator Chafee, and the other by my
New Jersey colleague, Senator Torricelli. They both address the
vital need to protect and restore America's estuaries. They
recognize that the problem is a national one, not just State or
local concerns.
The health of our estuaries is threatened from a variety of
sources. In my own State of New Jersey, for instances, the most
densely populated State in the Union, estuaries are coming
under increasing pressure from exploding population growth. The
673 coastal counties in the United States contain 53 percent of
our population. More people want to live in coastal States.
Especially as the baby-boomers begin retirement, we've got to
focus more than ever on the protection of these estuaries.
The Barnegat Bay Estuary, located off New Jersey's Ocean
County toward the southern coast of our State, is an extremely
delicate ecosystem that deserves increased protection. Despite
tremendous population growth, the Bay continues to host a
variety of life----plants, crabs, shrimp, minnows, wheatfish,
bluefish, also some interesting bird life from herons to
egrets. Yet, agricultural runoff, increased recreational
activities, and a booming homebuilding industry continue to
threaten the Bay.
New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary, a major shipping
channel, which is also home, despite the competition from
industry, to a great array of wildlife, faces a problem of
contaminated sediments. This important watershed was recently
identified by EPA as an area of probable concern due to the
abundance of toxins such as PCBs, mercury, and dioxin.
Both pieces of legislation before us recognize that the
Federal Government cannot protect and restore estuaries all by
itself. We've got to work in partnership with States,
localities, regional authorities, and dedicated citizens to
restore these invaluable ecosystems. I look forward to hearing
from the witnesses before us on how we can best maximize the
resource of all these partners.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow committee members,
for your indulgence.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Now, we have a distinguished colleague from North Carolina,
Senator Faircloth. Senator Faircloth, why don't you just sit
right here at the table. We're going to get right to you. We
welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Sessions, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Lieberman. I thank you
for giving me the chance to be here.
Two years ago, the North Carolina Coastal Federation asked
me to support what is now Senate Bill 1222, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Act. I understand that Melvin Shepard, the
president of the Coastal Federation is here today, and I hope
he is.
Although I have spent a good part of my life in and around
the coastal sounds and rivers of Eastern North Carolina where I
was reared, until I started looking at this bill and what it
could do, I really had never realized the full importance of
these waters to the State and to the Nation. We have over 2.2
million acres of estuary in North Carolina. The commercial and
recreational fishing industry is dependent upon these waters,
and that is big industry at home. More than 90 percent of North
Carolina's commercially important species of fish and shellfish
spend part of their lives in North Carolina estuaries.
Now, Senator Chafee and Senator Lautenberg and Senator
Lieberman, 50 percent of the fish that you catch off the coast
of Rhode Island, New Jersey, or Connecticut were spawned in
North Carolina waters.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Faircloth. We send them to you.
Senator Lieberman. Could you add a little salt.
[Laughter.]
Senator Faircloth. We were thinking about putting a fee on
it, but we haven't gotten around to it yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Faircloth. But, in short, our ability to have
seafood in this Nation depends upon maintaining healthy and
productive coastal waters. This bill will enable communities to
work restoring degraded estuaries across the country. And as
Senator Sessions says, it is going to do it in a very
productive and forthright manner.
It is vital that we target needed resources to restore and
preserve our Nation's estuaries. The goal of the bill is
ambitious; a million acres to be restored by the year 2010, and
North Carolina is figuring on restoring 100,000 acres alone. So
a tenth of the goal would be in North Carolina alone for the
next several years. S. 1222 sets a new and innovative way of
making this happen. It will help the communities to restore
habitat critical to preserving the Nation's estuaries.
The bill is also important because it sets out a new way of
building a genuine partnership between our communities and the
States and the Federal Government. This is maybe the most
important part of it. It makes sure that we listen to the
citizens, build from what we know, and coordinate and
streamline the programs that are already there.
The level of support the bill has received speaks well of
the potential value of the legislation to so many American
coastal communities and says a great deal about the stature of
Senator Chafee, as chairman of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, and his work on behalf of the
committee. I am committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to
move the bill this year.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we move the
estuary bill as part of the Water Resources Development Act
Reauthorization to ensure that it gets done this year. I
believe this would make good sense since the estuary bill makes
the Army Corps of Engineers the lead agency in the restoration
of the estuaries. We need to make sure that S. 1222 is a part
of reauthorization. If we don't, a good bill, and one that
builds bipartisan bridges as it restores the estuaries, could
get devoured and bogged down in the much larger and more
charged debate that we're going to have on the Clean Water Act
next year.
Last, I want to welcome a distinguished North Carolinian
who will be testifying later today, Dr. Joann Burkholder. Dr.
Burkholder is well-known as one of the Nation's leading
research scientists and one of the discoverers of Pfiesteria,
the microbe that has raised so much havoc among all costal
waters, and Maryland and North Carolina have particularly been
hit hard with it. She will be testifying to the serious
consequences which can come from degraded estuaries.
Dr. Burkholder, it's nice to have you with us today.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. I think there
are several good points you made there in your testimony. I
think it is important for us to realize that, as you said, 90
percent of the commercial fish caught by North Carolina
fishermen had spent a portion of their lives in the estuaries.
That's true in the Gulf, for example, likewise. So, these
estuaries are of extraordinary importance.
Second, your suggestion about combining the bill with the
other legislation that we will be considering later on is a
thoughtful one. Let me think about that because the other
legislation, the Water Resources Development Reauthorization,
does look as though that's going to go somewhere, and I think
your point is a good one. Let's think about that.
And third, I would note that we have 26 cosponsors of this
legislation, not only each of the Senators who are here today,
but others likewise. So we're very optimistic on this
legislation.
Thank you for your help, Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. It's my understanding that Senator
Torricelli is going to drop by at some point, and we will take
him when he comes by.
But meanwhile, why don't we have Mr. Wayland, Director of
the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works,
U.S. Department of Army, come up.
We will start with Mr. Wayland. Why don't you proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. WAYLAND III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Wayland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, members of the committee. You have a great sense of
timing. This hearing occurs during the International Year of
the Ocean and the Nation is examining its stewardship
responsibilities toward our coastal waters. Very recently at
the National Oceans Conference in Monterey, the President
committed to a series of actions in recognition of those
responsibilities and again pledged the Administration to
implement, with assistance from Congress, a Clean Water Action
Plan. That plan, undertaken in recognition of the progress made
and challenges remaining after a quarter of a century----
Senator Chafee. I wonder if you could hold 1 minute. I
didn't see Senator Allard come in. I'm sorry. Did you have any
comment to make?
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any comments. I
appreciate the chair recognizing me. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. I apologize for not catching you.
All right, Mr. Wayland, why don't you proceed.
Mr. Wayland. As I was saying, the Clean Water Action Plan,
which the Administration has developed, recognizes the many
challenges and the significant progress made since the Clean
Water Act was first authorized a quarter of a century ago. It
contains numerous actions directed to marine and estuarine
protection and restoration. Those actions have been
significantly influenced by our experience over the last decade
in implementing the National Estuary Program.
That program was established by Congress in 1987 to
demonstrate a new framework to address serious environmental
problems faced by these valuable ecosystems. Estuaries are
particularly vulnerable because they often serve as sinks for
pollutants originating upstream within the watersheds and the
airsheds overlying them. In addition, estuaries are directly
impacted by human activity. Well over half the people in this
country live, work, or play near the coast. The NEP seeks to
protect and restore the health of estuaries and their living
resources, and in so doing, the recreation, fishing, and other
economic activities that take place in or depend on healthy
estuaries.
Just a few indications of how valuable these resources are:
Coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54
billion in goods and services every year. The coastal
recreation and tourism industry is the second largest employer
in the Nation, serving 180 million Americans visiting the coast
each year. And the commercial fish and shellfish industry
contributes $45 billion to the economy every year, while
recreational fishing contributes $30 billion to the U.S.
economy annally.
A recent national assessment concluded that the most common
problems NEPs are dealing with are nutrient over- enrichment,
pathogen contamination, toxic chemicals, alteration of
freshwater flows, the loss of habitat, and declines in fish and
wildlife as well as the introduction of invasive species. We
have every reason to believe that these problems are common to
most coastal watersheds throughout the United States. And the
impacts are serious. Pathogens cause shellfish bed closures,
nutrient over-enrichment contributes to----
Senator Chafee. What is a pathogen?
Mr. Wayland. Pathogens are microscopic organisms that are
destructive to other living organisms; it may be fish, it may
be human beings.
Introduction of invasive species adversely affects native
species. Many of you are familiar, of course, with the zebra
mussel which is a freshwater invasive species. Our coasts are
afflicted with invasive species transported in ballast water.
Changes in land use and the introduction of pollutants and
toxic chemicals results in habitat loss and declines in water
quality and ecosystem health overall. And we're all familiar
with the impacts of harmful algae blooms. Pfiesteria outbreaks
have occurred in several tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay and
North Carolina rivers in recent years resulting in fish kills,
fish lesions, and suspected human impacts. The death and decay
of algae blooms can lead to partial oxygen depletion, known as
hypoxia, or total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the
water, resulting in widespread mortality of fish, shellfish,
and invertebrates.
There's evidence that associates these algae blooms with
nutrient pollution, excess nitrogen and phosphorous in the
water. The source of these pollutants varies widely from one
location to another. However, in general, we see three
significant sources: human waste from septic systems and sewage
treatment plants; agricultural runoff, including fertilizer and
manure from agricultural operations; and air deposition of
nitrogen and toxic pollutants from motor vehicles and electric
utilities.
Unlike early approaches to environmental protection that
targeted specific pollutants or categories of discharges, the
NEP acknowledges that the problems affecting our estuaries are
exacerbated by combined and cumulative impacts of many
individual activities and that the significance of these
activities varies greatly from watershed to watershed. The
principal cause of nutrient over-enrichment in Albemarle-
Pamlico NEP, for example, is agricultural, while in Long Island
Sound nutrient loadings come principally from domestic
wastewater.
In order to address watershed wide concerns, the NEP
encourages the use of a combination of traditional and non-
traditional water quality control measures and resource
management techniques. The NEP has strongly influenced our
evolution toward watershed management more broadly in clean
water programs.
A cornerstone of the National Estuary Program is that
management decisions are made through an inclusive process
involving multiple stakeholders, as Senator Sessions observed
earlier. This emphasis on public participation not only ensures
a balanced approach to resource problems, but encourages local
communities to take the lead in determining the future of their
own estuaries, thus bolstering the program's success through
community support. At the present time, 17 of the 28 NEPs are
in the implementation stage, 1 additional program is scheduled
to have an approved plan by the end of 1998, and the 10
remaining programs should have their management plans completed
in 1999.
The National Estuary Program has been very successful and
several of those successes are presented in my full statement.
EPA is working actively to ensure that we use what we've
learned from these programs to protect and improve the health
of coastal ecosystems overall.
With respect to the legislation that is the topic of this
hearing, I would like to emphasize the Administration's
position supporting comprehensive amendments to the Clean Water
Act that would strengthen the protection of the Nation's
waters, a position recently reiterated by the President when he
announced the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan.
That having been said, let me comment briefly on S. 1321,
S. 1222, and H.R. 2207.
First, the National Estuary Conservation Act and also a
provision of H.R. 2207. Both of these bills would amend Section
320(g) of the Clean Water Act and increase the authorization of
the National Estuary Program. EPA supports the flexibility that
would be provided by giving us the authority to allow grantees
to use Section 320 funds for managing the implementation of
CCMPs as well as for developing them.
We believe it is important, however, that State and local
Governments take primary responsibility for implementing CCMP
actions, and that consistent with the current law, grants
authorized by Section 320 not be seen as the primary source of
implementation funds. EPA and its other water quality programs
have an important role in implementation.
Section 320 provides that the management plans, once
approved by the Administrator, can be implemented using funds
from the State Water Revolving Loan Fund or the nonpoint source
grants. Many CCMP implementation actions are appropriate for
such funding. These programs should continue to be the primary
source of implementation funds authorized under the Clean Water
Act. The Administration has recently proposed to increase
Section 319 grant funds to $200 million.
EPA also supports an increase in authorizations over the
original $12 million given the increased number of estuarine
programs since the program was last authorized.
With respect to S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act, we believe that the goals and purposes of this
bill are laudable----a national goal of restoring a million
acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. Many of our National
Estuary Programs have identified the need to actively restore
degraded habitats consistent with the Clean Water Act's broad
goal to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of our Nation's water.
S. 1222 would compliment other provisions of the Clean
Water Act and move us in a direction of implementation
provisions more attuned to restoration and physical integrity
aspects of the Clean Water Act's goal. Chemical and physical
improvements are needed to restore the conditions under which
aquatic species can thrive in our estuaries.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with the
committee as you continue your deliberations on this bill.
With respect to H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction
Act, I need to stress that much of the progress toward our
Clean Water Act goals has been realized through the investment
of the private sector and local governments in achieving near
universal compliance with the baseline of technology-driven
pollution control and prevention requirements. That's best
available technology for industry and secondary treatment for
municipalities.
Secondary treatment isn't sufficient, however, to achieve
nutrient control needs for such water bodies as Long Island
Sound and the Chesapeake Bay where relatively shallow, poorly
mixed waters are sensitive to nutrient inputs. In these
instances, and many others, municipal treatment facilities are
using advanced wastewater treatment technology or biological
nutrient removal.
Congress provided for a narrow waiver from the general
requirement in Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act for cases
where a community discharging to ocean waters could
demonstrate, among other things, that less than secondary
treatment would not have significant adverse consequences. Few
municipalities were eligible for this waiver by its very terms.
Fewer still sought the waiver. And even fewer were able to make
the necessary showings and were approved. The waiver provision
required municipalities to apply by December 29, 1982, and
didn't provide for reapplication in the event of a final
denial.
H.R. 2207 would reopen the window for an application for a
deep ocean outfall serving Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, but would
require EPA to apply the same substantive standards for
considering such a waiver that had applied to previous timely
applicants.
The Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewage Authority first sought
a waiver for the Mayaguez wastewater treatment plant to
discharge into Mayaguez Bay, not a deep ocean site, in
September 1979. EPA tentatively denied the application in 1984
and again in 1986. A final determination denying the
application was issued in 1991. The applicant pursued appeals
which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding EPA's decision
in February 1995.
In a Consent Agreement to resolve process violations of,
among other things, the effluent discharge limits on the
existing plant, the Federal Government recognized PRASA's
intent to seek this legislation but made no commitment
regarding our position on the legislation.
Mayaguez Bay, in general, and the coral reefs, in
particular, are severely stressed. Conditions may be such that
PRASA may be able to provide information to support a decision
that, based on construction of a deep ocean outfall, it can
meet the nine part test established in Section 301(h). However,
EPA neither endorses nor opposes H.R. 2207. We're generally
opposed, however, to reopening the opportunity to seek 301(h)
waivers given the widespread benefits of secondary treatment
and the need to do more, not less, to control nutrients in many
coastal areas.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
working with you and your staff as you continue your work on
these bills. I'd be pleased to respond to questions.
Senator Chafee. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Wayland.
Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works, Department of the Army.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
Michael Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.
I'm also very pleased to be here today to present the
Department of the Army's views on S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act. With your permission, I will
summarize my statement that I have submitted for the record.
Senator Chafee. We've never denied anybody the opportunity
to summarize their statements.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. I'll try to be brief. For over 200 years the
Nation has called upon the Army Corps of Engineers to solve
many of its water resources problems. Historically, the Corps
has emphasized its flood damage reduction and navigation
missions. In recent years, however, pursuant to Water Resources
Development Acts, we have elevated our environmental
restoration and protection mission to a level equal to our more
traditional missions.
The Corps now uses its engineering, project management,
real estate, and environmental expertise to address
environmental restoration and protection problems throughout
the Nation and the world. The Corps has a powerful tool kit of
standing authorities and programs that can be brought to bear
to help solve environmental problems.
Over the last decade alone, the Corps has helped to restore
hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, benefiting hundreds
of fish and wildlife species. Examples include 28,000 of
habitat restored for the Upper Mississippi River, hundreds of
acres of coastal wetlands restored in Louisiana, 35,000 acres
of flood plain and wetlands restoration underway along the
Kissimmee River in Florida, and hundreds of acres of coastal
wetlands restored by beneficially using dredged material.
If enacted, S. 1222 would add to the Corps' environmental
portfolio. Specifically, S. 1222 would allow the Corps to use
its unique skills to restore and protect estuarine habitat and
help achieve an economically and environmentally sustainable
future for the Nation and the world.
Throughout the world estuarine and coastal areas serve as
focal points for human use and development. These same areas
also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective,
providing habitat and food for myriad fish and wildlife
species. There is an urgent need to protect and restore these
fragile ecosystems, recognizing the economic, social, and
environmental benefits they provide.
As with many environmental issues, future generations
depend upon our actions today. In this regard, we applaud the
cosponsors of S. 1222 for their vision and leadership in this
area.
The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance
coordination and efficiently financed environmental restoration
and protection projects. The goal of restoring one million
acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010 is consistent with
the President's Clean Water Action Plan and the goal of
restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands annually beginning in the
year 2005.
The proposed national framework, our national estuarine
habitat restoration strategy should help partners identify and
integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping
plans, and identify processes to develop new plans where they
are needed. This framework document could help us maximize
incentives for participation, leverage limited Federal
resources, and minimize duplications of efforts.
The legislation is also consistent with the Coastal
Wetlands Preservation, Protection, and Restoration Act, also
known as the Breaux Act. This legislation has created a unique
multi Federal and State agency partnership which is working to
restore and protect approximately 73,000 acres of coastal
wetlands in Louisiana over the next 20 years.
Thus, with a relatively few minor but important changes,
the Department of the Army would be pleased to support S. 1222.
I will note a few of the changes and clarifications that we
would recommend.
First, it is unclear which, if any, agency is to lead the
collaborative council. The language implies a lead role for the
Department of the Army and directs the Secretary to convene
meetings. Funds are also authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of the Army to implement estuarine restoration and
protection projects.
While S. 1222 does not explicitly state your intent,
Department of the Army is prepared to take a leadership role if
that is the desire of the committee and the Congress.
In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I
recommend that the bill's cost-sharing provision be amended to
a 65 percent Federal cost share in accordance with WRDA 1986
and WRDA 1996. This is especially important since the bill
states that estuarine restoration projects could be implemented
under our aquatic ecosystem restoration authority pursuant to
Section 206 of WRDA 1996.
We are concerned that S. 1222 deviates from the basic cost-
sharing policies established in the Water Resources Development
Acts for environmental restoration projects, and that the
variation and range of the possible Federal cost- shares from
25 to 65 percent could cause confusion and reduce non-Federal
participation.
Section (d)(1) of S. 1222 states that the collaborative
council shall not select an estuarine habitat restoration
project until each non-Federal interest has entered into a
written cooperation agreement in accordance with Section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970. Our experience is that while the
need to meet Section 221 requirements are still valid for most
civil works projects, there are situations where these
requirements eliminate potential non-Federal sponsors from
consideration and reduce opportunities for environmental
projects. For example, certain well-known and established
environmental organizations could not serve as sponsors for
environmental restoration projects under S. 1222 as introduced.
The Corps has put policies in place to enable consideration
of nongovernmental organizations for Section 1135 projects, and
our WRDA 1998 proposal contains provisions that would amend
Section 206 of WRDA 1996 and Section 204 of WRDA 1992 to allow
the Corps to consider where appropriate nongovernmental
organizations as sponsors for environmental restoration and
protection projects. Because of the similarities between these
environmental authorities, we recommend revising S. 1222 to
allow NGO's to sponsor estuarine habitat restoration projects.
Turning to the factors to be taken into account in
establishing criteria for determining project eligibility, we
recommend that the legislation require consideration of quality
and quantity of habitat restored in relation to overall project
costs. This will help with benchmark performance reviews and
provide a context for providing trade- off decisions amongst
various alternatives.
Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches
are new, and when dealing with natural systems there is a need
to test new ideas, learn from successful projects, and learn
from those that are not successful, and manage adaptively to
adjust to ever-changing conditions. Adding a requirement for
non-Federal sponsors to manage adaptively would encourage the
partners to try out new ideas and learn more about how to
restore and protect estuarine and coastal areas.
In conclusion, the Corps has been increasingly involved in
recent years with efforts to protect and restore our estuaries.
We are especially proud of our efforts in conjunction with
Coastal America initiatives, such as a restoration of a coastal
salt marsh area in the Galilee Bird Sanctuary in the chairman's
home State of Rhode Island, the restoration of tidal wetlands
in California's Sonoma Bay lands, and the Sagamore Salt Marsh
restoration project in Massachusetts. Our fiscal year 1999
budget request includes study funds for ten potential projects
directed at protecting or restoring the important functions of
estuaries, as well as funding for many other activities that
would be beneficial to the environment in or adjacent to our
estuaries.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the Corps is serious about its
environmental responsibilities and its environmental mission.
With just a few minor modifications, S. 1222, if enacted, would
add an important new tool to help us all protect and restore
the Nation's estuaries.
My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff
on S. 1222 and other legislation before your committee,
including our Water Resources Development Act proposal for
1998. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work
on this important legislation continues.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may have.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
What we'll do now, I see Senator Torricelli is here, we
will proceed with his comments and then we will get back to
some questions to Mr. Wayland and Mr. Davis.
Senator we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Torricelli. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Rarely have I given testimony on legislation where I felt more
confident, noting that I'm here to testify on S. 1321 and my
two cosponsors are the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee,
and the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. So I feel
assured of fairly supportive commentary. I would also like to
note that S. 1321 is cosponsored by Senators Moynihan, Graham,
Lieberman, and Boxer.
Mr. Chairman, dealing generally first with the issue of our
coastal maintenance and protection, let me offer both my
support and congratulations for the committee in dealing under
difficult circumstances. It is time in our country to recognize
that our beaches and coastal areas are national resources, as
important to our infrastructure as roads and schools and other
items that we depend upon for commerce and our quality of life.
Indeed, since the 1930's the Federal Government has recognized
this with the creation of the Beach and Erosion Board. And yet
in recent years, it is becoming increasingly more difficult.
The current funding formula set by the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act established the Federal contribution for beach
replenishment at 65 percent. This is being threatened by an
Administration proposal to have a Federal share of 35 percent.
Let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, in the State of New
Jersey, to which Senator Lautenberg will attest, the economic
life of the State of New Jersey and the quality of life of our
people is directly related to the maintenance of our beaches.
Our beaches are important to the economic life of New Jersey,
as the Pennsylvania Turnpike is for the economy of its State,
or the New York Throughway is for the people who live in that
State. It is used for commerce, it is used for our massive
tourist industry, and for our quality of life. This kind of
declining Federal contribution would be a direct threat to many
coastal communities.
I am, however, here for a related subject, and that is the
maintenance of our threatened estuaries. Estuaries of our
States, Mr. Chairman, from which Rhode Island is centered, are
an important part not only of our tourist industry but also our
fishing industry--75 percent of commercial fishing in the
United States rely on estuaries--in New Jersey this is
particularly true with the Raritan Bay, the Delaware Bay, and
Barnegat Bay. In our country today, 14.5 million jobs and 10
percent of our GDP is related directly to these coastal
centers. My State of New Jersey has a $25 billion tourist
industry, including boating and fishing industries that rely on
these areas.
The size of these estuaries and the pressure upon them by
development is extraordinary. To take one example, the Barnegat
Bay in New Jersey, 400,000 people live on this precious
environmental resource. The same things that have attracted
clam and fish populations to be in these protected waters also
attract people to develop their lands and use them for tourist
purposes. In the summer, that 400,000 population doubles to
800,000 people. This very precious resource is also shared with
116 marinas and boatramps, a third of all boats in the State of
New Jersey are registered in this one small estuary.
As one would imagine, this causes considerable pollution
threats. Barnegat Bay alone in 1995, 1997, and as recently as
last month has had problems with brown tide algae blooms
caused, in part, by stormwater runoff. Another example of
pollution threats, as I'm sure you've experienced in Rhode
Island, is in the New York-New Jersey Harbor----we found 730
combined sewage overflows in that Harbor alone. It would take
$2 to $6 billion to correct them.
Mr. Chairman, as I am certain you and I know Senator
Lautenberg are aware, the single largest water pollution
problem remaining in the United States are the combined sewage
overflows. This is a major problem of these estuaries. It is
the reason for the compromise of the water quality, the
continued destruction of our fisheries, and the unavailability
of some of these waters for tourist purposes.
In 1987 the Clean Water Act Amendments established a
National Estuary Program. That was an important beginning in
saving these estuaries. Over the years, 28 estuaries were
designated, 3 alone in the State of New Jersey. The plan was
the Federal Government would provide funds to the State and
local governments to develop plans to save these endangered
estuaries. Seventeen of the 28 estuarine plans have now been
completed. The NEP has not been reauthorized since 1991 and
today States cannot receive any Federal funding to implement
their plans.
Our legislation, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. We have
designed 17 of these plans to protect the estuaries, the
Congress for two decades has recognized these plans as a
priority, now it's time to actually begin the work. Under our
legislation, we would begin authorizing $50 million to the
State and local Governments to start implementing their plans.
These plans obviously rely heavily on doing something with
combined sewage overflow.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply time to begin to act. We know
what needs to be done. We understand the science, we understand
the engineering, and we know the threat. I believe $50 million
is a modest beginning, but in some estuaries somewhere in the
country we will at least begin to prove that these valuable
resources can be saved. It is better now to begin in a modest
method rather than not to begin at all.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if we prove by these modest amounts
that a few estuaries can be saved, fish populations will begin
to return, tourists will enjoy the benefit of improvements to
water quality, then we can begin to mount the kind of political
coalition that will help us do this on a larger scale.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate
your thoughts.
Senator Lautenberg. I just want to thank Senator Torricelli
for his interest in protecting our estuaries, as evidenced by
this legislation. I think that he is absolutely right. We have
done a sufficient amount of planning and I think now getting
the funds, getting some assistance for the implementation of
these programs is important. I once again salute the effort and
will work hard with you to try to get it into place in New
Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the comparisons between our
States go beyond size. We have a lot of coastline for a
relatively small land mass. Our problems are not different. We
invite habitation, we invite tourism, but that brings problems
along with it. As Senator Torricelli aptly pointed out, sewage
overflow occurs. I'm not sure which gets the prize for being
the worst source for pollution--agricultural runoff, combined
sewer overflows, or nonpoint source pollution. We know one
thing--we see the constant degradation of fish population,
damage to our recreational use, and the loss of an important
asset. It does compare very favorably with basic infrastructure
in our States and in our country.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome Senator Torricelli's comments and
his active interest on the issue.
Senator Chafee. I think it was you, Senator Lautenberg, who
mentioned in your opening statement that something to the
effect that 55 percent of the population in the United States
lives in coastal areas.
Senator Lautenberg. Right.
Senator Chafee. I suspect that percentage is growing, not
declining. So it's a tremendous challenge.
Well, thank you very much, Senator Torricelli.
Senator Torricelli. Mr. Chairman, if I could just note in
response to Senator Lautenberg's comments, as difficult as this
problem is, there is reason to be hopeful. Last year, in
visiting in the Barnegat Bay, after years in our State of
dealing with industrial sources of pollution successfully, the
fish populations were increasing. Crabs and clams were seen in
areas where they had not been recognized for years. Nature is
resilient if we give it a chance.
Senator Chafee. But we've got to give it the chance.
Senator Torricelli. You have to give it the chance. And
that's all we're asking, some modest resources now to deal with
these remaining threats to these estuaries. Nature will come
back if we will do our parts.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, the clams that were such
an important marine crop in New Jersey now get put into a
natural washing machine. They're taken out of beds where there
may be some pollution and put into other clean water areas and
left there for a bit and nature takes care of it. So nature is
working right along side of us and we have to just give her a
little boost.
Senator Chafee. Right. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now, Mr. Davis, in your testimony, you outline some of the
areas of success. Over the last decade the Corps has helped to
restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, 28,000 acres
of habitat restored for the upper Mississippi, hundreds of
acres of coastal, and so forth. What principally have you done
to do that restoration? What steps have you taken? And what
constitutes restoration?
Mr. Davis. Restoration, let me answer that part of the
question first. Let's look at wetlands restoration, I think
that will put it in the right context. If you look in the
Southeast, hundreds of thousands of acres that have been diked
off and drained. Former wetlands are now crop lands. You can go
into these areas and plug up some of those ditches, knock down
some of these little dikes, and restore the hydrology in that
area, thus restoring what was formerly a wetland area versus
creation, which is going into an area that was never a wetland
and trying to do it there.
Senator Chafee. You mention invasive species. We're
certainly seeing that up in my section of the country. We've
got something called ``phragmites'' which, in my judgment, is
overpowering many brackish ponds. What do you know about
phragmites? Have you got a cure?
Mr. Davis. I've seen phragmites. I've seen a lot of it.
Senator Chafee. Oh, I've seen it, too. But that's not a
qualification.
Mr. Davis. It is a problem. We've spent a fair amount of
time just recently up in the Hackensack Meadowlands, which is a
large wetlands complex that essentially has been overtaken by
phragmites, and we're looking at ways to restore that area to
the proper hydrologies and salinities that would preclude
phragmites from growing and allow the native vegetation to
return. It can be a problem. It is very much an invasive
species.
There are a lot of invasive species. It's an issue we've
got to deal with. Recently I looked at the Kenilworth Marsh
restoration project that we did here on the Anacostia River
using dredged material. We have a problem there with the plant
the purple lustrife which is also an invasive species. It's an
issue we're grappling with. I think in some cases we have made
some progress but we've got a lot of work to do.
Senator Chafee. Any thoughts, Mr. Wayland?
Mr. Wayland. I just wanted to supplement that. Mr. Davis
referred to Coastal America, and one of the Coastal America
projects that I participated in helping to launch in Senator
Lieberman's State was actually being facilitated with ISTEA
funds. I think that the work that you and this committee did on
the new TEA-21 legislation is going to continue some of the
opportunities.
Senator Chafee. Better keep it a secret that we're using
the highway trust fund money to fight phragmites.
Mr. Wayland. Well, what happened in that instance was the
phragmites was very much encouraged by the railbed that had
been laid in the Northeast corridor without any opportunity for
tidal flushing. No culverts, so that you walled off the tidal
flushing and the fresh water areas.
By the Corps of Engineers designing appropriate placement
of culverts and the use of ISTEA money to place those culverts,
the hydrologic regime was restored such that the natural marsh
grasses could come back and once again occupy that habitat
rather than phragmites. And that's certainly appropriate.
Senator Chafee. Are you saying that if you can get a tidal
flow in an area where phragmites is, that will kill it off?
Mr. Wayland. In some cases, there has to be more active
management than that. In some cases there has to be hand
removal. I'm not a big believer in herbicide use to try to
restore the balance of nature, but in some cases that's been
employed to help the process along. But if you don't do
something to improve the salinity regime, you're probably going
to be back where you were. That's why some of these measures
like the one that we looked at in Connecticut are extremely
important. And that's part of the plan for the Hackensack as
well, to open up channels of flowing water to help reduce the
problem.
Senator Chafee. OK. Let me just ask this question of both
of you. One, I appreciate your support for S. 1222. The bill as
drafted would, as you know, require EPA, the Corps, and other
relevant Federal agencies, for example Fish and Wildlife or
NOAA, to develop an estuarine habitat restoration strategy. Do
you think it's possible for all of these Federal agencies to
develop a strategy within the parameters of the bill?
What do you say to that, Mr. Wayland?
Mr. Wayland. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that we've
got a history of cooperating in a number of cases on smaller
scale efforts. I think this is an opportunity to try to look
comprehensively at needs and opportunities to try to buildupon
the smaller scale efforts that may have been undertaken in the
context of a particular estuary. I think the agencies have a
good track record of working together through Coastal America
and other collaborative approaches.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Davis, what do you say?
Mr. Davis. I agree completely with that. I think the bill
brings together the right mix of agencies, each of which can
come to the table with kind of a unique perspective and unique
tools and talents.
Senator Chafee. Now, Mr. Wayland, you commented on the
Puerto Rico bill. If we pass that and EPA denied the
application for a waiver, what is your best estimate for the
expected time period for the construction and operation of a
secondary treatment plant?
Mr. Wayland. The deadline that is specified in the Consent
Agreement that the Government reached with PRASA is that there
would be a secondary treatment facility on line by December 31,
2001. That's a pretty ambitious timeframe in which to site,
construct, and operate a secondary plant.
Senator Chafee. You did make a point in your testimony, I'm
not sure I can put my finger on it right now, where you pointed
out that where the waivers have been granted in the past, I
guess you're thinking of San Diego, it is an deep ocean outflow
as opposed to this.
Mr. Wayland. San Diego was another legislative exception to
the general requirements of the Clean Water Act that we
grappled with after the standard window had closed. But there
are many other waivers that were entertained under Section
301(h) and some were approved, many were denied, several were
withdrawn.
In instances where those waivers were approved, we
generally are finding deep water, a lot of mixing as a result
of currents, and----
Senator Chafee. It seems to me that was the San Diego
situation. It was a deep ocean.
Mr. Wayland. Yes. I believe the outfall is at 300 feet. The
locations of the outfall that are being studied at least with
respect to Mayaguez I understand would be on the order of 600
feet of water.
Senator Chafee. OK. Fine. Thank you very much gentlemen.
Now, we'll have the next panel. We have now four witnesses.
There are liable to be some votes which will interrupt this,
but let's get started.
We will start with Mr. Spalding, executive director of Save
the Bay. Mr. Spalding, we welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF H. CURTIS SPALDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAVE THE
BAY, PROVIDENCE, RI
Mr. Spalding. Thank you, Senator Chafee. I have a chart I
would like to put up here. As long as we brought it all the way
from Rhode Island, I thought I better show it.
I gave the committee a longer statement, and I have some
brief comments I would like to make now.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
Mr. Spalding. On behalf of Save the Bay and Restore
America's Estuaries, I would like to thank Senator Chafee and
the committee for the opportunity to present testimony in
support of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
Act. Save the Bay is a member-supported nonprofit organization
with 20,000 members. Our mission is to restore and protect
Narragansett Bay and its watershed. Restore America's Estuaries
is a coalition of 11 regional coastal community-based
environmental organizations, with a combined membership of over
250,000. Restore America's Estuaries' mission is to save and
restore America's estuaries and coastal heritage for our
children before it disappears.
Five years ago, over 20 estuary advocacy organizations met
to discuss the future challenges of our Nation's estuaries and
to set a course of action to meet these challenges. Many of our
coastal areas were beginning to reap the benefits of the Clean
Water Act. In Narragansett Bay, harbor seals and oysters were
starting to return after decades of absence due to polluted
water. Despite similar limited recoveries in many of our
Nation's estuaries, we shared a deep concern that many species
of fish, birds, and other animals were not recovering as we had
expected. Also troubling, some of coastal areas not previously
affected by water pollution were now in serious decline.
After months of inquiry and discussion, we saw that the
problem with the health of our estuaries was no longer simply
grossly polluted water, but the ongoing loss of habitat for
fish, birds, shellfish, and plants along our shorelines and in
our watersheds. Thus, in late 1994, Restore America's Estuaries
was formed. It is a current partnership of 11 nonprofit
organizations, from Seattle to Galveston to Maine, that compose
Restore America's Estuaries. Over the past 4 years, each
organization has identified and targeted the habitat resources
in its own estuarine and coastal environment that are
threatened and in need of restoration. Restore America's
Estuaries has pledged collectively to restore one million acres
of habitat in our Nation's estuaries by the year 2010.
The need is great. In coastal States, 55 million acres of
wetlands have been destroyed. We need to turn the tide on this
devastating trend and actually foster the rebirth of our
estuaries and their critical wetlands.
In the estuary I know best, the need is especially
critical. Narragansett Bay's natural systems contain eelgrass
beds, salt marshes, and fish runs which allow it function
healthily, but they are severely damaged or disappearing. The
chart I brought down describes the percentage of salt marshes
affected by different activities. Invasive plants, cutting/
mowing, tidal restrictions, filling, ditching, and inadequate
buffer zones are causing the decline. As you can see, all these
impacts generally exceed 50 percent in our salt marshes. We
only have 100 acres of eelgrass left in the Bay which once
supported thousands of acres. Eelgrass prevents shoreline
erosion, filters pollution, and provide clean water, food,
shelter, and nurseries and breeding grounds for fish,
shellfish, juvenile lobsters, and young fish.
We have a problem with fish runs, too. To survive, many
fish must be able to get to the fresh water up the rivers to
spawn. One of our Bay's greatest historic fisheries, the
Atlantic Salmon, can now only be read about in books due to the
destruction of their fish runs.
The Bay is much like the human body; the decline in our
eelgrass, salt marshes, and fish runs are warning signs not so
different from changes in a person's vital signs. We would not
ignore a loved one's complaint of chest pains, shortness of
breath, or numbness in their arms and legs because these are
signs of potentially deadly heart attack or damaging stroke.
Likewise, we cannot ignore these symptoms in our estuaries.
If eelgrass, salt marshes, and fish runs continue to
decline and disappear, the Bay will be little more than an
empty body of water. The quantity of Bay life that depends on
these areas----the lobster, shellfish, birds, fish, plants----
will diminish. Many people who make their livelihoods off the
Bay will have to find other work. This is not the kind of Bay
we would want or should leave to our children.
Narragansett Bay is not alone in this health crisis.
Although each estuary is unique, they all suffer from habitat
loss. In San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of the Bay's original
wetlands have been destroyed. Galveston Bay in Texas has lost
85 percent of its seagrass meadows. Louisiana loses 25,000
acres of coastal salt marshes----that's an area the size of
Washington, DC----every year. In Chesapeake Bay, the oyster
harvest crashed from 25 million pounds in 1959 to only 1
million pounds in 1989, and of course the Pfiesteria crisis is
well known to everyone down here. These losses have dire
consequences for our environment, our economy, and our way of
life.
On September 22, 1997, Senator Chafee, the chairman of this
committee, came to a small boatyard in Narragansett Bay to
announce the introduction of the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act, S. 1222. This legislation is a vital component
of our efforts to bring back healthy conditions not only in
Narragansett Bay, but in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound,
Puget Sound, and many of the other vital estuaries in the
United States. At that press conference, Senator Chafee said
``Narragansett Bay is good for the soul.'' No truer words have
ever been spoken about the meaning of Narragansett Bay to all
Rhode Islanders and no one in Rhode Island's history has more
credibility to say these words.
Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from
its shore, it is part of what makes Rhode Island special. The
Bay is our lifeline, it nourishes our environment, strengthens
our economy, enhances our leisure time, protects our children's
futures. We need to care for the Bay and invest today in its
health and very survival. The investment will help ensure a
secure future for Rhode Island and all the Nation's estuaries.
In the interest of time, I'm going to jump to the end of my
comments, Senator Chafee, and talk somewhat about the
connection to the WRDA Act.
Despite all that's been done, as I've said, Narragansett
Bay and most of our estuaries remain in crisis. The migration
of millions of people to the shores of estuaries has had its
impact. Rhode Island and many other regions have only a limited
time to take action and reverse the situation. If we do not
markedly increase our effort to restore America's estuaries
soon, more species of fish, plants, birds may become memories
just like the Atlantic salmon and Bay scallops have become in
Narragansett Bay. Without action now, jobs will be lost and the
quality of life will suffer.
We applaud you for your leadership on this critical issue,
and we applaud the support of Senator Faircloth and now the
support of the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. Not only has
Senator Faircloth come to the issue, but 26 colleagues from
both sides of the aisle understand the situation and have
cosigned as sponsors.
If we truly want to preserve our coastal heritage, we must
give our Federal Government agencies the opportunity to
actually help with this task, not just with more funding, but
with tools to break down the barriers of bureaucracy and to
build partnerships with local community efforts. The
coordinated community-based approach prescribed in S. 1222 will
set a powerful example for solving the more complicated
environmental challenges ahead in the next century. It will
also help refocus the Army Corps on the restoration of natural
systems, just as is intended in the current draft of the Water
Resources Development Act that is currently under
consideration.
Because S. 1222 affects the Army Corps' mission and
purpose, and because the health of America's estuaries cannot
afford years of delay, we respectfully urge immediate
consideration of S. 1222 as part of the WRDA reauthorization.
We know this is a tall order but we believe strongly that the
need justifies the request.
Your attention to my remarks today is appreciated very
much. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my
perspective on why estuarine habitat restoration is so
important for Narragansett Bay and the estuaries throughout the
country that add so much to our coastal environment and
heritage.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Spalding. We
appreciate that.
And now Dr. Burkholder. They have started this vote and
I'll have to leave in about seven or 8 minutes, but we can get
started. Why don't you proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOANN R. BURKHOLDER, RESEARCH COORDINATOR, BOTANY
DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC
Ms. Burkholder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
honor to be invited to speak before your committee. I would
like to tell you that personally I have very much admired you
for a long time and all your efforts.
Senator Chafee. Well, that's fine. Did everybody hear that?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Burkholder. The litany of all the enormous values of
our Nation's estuaries is familiar to many people of all ages.
There are three basic reasons for my testifying here today.
First, as a scientist knowledgeable in technical aspects of
estuarine degradation, I am pleased to testify on behalf of
these valuable resources and their enormous importance to all
of us in this country. I've stressed to you the need to
strengthen our understanding not only of obvious impacts from
human influences, many of us know about floating garbage, but,
of greater importance, the more insidious chronic impacts of
our actions in degrading our estuaries.
Research from every coast of this country has shown, for
example, that fish suffer higher incidents of bleeding sores,
malignant tumors, loss of reproductive ability, and immune
system suppression in estuarine waters near urban centers.
Senator Chafee. Dr. Burkholder, I'm afraid they have now
gone to the last part. So we're going to recess for a few
minutes. I'm not sure, there may be a couple of votes back to
back. But as soon as I get back, we will continue with you.
The committee will be in recess for a few minutes here.
[Recess.]
Senator Chafee. The committee will return to order.
I notice Senator Breaux is here. Senator Breaux has been
deeply interested in these issues for many years. Senator, if
you have some comments you would like to make, now is the
chance.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
witnesses at the table for allowing me just to make a comment
or two. First, I thought it was important to come and say
congratulations to you for this effort. You've been a leader in
this area as long as I have been around the Congress and
working in these particular areas. I think this legislation,
which I am very proud to be a cosponsor of, is extremely
important.
When some people in the country think of estuarine areas,
they think of marsh lands or wetlands and they don't really
understand the productivity of these areas and how valuable
they are, from two standpoints. They are valuable because
they're part of our country and esoteric beauty that is found
in estuarine areas is incredible and it is extremely important.
Second, and equally as important, is the economic value of
these areas. They are extremely valuable. Most of Louisiana is
an estuarine area, my entire State practically. About 40
percent of the Nation's wetlands are found in my State, one
State. We're also losing about 80 percent of all the wetlands
in all of North America in my one State. So any legislation
dealing with estuarine areas and wetland areas is incredibly
important.
Just as a note for the record, the economic value of these
areas in my own State of Louisiana is extremely significant.
Wildlife and resources are estimated to bring almost $6 billion
annually to the economy of my State. That's because we produce
over 15 percent of the Nation's commercial fish harvest out of
Louisiana. Without the estuarine areas, this could not happen.
These are the breeding grounds for all of the fish resources--
--fin fish and shellfish----and things that are produced that
ultimately end up in the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately end up
all over the world. So without the estuarine areas as these
nurseries, all of this would not occur.
So your Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, which
is now before your committee, is extremely important. It is a
very positive step, and 1 day, hopefully, we will be able to
look back at this legislation as a key to ensuring the
continued viability of these very important areas. I commend
you for your action.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator Breaux. I want to
reciprocate by expressing our appreciation for your long work
in this area because you've been a stalwart. We look forward to
your continued support. Thank you.
Now, Dr. Burkholder, if you would be good enough to
continue. I don't think there are going to be any more
interruptions. Now that's said with not great certitude as far
as votes go. I don't know, I think that we're good for a while
anyway. So go to it.
STATEMENT OF JOANN R. BURKHOLDER, RESEARCH COORDINATOR, BOTANY
DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC--
CONTINUED
Ms. Burkholder. Thank you. There are three basic reasons
for my testifying here today, as I mentioned. First, as a
scientist, I would like to stress to you the need of
strengthening our understanding not only of obvious impacts of
human influences on our estuaries, but, of greater importance I
think, more insidious and chronic impacts of our actions in
degrading our estuaries.
As I was beginning to say earlier, research from every
coast of this country has shown that fish suffer higher
incidents of bleeding sores, malignant tumors, loss of
reproductive ability, and immune system suppression in
estuarine waters near urban centers. Such subtle and chronic
impacts are likely much more serious to fish than an obvious
fish kill that usually affects only a small number of fish
relative to the total population size.
The chronic effects of our actions in degrading estuaries
also extend beyond fish to our own health, as shown by the
story of Pfiesteria. This microscopic toxic creature thrives in
waters that are over-enriched from sewage, animal waste, lawn
and cropland fertilizer, and other sources. People who breath
the airborne toxins from Pfiesteria over waters where it is
attacking fish can suffer from severe learning disabilities and
memory loss for months afterwards. This provides just one
example of the fact that estuarine water quality, fish health,
and human health impacts can be strongly linked.
My second reason for speaking here today is to state my
strong support for S. 1222 and also S. 1321. As a citizen who
has been involved in policy recommendations about strengthening
wise use of estuarine resources, I believe that the partnership
cost-sharing approach that is outlined in S. 1222 will be
highly constructive in bringing all stakeholders together, from
industries and municipalities to individual citizens, in
working to achieve major restoration of our estuaries.
Within this context, I envision four goals. First, we
should accelerate river and watershed cleanup through a strong
incentive program which is encouraged by S. 1222. This program
should encompass both point and nonpoint source contributors.
This effort must also target reestablishment of more natural
flow patterns in watersheds to enhance pollutant filtering and
breakdown rather than the ditching and channelization that
deliver pollutants more directly to our rivers.
Development of strong water reuse programs will also help
combat both pollution and salt imbalances created by coastal
aquifer depletion. The phragmites problem and others are
related to that. And we should work to expand coastal reserves
in order to increase protection of fish nursery grounds.
The second goal that I envision is that we will need to
improve and update resource inventories, hence my strong
support for S. 1321 as well as S. 1222. This will really help
us to establish baselines where they're not available so that
we can mark our progress. For example, accurate maps of
submersed aquatic vegetation, wetlands, shellfish beds, fish
nursery and spawning grounds are needed in many regions.
Achievement of major estuarine restoration will also
require additional tools that must be provided by research. For
example, we need to develop improved indicators of chronic
impacts of pollutants on key species in estuarine food webs,
including young as well as adult stages. We will need improved
techniques for increasing natural functions of both constructed
and restored wetlands and seagrass meadows. We must improve our
ability to create value-added products from our wastes rather
than viewing them as materials to be discarded. And I think
especially, and it is often overlooked, we need strengthened
research in natural resource economics so that the full
benefits of all the goods and services provided by estuaries
can be both accurately valued and imparted to our citizens.
The third goal that I see is that we should work to
strengthen enforcement of existing laws for estuarine resource
conservation or wise use. Again, this needs to be accomplished
hand-in-hand with development of strong incentive programs and
also provision of support through development of innovative
fundraising programs.
We also need to work to improve upon some legislation. For
example, land use plans under the Coastal Area Management Act
should be strengthened to require consideration of the ability
of adjacent waters to handle the wastes that accompany our
increasing coastal population growth. Currently, these land use
plans do not contain that provision.
And fourth, we should work to promote development of
comprehensive environmental education and outreach programs
about the importance of good water quality and healthy
habitats, such as wetlands and seagrass beds, both in estuaries
and upstream in the watersheds that drain into them. These
programs should begin in preschool, extend to high school and
college, and continue to touch all citizens throughout their
lives.
My third and final reason for speaking for to you is much
simpler than the others----to help fishermen and other coastal
folk who are a big part of my State and our country's heritage
and also for our children in the battle for estuarine
restoration and wise resource maintenance.
I am also very pleased to join you and especially to join
my Senator, Senator Faircloth, on this issue. This committee
and he have shown strong depth of caring for our estuaries and
for all of us who depend upon them in our State and country in
support of these bills. Thank you again for the privilege of
addressing this Senate committee on this important issue.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Dr. Burkholder. We
appreciate that. I'm impressed by the number of papers that
you've written and had a part in writing, as shown in the back
of your testimony. Congratulations.
Ms. Burkholder. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Dr. Milon, professor, food and resource
economics department, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Welcome, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON, PROFESSOR, FOOD AND RESOURCE
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE, FL
Mr. Milon. Thank you very much, Chairman Chafee. I thank
you for the opportunity to present a brief summary of some
research on the economic value of the Indian River Lagoon, an
estuary of national significance and part of the Environmental
Protection Agency's existing National Estuary Program. I come
to you not so much as an advocate of any particular
legislation, but more as, if you will, a reporter from the
academic community about some research that this particular NEP
program conducted and to give you some insights from that
research.
This information is derived from a study I coordinated as
part of a team organized by Apogee Research Inc., a nationally
recognized leader in environmental and natural resource
economics. This study was sponsored by the Indian River
National Estuary Program and the St. Johns Water Management
District, the State sponsor for the Indian River NEP. The study
is presented as one documented example of the value of
estuaries nationwide.
The Indian River Lagoon, one of the Nation's most
biologically diverse estuaries, stretches 156 miles along
Florida's east coast spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian River,
St. Lucie, and Martin counties. These five counties are home to
more than 1 million residents and host more than 6 million
visitors each year. The number of visitors in the five counties
of the Lagoon is expected to increase from 1.25 million to
almost 1.5 million between 1995 and 2005.
In developing estimates of the economic value of an
environmental resource such as an estuary, it is important to
consider the scope and extent of human activity related to that
resource. I offer to you the accompanying Table 2-4 which is
condensed from a much larger report which I've included as
different addendums as part of my testimony here. That Table 2-
4 is on page 16 of Addendum A, if you have an opportunity to
look at that. The table shows the scope of activities which are
considered in the Indian River Lagoon study. These activities
range from traditional economic uses such as the value of
commercial and recreational harvests from the Lagoon to more
intangible economic values such as the enhancement of land
values adjacent to the resource and individuals' values for
preserving the resource. The full report, as I mentioned,
presents the valuation methodologies and data collection used
in the study, so I'm not going to describe those here.
These results that are summarized in Table 2-4 show the
importance of the Lagoon to the economy of the region in 1995.
Recreational fishing by residents and tourists was estimated to
contribute approximately $340 million to the regional economy,
swimming, boating, water sports, and nature observation
activities around the Lagoon contributed another $287 million.
Commercial harvesting of shellfish such as clams, oysters, and
crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually. In addition,
residential land values were enhanced by the presence of the
Lagoon in the amount of approximately $825 million which can be
expressed as an annualized value of about $33 million.
Collectively, the direct values associated with the Lagoon on
an annual basis amounted to more than $725 million.
The Lagoon-dependent activities create additional indirect
impacts on the regional economy. Businesses related to
recreation, tourism, and fisheries generate nearly $4 billion,
or about 17 percent of total output within the region. And
again, for this information I refer you to Addendum B,
additional information that's provided in there. I'll leave
that to whoever is interested in digging out the individual
details on that. Resident and tourist spending for Lagoon-
related activities accounted for more than 19,000 jobs in the
region.
These measures of the economic contribution of the Indian
River Lagoon can be compared to the costs of implementing the
comprehensive conservation and management plan developed as
part of the Indian River NEP. This comprehensive plan includes
recommendations to maintain and restore the Lagoon through
water quality management and habitat protection. These costs
are estimated to be less than $18 million annually, indicating
that the costs of sustaining the activities dependent on the
Lagoon are modest relative to their economic contribution
within the region.
Properly designed funding plans could spread these costs
equitably so that the average citizen in the region would pay
no more than $10 per year. In addition, public surveys
conducted for this study showed that residents would be willing
to pay more than three times the estimated annual cost to
implement CCMP.
The results of the study, while limited to a single
estuary, help to illustrate the economic importance of
estuaries in regional economies and the linkage between
environmental quality and economic development. The economy of
the Indian River Lagoon region depends upon the ecosystem
services provided by the estuary and future development within
the region will be linked to adequate maintenance of the health
of this ecosystem.
Studies such as the one I am reporting to you are an
integral link in helping citizens and public officials
understand the linkage between the health of the estuaries and
local economies. On this score I refer you to a letter from the
St. Johns River Water Management District which, as I
mentioned, is the State sponsor for the Indian River NEP. In
that letter they discuss their own thoughts on the legislation
before you and also reiterate this point about the importance
of studies dealing with the economic value of these resources.
And as you and other members of the committee have pointed out,
this kind of information is extremely important in building
local support and local understanding of the role of these
estuaries in the region, and for building political support,
they are absolutely vital to the local citizenry.
I hope this information will be useful to the committee. I
will gladly provide you with any details about this study or
any other information about economic valuation of environmental
resources that would assist the committee in its deliberations.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Dr. Milon. I think
what's helpful to the others is the methodology that you used
in arriving at your conclusions. I must say, it seems to me
that you were modest and cautious in the land value figure you
used, because certainly in our State there's a whale of a
difference between somebody whose got an ocean or an estuary
view from their property and someone who doesn't in the value
of his or her land.
Mr. Milon. Yes. Part of what we were trying to do, as I
mentioned, was to build this local support and, if you will,
local credibility. We wanted in the study to use as many
conservative assumptions as we could so that these valuation
estimates, if you will, could not be challenged on the grounds
that they were excessive. That in part led to some of that
conservatism. But you're correct, the ratios are enormous
between residential property in particular on waterfront which
is obviously highly valuable relative to non-waterfront
property, but also there's a difference between those areas
that have very high water quality and those that have degraded
water quality.
Senator Chafee. No question about that.
All right, Mr. Morton, counsel, Coastal and Ocean Program,
American Oceans Campaign. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TED MORTON, COUNSEL, COASTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM,
AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN
Mr. Morton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ted
Morton. I am the Coastal Protection Program counsel for
American Oceans Campaign which is a national, nonprofit
organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing our Nation's
oceans and coastal resources. On behalf of my organization and
its members, I wish to express my thanks to Senators Chafee and
Baucus and to the other members of the committee for inviting
me to testify on legislative proposals to improve estuarine
protections.
As you know, last year marked the 25th anniversary of the
Nation's premier water quality law----the Clean Water Act.
Across the Nation, communities used the anniversary to assess
the condition of their lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal
waters. Many communities discovered that significant progress
had been achieved. However, 25 years after the passage of the
Clean Water Act, we will have not achieved one of the Act's
principal goals----to make all waters swimmable and fishable.
Coastal waters are particularly troubled. A recent EPA report
disclosed that about 38 percent of the Nation's surveyed
estuaries are not clean enough to support basic uses such as
fishing and swimming. In addition, estuarine habitat is
threatened by unwise development, sedimentation, destructive
fishing practices, and other threats.
In order to improve the state of estuaries, it is
imperative to develop and follow a comprehensive national
strategy that addresses water quality improvements, habitat
restoration, public education efforts, and greater investments.
I believe that a combination of Senator Chafee's Estuary
Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, S. 1222, and
Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays' Water Pollution
Control and Estuary Restoration Act, H.R. 2374, provides a
significant start to ensure that a comprehensive national
strategy for estuarine protection is put in place.
The American Oceans Campaign joins other leading estuarine
protection organizations across the Nation in support of the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, the bill that
Curtis Spalding has so eloquently discussed today. The bill
would greatly improve efforts to restore estuarine habitats. In
particular, I am very supportive of the call for the creation
of a collaborative council that will direct a national
estuarine habitat restoration strategy.
Rather than echo the comments of Senators, Curt, and
others, I would like to spend much of my time discussing the
National Estuary Program and H.R. 2374. Since the creation of
the NEP in 1987, 28 nationally significant estuaries have been
the focus of intense study and planning. Community leaders in
these particular estuaries have collaboratively crafted
comprehensive estuarine management plans, called CCMPs, that
are designed to restore their local estuary. Seventeen of the
twenty-eight estuaries have approved CCMPs and local
communities are hard at work to implement their plans. However,
most communities are finding implementation a challenge.
H.R. 2374, the Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill, corrects the
most glaring weakness of the National Estuary Program----the
lack of consistent, adequate Federal funds to assist States and
localities in implementing approved estuary plans. This bill is
very similar to bills introduced in the Senate in previous
years by Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, D'Amato, and Dodd.
The Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill will strengthen protections
for estuaries by requiring implementation of approved estuarine
management plans. It assures a more sizable and dependable
Federal funding source for NEP implementation activities. The
bill increases authorization levels for the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998,
gradually increasing this level to $4 billion in fiscal year
2004. The bill requires that States with approved estuarine
plans set aside a percentage of the SRF increases for
implementing approved plans.
To be part of the National Estuary Program an estuary is
determined to be nationally significant. It should therefore be
in the national interest to ensure that plans to restore these
waters are fully implemented. The Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill,
by establishing a dependable source of Federal funds to help
States implement CCMPs, substantially advances efforts to clean
estuaries and restore estuarine habitat.
The NEP is also the focus of the National Estuary
Conservation Act, S. 1321, introduced by Senator Torricelli. S.
1321 allows NEP grants to be used to develop and implement
CCMPs and increases authorized levels for the NEP to $50
million a year. Senator Torricelli's bill is a stride in the
right direction. However, the bill could potentially create
additional hurdles for the NEP. First, the annual Federal
allocation of $50 million to be divided among 28 programs for
both planning and implementation purposes is not a sufficient
level to ensure substantial progress in implementing priority
actions of CCMPs.
Second, the bill could create conflicts between newer
programs still developing their CCMPs and older programs
needing funds for implementation. Just as current
authorizations for the NEP are routinely targeted for earmarks,
it is highly likely that the additional funds will also be
earmarked for special estuarine projects, thereby squeezing
dollars from programs still developing their plans.
Finally, I'm concerned that with additional NEP grant
dollars available, EPA might succumb to pressure to use
portions of the increased authorizations to add new local
programs rather than fund implementation of existing ones.
In conclusion, it is time for the United States to
establish a comprehensive national strategy for estuarine
protection. The beginnings of a strategy are already in place.
Local estuarine programs of the NEP have identified numerous
priority actions needed for cleaning estuaries and restoring
habitats. In addition, coastal communities, States, and
nonprofits like Save the Bay and Chesapeake Bay Foundation have
initiated successful estuarine habitat restoration projects and
have identified several more projects needing immediate
attention.
I encourage this committee to mark up a comprehensive
estuarine protection bill that includes both the Chafee and the
Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill. This comprehensive bill would
foster beneficial estuarine habitat restoration activities,
augment efforts to minimize water quality impairment from both
polluted runoff and point sources, encourage broad-scale
meaningful public participation, and increase Federal financial
contributions to ensure estuaries will remain special
productive places in the future.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Morton.
One of the problems that comes up constantly is nonpoint
source pollution, particularly with agricultural runoff, which
I think you touched on, Dr. Burkholder, and others have
likewise. What can we do about that, Dr. Burkholder? We don't
want to get in a conflict with the farmers and yet there's no
question but the agricultural runoff is a very serious thing. I
think Mr. Spalding touched on it, too. Got any suggestions?
Ms. Burkholder. I think that we should develop some very
strong incentive programs we have not developed in the past,
and also we need to enforce the legislation we already have in
place to try to control nonpoint pollution. Often when we try
to enforce it, we find that we haven't really given the
polluters the recourse to be able to follow best management
practices or the existing laws.
So, as I mentioned earlier, I think we need not only to
enforce the legislation that we have, but also to develop much
better incentive programs that are backed by appropriate
funding for, for example, the little farmers in the middle of a
concentrated animal operation situation to be able to do better
in handling waste.
Senator Chafee. I think handling the waste is one thing. In
other words, you talked about incentives. I suppose a form of
incentive would be to help contribute to the farmers to build
some holding ponds of some type. That's OK for the waste to
attempt to control the waste. But what do you do with the
fertilizer that they put on their fields, the pesticides and so
forth, plus the manure that they scatter on their fields which
they done from time immemorial?
Ms. Burkholder. Again, there are a lot of things that are
being tried right now in my own State. One is to do much better
in trying to figure out how to make value-added products of the
wastes so, instead of spraying them or putting them on fields,
we can market them in some way. The current practices that we
have, for all their best intentions, often still treat wastes
just as wastes, so there has to be somewhere to put them,
somewhere to get rid of them and waters have always been a
repository.
So we need much, much more innovative methods to turn these
into value-added products. Some of those technique applications
and research efforts are being tried but they need a lot more
support. A lot of the research that I talked about I don't even
do, so it's certainly not anything that would benefit my
laboratory but it is research that would benefit the country
because we have such a burgeoning problem with animal wastes in
certain areas and with urban runoff as well.
There should be other incentives that we can try. Tax
incentives are commonly done and there are some innovative
funding things that we could do that. For instance in my State,
we don't even have an environmental license plate like some
States do. So, some very easy things that would really help to
get some funding into these sorts of programs could be done.
Senator Chafee. Any thoughts, Mr. Spalding?
Mr. Spalding. Yes, I do, Senator. One of the best examples
of an approach for dealing with nonpoint source pollution comes
from your home State, in fact in a city you're familiar with.
The city of Warwick ran something called the Greenwich Bay
Initiative. Greenwich Bay was suffering severely from nonpoint
pollution----failing septic systems, farms, those sorts of
things----and through a comprehensive watershed approach,
they've done great things. It was demonstrated this past month.
We've had this unbelievable amount of rain in Rhode Island, as
you know, and nonpoint pollution closed the beaches all the way
down the Bay. Well, Greenwich Bay's beaches came back much
faster than people thought and I think in large part because of
the work that had been done there on a watershed basis.
Buffer zones can be built. Restoration of marshes can be
part of that strategy in the long run, because marshes have the
capacity to filter pollutants coming off of farms and open
spaces such as golf courses and parks. In our Rhode Island
context, we don't have nearly the farmland they have in North
Carolina. So with a watershed approach that is accountable----
it's very important for all of us to remember we've got to meet
the goals and objectives. You can't say let's just plan, plan,
plan and not get things done.
Senator Chafee. I think one of the things they did in that
Greenwich Bay was also to provide assistance to those who had
poor septic systems, didn't they?
Mr. Spalding. Absolutely right. Several innovative ideas
such as wastewater management districts. In fact, we used some
EPA support to connect people to existing interceptors. In that
situation you had sewer lines that people were not connecting
to. So there's a number of opportunities.
The big solution though was that there was a farm that was
a problem. They pinpointed it and gave assistance to the
farmer; dealt with some waste management problems, and also
worked on a long term acquisition strategy with this farmer so
that his land can stay open but also be better managed.
Senator Chafee. OK. Thank you all very, very much. Dr.
Milon, I'm familiar with your area. My father-in-law for years
and years sent us oranges from Indian River.
Mr. Milon. Indian River Lagoon. Yes, that's the same one.
Senator Chafee. Indian River Orchards. So I look on Indian
River with great favorability.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Thank you all very much.
Now we'll have Panel III, Mr. Xavier Romeu and Dr. Juan
Martinez-Cruzado.
Mr. Romeu, welcome. And I believe you have the Majority
Leader of the Senate with you.
Mr. Romeu. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Majority
Leader of the Senate of Puerto Rico to accompany me.
Senator Chafee. Maybe you could just introduce him.
Mr. Romeu. Charles Rodriquez is the President of the Senate
of Puerto Rico who has travelled here specifically on the
particular legislation before the committee.
Senator Chafee. Fine. Thank you. Glad you're here. I
understand that you had to go to particular effort to get here
because of the strike you're having down there in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romeu. Everything is under control, Senator.
Senator Chafee. Good. OK. Proceed, if you would.
STATEMENT OF XAVIER ROMEU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO
FEDERAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION, ON BEHALF OF PERFECTO OCASIO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTHORITY,
SAN JUAN, PR; ACCOMPANIED BY: HON. CHARLES A. RODRIQUEZ,
PRESIDENT, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO AND HAGUB SHAHABIAN, ENGINEER
Mr. Romeu. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Xavier Romeu. I am the executive director
of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, essentially
known as the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico in the
continental United States. I appear before you today on behalf
of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, better known
as PRASA, the public corporation that serves almost all of the
3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico with portable
water and wastewater services. PRASA's executive director,
Perfecto Ocasio, as has been noted, was unable to travel last
night. Please excuse his unforeseen unavoidable absence from
this important hearing.
We appreciate your understanding and willingness to
consider our views. I thank you for giving me the opportunity
to comment on the need for this legislation which would benefit
the environment and the economy of Puerto Rico. Also with me is
Dr. Hagub Shahabian, a distinguished engineer with an expertise
in hydrology and wastewater treatment issues.
First, I would like to present to the committee a letter
from Governor Pedro Rossello urging quick Senate action on H.R.
2207, as a matter of urgent importance to the people of Puerto
Rico. I understand also that Congressman Romero- Barcelo has
submitted a letter of support for the record. As you know,
Congressman Barcelo was instrumental in passing this
legislation in the House. He could not attend the hearing today
due to prior engagements which required his presence also in
Puerto Rico.
Under Section 301(h) of the 1977 Clean Water Act, coastal
communities, including islands, were given the opportunity to
apply for an alternative to the requirements of secondary
treatment for ocean discharges that met stringent environmental
equivalency requirements. All applications were initially
required to be submitted to the EPA by December 31, 1982. PRASA
submitted seven applications. Of those seven, six were
tentatively approved; only one, the Mayaguez treatment plant
outfall, was denied finally in 1994. The application was
rejected because of the location of the outfall in the
sensitive coral environment of Mayaguez Bay.
H.R. 2207, passed by the House last October, would allow
Puerto Rico to apply to the EPA for authority under Section
301(h) of the Clean Water Act to construct a new, state-of-the-
art deep ocean outfall at a location that avoids this sensitive
coral environment of Mayaguez Bay. This would be an alternative
to secondary treatment at the current outfall location in
Mayaguez Bay.
This option is specifically embodied, as was noted before,
in a recent Consent Decree between the EPA and PRASA, which
resolves essentially a 15 year old legal dispute. The Consent
Decree, supported by EPA and PRASA, requires PRASA to meet a
detailed schedule for the construction of facilities necessary
to achieve compliance with all of the requirements of the Clean
Water Act.
As is known, the Decree provides two alternatives. One is
the construction of a traditional secondary treatment plant, at
a high cost and energy consumption, which will continue to
discharge effluents into the Mayaguez Bay. The second
alternative, illustrated in the accompanying chart, is the
construction of a deep water ocean outfall sending primary
treated effluents several miles offshore into deep ocean
currents, thus relieving the stress on the Bay and its
sensitive coral ecosystems. The deep water outfall would be
less expensive to build and much less expensive to operate than
a secondary treatment plant. EPA would determine whether the
deep ocean outfall meets all Clean Water standards. However,
because of the urgent need for a solution, the Consent Decree
permits EPA consideration of the outfall alternative only if
Congress authorizes the approach by August 1, 1998. Therefore
time is of the essence.
The current legislation provides Puerto Rico the same
opportunity that Congress has given other coastal communities
in unique situations to implement Section 301(h). The bill does
not in any way change any applicable standards of the Clean
Water Act. Without authority to submit a waiver application to
the EPA, PRASA may be required to spend millions of dollars for
a secondary treatment plant that will have no beneficial effect
on the stressed marine environment of Mayaguez Bay. These funds
could be used for the renovation and upgrade of Puerto Rico's
water facilities infrastructure and other water supply
treatment and wastewater projects urgently needed in the island
of Puerto Rico.
Indeed, just last month, the President issued an Executive
Order on Coral Reef Protection. The legislation also provides
Congress and the EPA with an early opportunity to further the
goals of this initiative. That order which is designed to
protect and preserve coral reef ecosystems requires all Federal
agencies to use their authorities to reduce impact on affected
environments from pollution and sedimentation. H.R. 2207 will
allow EPA the opportunity to determine whether a deep ocean
outfall can protect the Bay.
Without this bill, EPA and PRASA have no options except an
immediate and inordinately expensive one, a course of action
that would continue pollution and sedimentation of the coral
ecosystem. This bill does not authorize construction of a deep
ocean outfall. It will simply allow us to conclude the
necessary studies and complete an application for EPA review.
Indeed, PRASA is already proceeding to ensure a thorough
environmental review of all options under Law No. 9, Puerto
Rico's local equivalent of the National Environment Policy Act.
PRASA and the Puerto Rico Environment Quality Board are
preparing an environmental impact statement. A draft EIS was
completed in April recommending a deep ocean outfall as
environmentally preferable. A copy of the EIS is being
submitted to the committee. The entire EIS record will be
available to EPA as it considers the strict standards of
Section 301(h).
There are precedents for limited amendment to Section
301(h). The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
amendments of 1981 included a provision that specifically
permitted the city of Avalon, California to file. The 1981
provision concluded, ``Failure to broaden eligibility risks
requiring treatment for treatment's sake involving the
expenditure of funds which would better be used to achieve
additional water quality benefits elsewhere.'' This bill does
not grant variances. It simply allows variances to be sought
with the burden on the applicant to make his case on
environmental grounds.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 also included a specific
provision for the Irvine Ranch Water District, a California
public agency, that permitted the district to file for a
Section 301(h) waiver. More recently, in 1994, Congress passed
H.R. 5176, which allowed the city of San Diego to apply for a
waiver under Section 301(h) within 180 days of enactment. This
action precisely parallels the provision here.
The Government of Puerto Rico urges the committee to act
quickly. A legislative solution must be in place before August
1, 1998. This will allow us to put to rest years of litigation
and focus our energies and capital resources on implementing an
environmentally sound solution for Mayaguez and other urgent
priorities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you for
your time and consideration of this important issue for Puerto
Rico.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much for that testimony.
Now, Dr. Juan Martinez-Cruzado.
STATEMENT OF JUAN C. MARTINEZ-CRUZADO, PAST PRESIDENT,
MAYAGUEZANOS FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, INC., ON BEHALF OF
ROBERTO PEREZ-COLON, PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY OF MAYAGUEZ,
MAYAGUEZ, PR
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Good morning.
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. I am Dr. Juan Carlos Martinez-
Cruzado, former president of and spokesperson for Mayaguezanos
for Health and Environment. We thank this committee very much
for this opportunity to express our views to you even though we
are not constituents of any of you. I am giving my testimony on
behalf of the Mayor of the city of Mayaguez, Mayaguezanos for
Health and Environment, and a Legal Cologica de Rincon. We
prepared one copy of this package for each member of this
committee. It includes our testimonies, a letter of support
from most of the major environmental groups here on the
mainland, and other important materials. My statement will
differ a little bit from the written testimony.
In Mayaguez, we hold our Bay in very high regard and dream
of the day in which we may be able again to swim in it without
skin rashes, ear infections, and other ailments. We must stress
for the record that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands is categorized by indifference and negligence
and a much less pro-environmental position than is generally
the case on the mainland. The agency's handling of 301(h)
waivers is a very good example.
Since that provision was----
Senator Chafee. Doctor, could I hold up 1 minute here. I
want to make certain I have your testimony. I lost you there.
Are you speaking from this testimony that you submitted?
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. I submitted that testimony on behalf
of Mayaguezanos for Health and Environment. The problem is that
Victor Negrone, from the Council of the city of Mayaguez----
Senator Chafee. Yes, I've got a copy of the Mayor's letter
here.
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. I am speaking on behalf of both.
Senator Chafee. But I was just trying to get what you were
working from. OK. I think I have it here. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. Thank you. We must address for the
record that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands is characterized by indifference and negligence and a
much less pro-environmental position than is generally the case
on the mainland. The agency's handling of 301(h) waivers is a
very good example. Since that provision was first added to the
Act in 1977, more than 200 applications for waivers were
submitted. EPA has made its final determinations on all but
seven of those applications. Not coincidentally, the remaining
seven are all in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. In the
meantime, partially treated sewage continues to be dumped into
the Caribbean and the Atlantic.
As Hispanics, we are very aware of discrimination by EPA.
So we were very pleased that President Clinton signed an
Executive Order on Environmental Justice in 1993. However, the
problem remains a very real one for us. After all, we do not
believe that there has ever been any other Consent Decree but
that of Mayaguez in which EPA agrees to sit on the law for 1
year explicitly to give the defendant a chance to weaken the
law that EPA is called on to enforce. We cannot, and we do not,
trust EPA.
Because of the Mayaguez sewage treatment plant's
noncompliance, EPA has imposed a moratorium on new sewer
hookups. This is depressing our economy. There is a deficit of
new housing that has been built in Mayaguez since 1993. Because
of this, there is a dire need for low and middle income housing
in our municipality. Many persons have moved away to nearby
towns, thereby affecting our economy.
Even though EPA concluded 7 years ago----seven years ago--
--that the water of Mayaguez Bay was already so stressed and no
further impairment could be tolerated, PRASA is still
discharging the same barely treated wastewater at the same site
and causing the same effects on our beaches and corals. Tourism
along the entire Bay coastline is the lowest in 10 years. No
seaside recreational development has occurred in the past 10
years. The city's own plans to develop a promenade along the
beachfront have been postponed due to the water's dirty
appearance and foul smell. This has stymied our efforts to
replace decreasing industrial employment opportunities with
tourist related jobs.
And here we are now considering turning the clock back to
1979 and giving PRASA another opportunity to engage in a long
301(h) waiver application procedure. The people of Mayaguez,
who are sick of waiting for action, can only regard this bill
as an excuse to keep doing nothing about the sewage in
Mayaguez, and an attempt to condemn our city and our corals to
a slow death.
The people's desire for a quick solution to this discharge
is so great that even the Governor of Puerto Rico went out of
his way in October 1996 1 month before the general elections to
promise to the people of Mayaguez the start of the construction
of a secondary treatment plant by July last year. That promise,
however, proved to be an empty one.
Last May PRASA prepared an environmental impact statement
for the deep ocean outfall. PRASA put in writing and on the map
the proposed point and depth of discharge. The depth is 400
feet, not 600, and it is within, not under, the pignocline,
suggesting that the wastewaters will float to the surface
rather than stay in the depths.
Hence, the proposed discharge will impact the beaches of
Rincon and Anyasco to the North, well known as tourists spots
for the surfing activities, as well as a major coral reef that
will be located a mile from the point of discharge. The
discharge will be very close to the point where the continental
shelf drops off. This area provides critical habitat to massive
populations of fish larvae and is thus a cornerstone of the
local fishery. As a result, opposition to this bill is quickly
growing in all sections of society in the neighboring
municipalities of Anyasco and Rincon.
The statement made by EPA that they believe that a
discharge will occur at a depth of 600 feet threatens our
belief that this application will eventually be denied. Twelve
years of sewer hook-up moratorium and almost raw sewage being
discharged within our Bay so that this mediocre solution may be
considered smells like very bad business for Mayaguez.
On the other hand, an engineering company has made public a
proposal for secondary treatment followed with discharge to
existing wetlands for natural tertiary treatment. Land
application of secondarily treated wastewater will be less
expensive than deep ocean disposal and will remove all
discharges from the sea.
It is crystal clear that the deep ocean outfall is the
worst possible solution to a fairly straightforward problem.
When Congress structured its 301(h) waiver opportunity in 1977,
they did it so with the clear understanding that the
opportunity to seek such waiver would expire in 5 years. In
other words, even where a sewage plant operator can persuade
EPA that it complies with all of the criteria found in the law,
no application for such a waiver could be accepted after
December 31, 1982. On that day, the door closed. Why? Because
Congress recognized that there is something profoundly wrong
with dumping barely treated waste into the sea. On this, the
92d Congress' idea turns out to be right. The 105th Congress
will make a grave mistake by reopening that door.
If the bill is not enacted, secondary treatment will be in
operation by 2001 according to the terms of the Consent Decree.
Even though secondary treatment may not provide full relief to
corals, it is a step toward a tertiary treatment which will
provide adequate protection for the reefs. More importantly, it
will permit lifting of the sewer hook-up moratorium that is
depressing the economy of Mayaguez.
We urge you please to let H.R. 2207 die. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Doctor.
Now as I understand, Dr. Martinez-Cruzado, what Mr. Romeu
and others are saying is that they just want the opportunity to
apply for the waiver to EPA. If I understood correctly, that
seemed to be what the proposition was. Now what's the matter
with that, just letting PRASA make the application?
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. The main problem is time. It took EPA
12 years to deny PRASA's application for Mayaguez, from 1979 to
1991. If this bill is approved, if this application goes
through, we may very well expect 12 more years of the
application procedure. Those are 12 more years there will be
the moratorium on the sewer hook-up and 12 more years of this
sewage being discharged right in front of our corals with
barely treated sewage. That is totally unacceptable for us. It
is really a matter of time. We understand a secondary treatment
will make it much better and will be a right step to our
tertiary treatment which will provide adequate protection for
the corals.
Senator Chafee. I will put in the record here the letter
from the mayor, Mayor Rodriguez, written July 6, addressed to
me. And then he had some testimony that he submitted and we'll
put that in the record, too.
[The referenced letter and testimony of Mayor Rodriguez
follow:]
Senator Chafee. Now, isn't there a Consent Decree that
PRASA is meant to go to a secondary treatment by 2001, Doctor?
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. That is unless this bill passes. If
this bill passes, it opens the door for a 301(h) waiver
application, and in that case it does not have to construct the
secondary treatment plant by October 31. And I was very
distressed to see in the written testimony of EPA today, they
didn't read it but it is in the written testimony, that they
are very short of resources to look at this 301(h) waiver
application, if this bill is approved. They recognize there are
corals off the Bay and that they will have to analyze it in
light of the recent Clinton Executive Order on Coral Reef
Protection. So that is telling us they are already giving
excuses for how long they will take to analyze this proposal
which, in fact, we find has quite a few weaknesses.
So we are very worried that this application, if it ever
happens, will take very easily 12 more years. And we are not
willing to wait for that long. Our economy is depressed. We are
losing millions of dollars, and I speak at this time for the
city of Mayaguez, and we are not willing to go through that
again.
Mr. Romeu. Senator?
Senator Chafee. Mr. Romeu, what do you say to the argument
that Dr. Martinez-Cruzado has made that this is a delaying
action? As I understand, you've applied twice before for
waivers and have been turned down both times. And now you want
to get special permission to try again. What's the answer to
that?
Mr. Romeu. Senator, the Government of Puerto Rico expects
to move expeditiously in this area. In fact, the legislature of
Puerto Rico has passed a concurrent resolution which I believe
has been furnished to the members of the committee.
Also, I would like to make two quick comments. There are at
least two assumptions in the testimony of my colleague. One is
that the secondary treatment plant will be a much better
situation than the one that we are proposing. And we propose
that it is for the EPA to make that decision, not for the
committee, very respectfully. The other one is that the
secondary treatment plant will be built by December 2001. There
is no guarantee of that and, in fact, the testimony of an EPA
official before me seemed to cast doubt on the feasibility of
that.
So on both counts, on the quality of the alternative, and
the timeliness of what the Government of Puerto Rico intends to
do, I believe that my colleague is incorrect. In any event, I
believe that that is a determination to be made by the EPA
which will review the waiver application fully and will make a
determination.
Senator Chafee. If I understand, his arguments are that
this thing can be dragged out forever. I guess your colleague
mentioned a 12 year period that this has gone on.
Mr. Romeu. We have no such intention. And as a good faith
show that we do not have that intention, we have already
prepared an environmental impact statement, as I mentioned
previously in my testimony.
With the Senator's permission, can the Senator of the
Senate of Puerto Rico make a brief statement for the record?
Senator Chafee. Sure. But it has to be rather brief. If he
would like to, fine. Step right up to the table.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, SENATE OF
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Rodriguez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
very much. For the record, my name is Charles Rodriguez. I am
the President of the Senate of Puerto Rico.
Senator Chafee. We welcome a fellow Senator. Who can keep a
fellow Senator from making a few remarks.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Senate of
Puerto Rico, we are very much concerned with the situation that
is occurring in the West Coast of Puerto Rico. The city of
Mayaguez, the municipalities of Ormegueros, Cabal Rojo, and
Anyasco have their economic rebuilding totally in halt because
of this problem we have with the water treatment plant. That is
the reason we have been supporting this alternative before you
in this legislation, because we believe that at least it gives
the opportunity to submit to the EPA this alternative which
they will have to review, and they will review it to see that
it will satisfy the environmental requirements that EPA will
obviously be seeking for it to be implemented with this
alternative.
We want to see this passed through because we in the Puerto
Rican Senate are going to be overseeing our local public
corporation to see that, if this is approved and the EPA goes
on to approve this alternative also of the deep water ocean
outfall, we will be obviously overseeing the process. We are
willing even to be submitted to a timetable that EPA may well
introduce in its authorization of the construction of this
alternative. And we will see that it is complied with.
So I must say that, as the U.S. Senate does and the other
senates of the 50 States, the Senate of the Territory of Puerto
Rico will be overseeing this and looking to see that the
construction of this project becomes a reality, because we have
to deal with the problem of the West Coast of Puerto Rico and
we have this pledge to the people of that part of the island.
Senator Chafee. Fine. All right, concluding statement. Go
ahead, Dr. Martinez-Cruzado.
Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. Well, as has been said, this will
depend on how fast EPA analyzes this. And EPA has said that it
is short of resources. I really don't want to put EPA in a
position where it will be pressed to approve a proposal that
puts the discharge in the pignocline where it may surface. We
are very much concerned that this either would take a long,
long time, or that it will take some time and bring to a
solution that is unacceptable and that the discharge treated
will float and impact the corals.
So we are really getting into a box here that it is not
good at all. We understand that there is already a Consent
Decree in the Federal court and it says there has to be the
secondary treatment plant operational by December 31, 2001.
Operational. There are fines to be put in place if it is not.
But that goes only if this bill dies.
Senator Chafee. All right. Fine. Thank you all very much.
We appreciate your coming all the way up from Puerto Rico.
We'll try to move quickly on this.
That concludes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[The texts of S. 1222, S. 1321, H.R. 2207, and statements
submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Lauch Faircloth, U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina
s. 1222, the estuary habitat restoration act
Two years ago, the North Carolina Coastal Federation asked me to
support what is now S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Act. I
understand that Melvin Shepard, the president of the Coastal Federation
is here today. Melvin, I hope you'll let the folks back in Nor&
Carolina know what I'm about to say.
Although I have spent a good part of my life in and around the
coastal sounds and rivers of North Carolina, until I started looking at
the merits of this bill I did not fully realize just how important
these waters are to my State and the nation.
We've got 2.2 million acres of estuaries in North Carolina. Our
commercial and recreational fishing industry is dependent upon these
waters. More than 90 percent of North Carolina's commercially important
species of fish and shellfish spend part of their lives in the state's
estuaries.
I'm also proud to say that nearly 50 percent of the seafood caught
on the east coast of the United States depends on North Carolina's
estuaries. In short, our ability to have seafood in this nation depends
upon main healthy and productive coastal waters.
This bill will enable communities to get to work restoring degraded
estuaries across this country.
It is vital that we target needed resources to restore and preserve
our Nation's estuaries. The goal of the bill is ambitious--to restore
one million acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010. We want to
restore 100,000 acres in North Carolina alone.
S. 1222 sets out new, innovative ways of making this happen. It
will help our communities restore habitat critical to preserving our
nation's estuaries.
The bill also is important because it sets out a new way of
building genuine partnerships between our communities, our states and
the Federal Government.
It makes sure that we listen to our citizens; build from what we
know; coordinate and streamline existing programs; and most important,
target limited resources in a cost-effective manner.
The level of support the bill has received speaks well of the
potential value of the legislation to so many American coastal
communities, and says a great deal about the stature of Senator Chafee,
as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and
of his work on behalf of the environment.
I am committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, committee
members, and fellow cosponsors to move S. 1222 this year.
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that we move this
estuary bill as a part of the Water Resources Development Act
reauthorization, to ensure that it gets done this year.
I believe this would make sense since the estuary bill makes the
Army Corps of Engineers the lead agency in estuary restoration.
We need to make sure S. 1222 is a part of the reauthorization. If
we don't, a good bill--one that builds bipartisan bridges as it
restores our estuaries--will get devoured in the larger and much more
charged debate about the Clean Water Act next year.
Lastly, I wish to welcome Dr. Joann Burkholder of N.C. State
University, who will be testifying here today. Dr. Burkholder is well
known to most of you as one of the nation's leading research
scientists, and is one of the discoverers of the Pfiesteria microbe.
She will be testifying to the serious consequences which can flow from
degraded estuaries. Joann, it's good to have you here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Statement of Hon. John Breaux, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana
I'd like to thank the Chairman of the committee, Senator John
Chafee, for this opportunity to address the committee and I am pleased
to join him at today's hearing on the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act of 1997.'' I want to commend him for his leadership on
this issue. I also appreciate the 25 other Senators who have joined us
as co-sponsors of this bill so that we may draw national attention to
the significant value of the Nation's estuaries and the need to restore
them.
This bill seeks to create a voluntary, community driven, incentive-
based program which builds partnerships between Federal, state and
local governments and the private sector to restore estuaries,
including sharing in the cost of restoration projects.
Some relevant and eye-opening statistics about estuaries which have
been published include:
75 percent of commercial fish and shellfish which are
harvested in the U.S. and 80-90 percent of the recreational fish catch
depend upon estuary habitat at some life stage.
The rapid and significant loss of estuary habitat,
reaching over 90 percent in some areas, threatens the commercial and
sport fishing industries, tourism, recreation, and other industries.
These industries provide jobs to about 28 million U.S. citizens.
Fishing alone contributes $111 billion to the U.S. economy per year.
In my own State of Louisiana, fish and wildlife resources
are estimated to bring $5.7 billion into the economy yearly.
Louisiana's coast produces 16 percent of the commercial harvest
fisheries in the U.S.
40 percent of the wild fur harvest in the U.S. comes from
Louisiana's wetlands.
With estuaries and coastal regions being home to about half of the
U.S. population, and with coastal counties growing 3 times faster than
counties elsewhere, it is obvious that the ecological and economic
impact of estuary losses must be taken seriously and must be addressed.
In Louisiana, our estuaries, such as the Ponchartrain, Barataria-
Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems are vital to the culture and
economy of local communities. When the Acadian people migrated to
Louisiana in the 1700's, they settled there because of the abundance of
natural resources along its coastal wetlands. The lifestyle and jobs of
many Louisianians continues to be centered around these resources,
which are as much a part of its culture as its economy.
I am proud:
that Louisiana has been at the forefront of the movement
to recognize the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to
restore them, in particular the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
that the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary is one of 28
estuaries in the National Estuary Program.
of the advanced level of the work Louisiana is conducting
in its coastal areas, including the development and implementation of a
federally approved coastal wetlands conservation plan.
It is time now for Congress to implement a strategy whereby public
and private partnerships may be used to ensure that estuaries remain
ecologically and economically vibrant for future generations through
restoration projects.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I again want to thank you for your
leadership and look forward to working with you and other Senators on
this critical piece of environmental legislation. Because estuaries are
an important national resource, bringing real dollars to our economy
and affecting the lives, the safety, and the well-being of people all
over this nation, I am hopeful that the Congress will move in a timely
manner to authorize an effective estuary restoration program which will
result in healthy and viable ecosystems.
______
Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator from the State of
Louisiana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to comment
today on an important measure before the Committee on Environment and
Public Works--S. 1222, ``The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
Act of 1997.''
This significant legislation recognizes the cultural and economic
importance of estuary habitats as a natural resource. We have learned
from the past that protective measures are not enough. In addition to
protection we must emphasize the education and restoration of estuary
habitats. By creating Federal/State partnership programs I believe this
bill is a major step in the right direction toward ensuring a
sustainable resource base for the future.
In Louisiana alone we are home to one of the nation's largest
productive estuaries, the Barataria/Terrebonne estuary, which covers
over four million acres. Estuaries are the building blocks for the
coastal areas of my State. From a wildlife and fisheries standpoint
estuaries contribute nearly $6 billion to Louisiana's economy. In
addition, they provide nursery grounds for fisheries across the Gulf of
Mexico. Finally, estuaries are the basis for a growing industry,
ecotourism. For these and other reasons coordinated efforts are vital
to the continued viability of our nation's coastlines.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Statement of Hon. Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Thank you Chairman Chafee for the opportunity to appear before the
committee and for your cosponsorship of S. 1321. I would also like to
thank Senators Lautenberg, Moynihan, Graham, Lieberman, and Boxer for
their cosponsorship of the bill as well.
Today we stand at a crossroads in our national coastal policy.
After years of Federal involvement, we are becoming lax in maintaining
a consistent level of investment in our nation's coastlines.
Our coasts are an integral part of our national infrastructure. As
we approach the next century, we must treat them like our roads,
schools, and technology, as the foundation of economic development, job
creation, and current prosperity.
Since the creation of the Beach and Erosion Board in the 1 930's
the Federal Government has taken an active role in preserving our
beaches.
Yet the Administration sees things differently and has even ignored
the intent of Congress on the Federal role established 12 years ago.
Even though the 1986 Water Resources Development Act established
the current funding format where the Federal Government pays 65 percent
of beach replenishment projects, the Administration's 1998 proposal
turned the relationship on its head by reducing the Federal share to 35
percent of the renourishment phase (which is typically 80-85 percent of
the project cost.)
Beach replenishment is but one example of the lapse of the Federal
commitment to our coastline. I trust the Committee, with the help of
the senior Senator from New Jersey, will rectify this issue as they
consider the Water Resources Development Act.
However, at this hearing we are examining another equally important
issue--our nation's estuaries.
Estuaries are important to the economy for their fish and wildlife
habitat as well as providing centers for boating and recreational
activity.
Seventy-five percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on
estuaries.
New Jersey is the leading supplier of surf clams in the Nation with
one of our most productive clam grounds located in Barnegat Bay
estuary.
Our nation's coasts are also a central element of the tourism
industry which nationally employs 14.4 million people and contributes
over 10 percent to our GDP, making it the second-largest sector in the
economy.
In New Jersey, fishing, boating, and outdoor recreation are
important components of our $25 billion tourist economy.
A million fishermen participate in New Jersey's's marine
recreational fishery.
With all this economic activity, in addition to land development
and associated activities it is obvious that, our estuaries are heavily
used resources under severe environmental pressures.
Over 400,000 people live in the Barnegat Bay estuary; in the summer
that number doubles to 800,000.
There are 1 16 marinas and boat launching sites in the Barnegat Bay
estuary where one third of New Jersey's boats are registered.
The popularity of Barnegat Bay has caused non-point source
pollution from runoff and storm water discharges resulting in blooms of
brown tide algae in 1995, 1997, and as recently as last month.
In other estuaries, intense urban development has resulted in major
pollution sources. There are 730 Combined Sewage Overflows in New York-
New Jersey Harbor that will take $2-6 billion to correct.
With all of these pressures, Congress recognized the importance of
developing a program that would help states and localities plan for
their protection and restoration.
The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments established the National
Estuary Program (NEP) which created a Federal partnership with state
and local governments to prepare comprehensive management plans for
estuaries of national significance threatened by pollution.
Over the years 28 estuaries were designated with 3 in New Jersey.
The Federal Government would provide funds while the state and
local governments developed the plans.
Seventeen of the 28 designated estuaries have completed plans.
However, the NEP has not been reauthorized since 1991, and today
the states cannot receive Federal funding to implement their plans.
The premise behind S. 1321 is simple: the Federal Government must
continue to support those who have developed plans but are no longer
eligible for Federal assistance.
In reauthorizing the NEP at $50 million annually, S. 1321 also
includes the authority to make grants for plan implementation so those
with completed plans can receive assistance as well as those who are
still developing them.
S. 1321 would insure that the Federal Government lives up to its
commitment to make investments to protect our nationally significant
estuaries.
Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you for your cosponsorship of
S. 1321 as well as for your sponsorship of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act.
Your support of these bills as well as the Committee's efforts in
holding hearings today on coastal pollution reduction and estuary
conservation demonstrate your commitment to solving these problems. I
look forward to working with you and the Committee on these important
legislative initiatives.
______
Statement of Robert H. Wayland III, Director, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning, I am Robert H. Wayland, Director of the Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW) of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). These hearings come at a propitious time. The United
States is observing the International Year of the Ocean and examining
our responsibilities as stewards of ocean and coastal resources. At the
recent National Oceans Conference in Monterey, the President committed
to a series of actions in recognition of those responsibilities and
again pledged the Administration to implement, with assistance from the
Congress, a Clean Water Action Plan. This Plan, undertaken in
recognition of the progress made and challenges remaining after a
quarter century of implementing the Clean Water Act, contains numerous
actions directed to marine and estuarine protection and restoration.
These actions have been significantly influenced by our experience over
the last decade in implementing the National Estuary Program.
The National Estuary Program, modeled after the Chesapeake Bay and
Great Lakes Programs, was established by Congress in 1987 to
demonstrate a new framework to address serious environmental problems
faced by these valuable ecosystems. Estuaries are particularly
vulnerable because they often serve as ``sinks'' for pollutants
originating upstream within the watersheds and the airsheds overlying
them. In addition, estuaries are directly impacted by human activity--
well over half the people in this country live, work, or play near the
coast.
The NEP seeks to protect and restore the health of estuaries and
their living resources, and in so doing, the recreation, fishing, and
other economic activities that take place in or depend on healthy
estuaries. Just how valuable these activities are is highlighted by
these facts and figures:
Coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54
billion in goods and services every year.
The coastal recreation and tourism industry is the second
largest employer in the nation, serving 180 million Americans visiting
the coasts every year.
The commercial fish and shellfish industry is also very
important, contributing $45 billion to the economy every year, while
recreational fishing contributes $30 billion to the U.S. economy
annually.
39.6 percent of the Nation's classified marine shellfish
areas are in NEP estuaries. 53.4 percent of those have limits on
harvesting.
15 percent of the population of the continental US resides
within NEP coastal watersheds.
26 percent of the 2.23 million square miles of watershed
area of the US drains into NEP estuaries.
Surface water covers 27,858,000 square miles of the
Nation. NEPs cover 45 percent of that total, or 12,516,00 square miles.
Although each of the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program
is unique, many face several common environmental problems and
challenges. A recent national assessment undertaken by numerous
stakeholders from each local NEP (including scientists, citizens,
resource managers, policymakers, and business groups) concluded that
the most common problems NEPs are dealing with are: 1) nutrient
overenrichment; 2) pathogen contamination; 3) toxic chemicals; 4)
alteration of freshwater flow; 5) loss of habitat; 6) declines in fish
and wildlife; and 7) introduction of invasive species. We have every
reason to believe that these problems are common to most coastal
watersheds throughout the United States.
The impacts of these problems are serious. Pathogens cause
shellfish bed closures. Nutrient-overenrichment contributes to lower
dissolved oxygen levels, loss of seagrass and coral habitats, and
declines in ecosystem health. Introduction of invasive species
adversely affects native species. Changes in land use and the
introduction of pollutants and toxic chemicals result in habitat loss
and declines in water quality and overall ecosystem health.
The latest data from the National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress (305 (b) Report) shows that as of 1996, almost 40 percent of
the nation's surveyed estuarine waters are too polluted for basic uses,
such as fishing and swimming. This information, obtained by the States,
indicates that serious water quality problems persist nationwide.
We are all familiar with the impacts of harmful algal blooms.
Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred in several tributaries to the
Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina rivers in recent years, resulting in
fish kills, fish lesions, and suspected human impacts. The death and
decay of algal blooms can lead to partial oxygen depletion known as
hypoxia, or total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the water,
resulting in widespread mortality of fish, shellfish, and
invertebrates.
There is evidence that associates these algal blooms with nutrient
pollution--excess nitrogen and phosphorus--in the water. The sources of
these pollutants vary widely from one geographic location to another.
However, in general, we see three significant sources: human waste from
septic systems and sewage treatment plants; agricultural runoff,
including fertilizer and animal waste from agricultural operations; and
air deposition of nitrogen and toxic pollutants from motor vehicles and
electric utility facilities.
In some cases nutrient overenrichment of coastal waters leads to
hypoxia. Hypoxia occurs in many parts of the world, as well as several
parts of the United States, including the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island
Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico. For example, on the Gulf of Mexico's
Texas-Louisiana Shelf, an area of hypoxia forms during the summer
months covering 6,000 to 7,000 square miles, an area that has doubled
in size since 1993. This condition is believed to be caused by several
factors, including: a complex interaction of excessive nutrients
transported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River; physical
changes to the river, such as channelization and loss of natural
wetlands and vegetation along the banks; and the interaction of
freshwater from the river with saltwater from the Gulf.
Unlike early approaches to environmental protection that target
specific pollutants or categories of dischargers, the NEP acknowledges
that problems affecting our nation's estuaries are exacerbated by
combined and cumulative impacts of many individual activities and that
the significance of these activities vary greatly from watershed to
watershed. The principal causes of nutrient over-enrichment in the
Albemarle-Pamlico NEP, for example, are agricultural, while in Long
Island Sound nutrient loadings come from domestic wastewater. In order
to address watershed-wide concerns, the NEP encourages the use of a
combination of traditional and nontraditional water quality control
measures and resource management techniques available through Federal,
State and local authorities as well as private sector initiatives. The
NEP has strongly influenced our evolution toward watershed management
more broadly.
Currently, 28 National Estuary Programs in 18 States and Puerto
Rico are demonstrating practical and innovative ways to revitalize and
protect their estuaries. For example:
A Heritage Trail System was established by the Sarasota
NEP to enhance recreational opportunities and increase awareness of
Sarasota Bay and related cultural, historical, and natural resources.
The trail provides a tapestry of recreational areas (greenways),
historical places, cultural and art centers, and scenic waterway
systems.
The creation of an island in the San Jose Lagoon, which is
habitat to numerous birds in San Juan Bay, was made possible by
coordination among the San Juan Bay NEP, the Corps of Engineers, and
citizens. The project used debris from a recently constructed bridge.
The New York/New Jersey Harbor NEP, in coordination with
the New York City Parks Department, is using funds from the Exxon
Valdez settlement to re-vegetate park areas and reduce sedimentation
and erosive runoff in some parks where steep slopes drain into the
Hudson River.
The Narragansett Bay Project worked with the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management, the city of Warwick, and Save
The Bay to reduce bacterial pollution so that Greenwich Bay could be
re-opened to recreational and commercial shellfishing.
The Indian River Lagoon NEP is developing and implementing
pollutant-loadings reduction goals based on the requirements of its
seagrass ecosystem.
The Lower Columbia River NEP (OR, WA) is supporting a
project to develop a stormwater pollution prevention manual and
associated training program focused on voluntary reduction of
pollutants from stormwater sources under the direct control of the
municipality.
Using the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan as a guidance
document, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board approved
a new, basin-wide municipal stormwater NPDES permit. A large
stakeholder committee was formed to develop permit language and
numerous public meetings were held, involving many more people than is
typically the case with an NPDES permit renewal.
In Tampa Bay, Florida, 4,000 acres of seagrass and 400
acres of wetlands have been restored.
The Long Island Sound Study tested two innovative
wastewater treatment technologies which resulted in a reduction of
nitrogen loadings into the Sound by 83 percent from one treatment plant
and 73 percent from another plant.
One of the cornerstones of the NEP is that management decisions are
made through an inclusive process involving multiple stakeholders. This
emphasis on public participation not only ensures a balanced approach
to resource problems, but encourages local communities to take the lead
in determining the future of their own estuaries, thus bolstering
program success through community support.
At this time, 17 of the 28 NEPs are in the implementation stage.
One additional program is scheduled to have an approved plan by the end
of 1998; the approval of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
(CCMPs) for the 10 remaining programs should occur in 1999. (See
Attachment 1)
The NEP approach has been very successful. EPA is working actively
to ensure that we use what we have learned in these 28 estuaries to
protect and improve the health of all coastal ecosystems.
legislative proposals
With respect to legislative changes, I would like to emphasize the
Administration's position supporting comprehensive amendments to the
Clean Water Act that would strengthen protection of our nation's
waters.
That having been said, I would like to turn now to comment briefly
on S. 1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act; S. 1222, the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Partnership Act; and H.R. 2207, the Coastal
Pollution Reduction Act.
S. 1321--The National Estuary Conservation Act and H.R. 2207, Section 3
We note that both S. 1321 and H.R. 2207, Section 3, would amend
Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act and increase the authorization of
the NEP program. Although the language of the two bills differs, I
would like to address them together. We would be happy to work with
committee staff on particular language.
EPA supports the flexibility that would be provided by giving EPA
the authority to allow grantees to use Section 320 funds for
implementation of CCMPs as well as for developing them. We believe it
is important, however, that State and local governments take primary
responsibility for implementing CCMP actions, and that, consistent with
the current law, grants authorized by section 320 not be used as the
primary source of implementation funds.
EPA should and does have a role in implementation. Section 320
provides that CCMPs, once approved by the Administrator, can be
implemented using funds from other existing Clean Water Act programs
(notably State Revolving Funds and non-point source grants). Many CCMP
implementation actions are appropriate for such funding. These programs
should continue to be the primary source of implementation funds
authorized under the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Action
Plan, the Administration has proposed to increase Section 319 grant
funds to $200 million.
The process by which the NEPs have achieved success in development
of the CCMPs has always emphasized public and stakeholder involvement
and commitment to implementation. EPA guidance provides that the
implementation action plan specifically state the cost of all actions
and the parties committed to fund them. Therefore, we support a cost-
sharing type of requirement. We would welcome the opportunity to work
with you on the precise language of such a provision that is clear and
that protects the principle that CCMP implementation is primarily
funded by sources other than Section 320 grant funds.
EPA also supports an increase in authorizations over the original
$12 million, given the increased number of NEPs since the program was
last authorized (17 programs in FY91 to 28 programs in FY98) and given
the Administration's budget request of approximately $17 million for
the program in FY99.
S. 1222--The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act
We believe the goals and purposes of S. 1222 are laudable: a
national goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010;
better coordination of estuary habitat restoration efforts; better
leveraging of funds for restoration; linkage of restoration efforts to
broader ecosystem planning; and followup monitoring of restoration
projects. Many NEPs have identified the need to actively restore
degraded habitats, consistent with the CWA's broad goal to ``restore
and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of our
Nation's waters.'' And, many NEPs have successfully demonstrated
habitat restoration techniques. In addition, EPA has gained valuable
insights in restoration from the experience we and our partners have
had on the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
(Breaux Bill) Task Force.
However, the operational provisions of the Clean Water Act
currently provide few mechanisms through which to pursue restoration--
the emphasis is on pollution control. Many waterbodies which fail to
meet their water quality standards do so because of physical
alterations to the shoreline or streambed, because wetlands have been
filled or drained, as a result of once cobbled streambeds silting-in,
or because past pollution has killed off submerged bay grasses.
Pollution inputs have often been or will be sufficiently controlled so
that these areas can once again realize full biological productivity--
but only if we give nature a hand by re-vegetating the shoreline, or
bay bottom, removing accumulated silt where appropriate, and re-
creating habitat for spawning, feeding, and shelter. Many of these bio-
engineering practices can also help reduce storm surges and flood
damage potential. S. 1222 would complement other provisions of the
Clean Water Act and move us in the direction of implementation
provisions more attuned to the restoration and physical integrity
aspects of the Clean Water Act goal. Chemical and physical improvements
are needed to restore the conditions under which aquatic species can
thrive.
We would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee staff
on specific provisions of this bill.
H.R. 2207--The Coastal Pollution Reduction Act
Much of our progress toward the CWA goals has been realized through
the investment of the private sector and local governments in achieving
near universal compliance with the baseline of technology-driven
pollution control and prevention requirements: ``Best Available
Technology'' for industry and ``Secondary Treatment'' for
municipalities. In the case of the latter these requirements were
initially supported through the Construction Grant Program and now are
eligible for loans supported by State Revolving Funds. About $74
billion in Federal assistance has helped support a wastewater
infrastructure with a significantly higher replacement value. Since
1972, the population served by secondary or better wastewater treatment
has increased from 75 million to 170 million. Secondary treatment is
not sufficient, however, to achieve the nutrient control needs for such
waterbodies as Long Island Sound and the Chesapeake Bay where
relatively shallow, poorly mixed waters are sensitive to nutrient
inputs from whatever source: wastewater treatment, agricultural run-
off, lawn fertilizers, or septic systems. Many municipal treatment
facilities discharging to these and other nutrient-impaired waterbodies
employ advanced wastewater treatment technology or biological nutrient
removal.
It may seem ironic, in light of these circumstances, to be
discussing an exception to the requirements met by so many communities
many years ago. However, Congress provided for a narrow waiver from the
general requirement in section 301(h) for cases where a community
discharging to ocean waters could demonstrate among other things that
less-than-secondary treatment would not have significant adverse
environmental consequences. Few municipalities were eligible for this
waiver by its very terms. Fewer still sought the waiver. And even fewer
were able to make the necessary showings and were approved.
The waiver provision required municipalities to apply by 12/29/82
and did not provide for reapplication in the event of final denial. The
CWA provides that application for and pendancy of a waiver application
does not relieve a discharger from the otherwise applicable secondary
treatment requirement.
H.R. 2207 would re-open the window for an application for a deep
ocean outfall, but would require EPA to apply the same substantive
standards for considering a waiver that had applied to previous
applicants (including the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewerage Authority
(PRASA)) to the owner/operator of the Mayaguez Puerto Rico wastewater
facility (PRASA). H.R. 2207 would also require PRASA to make a
financial contribution to a watershed initiative intended to stem run-
off to the nearshore area.
PRASA first sought a waiver for the Mayaguez wastewater treatment
plant to discharge into Mayaguez Bay (not a deep ocean site) in
September 1979. EPA tentatively denied the application in 1984 and
1986. A final denial was issued in 1991. The applicant pursued appeals
which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding EPA's decision in
February 1995.
In a Consent Agreement to resolve PRASA's violations of, among
other things, effluent discharge limits, the Federal Government
recognized PRASA's intent to seek this legislation but made no
committment regarding our position on the legislation. While EPA Region
II has had to increase its resources on waiver issues, nationally we
have substantantially reduced our resources for evaluating waivers and
renewals because the application window closed in 12/82. Further, there
are several coral reefs off Mayaguez, and it is important to note that
any outfall ultimately approved by EPA will be consistent with new
Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, announced last month by
the President at the National Oceans Conference.
However, we must also note that Mayaguez Bay in general, and the
coral reefs in particular, are severely stressed. Conditions may be
such that PRASA may be able to provide information to support a
decision that, based on construction of a deep ocean outfall, it has
met the nine part test established in section 301(h). In light of this,
and given that H.R. 2207 is limited to the Mayaguez wastewater
treatment plant, includes specific environmental protection
requirements, and is consistent with the terms of the Mayaguez Consent
Decree, which gives PRASA until August 1, 1998, to obtain legislation
allowing it to submit a new Section 301(h) application, EPA neither
endorses nor opposes H.R. 2207. EPA is generally opposed, however, to
re-opening the opportunity to seek Section 301(h) waivers, given the
widespread benefits of secondary treatment and the need to do more to
control nutrients in many coastal areas.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these
proposed measures and on EPA efforts to protect our Nation's estuaries
and coastal resources. This concludes my remarks and I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
attachment 1
Status of National Estuary Programs
Programs with approved CCMP's:
Program Approval Date:
Puget Sound--May 1991
Buzzards Bay--April 1992
Narragansett Bay--January 1993
San Francisco Bay--December 1993
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds--November 1994
Long Island Sound--November 1994
Galveston Bay--March 1995
Santa Monica Bay--March 1995
Delaware Inland Bays--June 1995
Sarasota Bay--October 1995
Delaware Estuary--September 1996
Massachusetts Bay--September 1996
Casco Bay--October 1996
Indian River Lagoon--November 1996
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuaries--December 1996
Tampa Bay--March 1997
New York/New Jersey Harbor--March 1997
Programs developing CCMPs:
Program Expected Submittal Date:
Tier 4:
Peconic Estuary--June 1999
Tillamook Bay--February 1999
Corpus Christi Bay--September 1998
San Juan Bay--July 1999
Tier 5:
Morro Bay--June 1999
Barnegat Bay--December 1999
Lower Columbia River--June 1999
Maryland Coastal Bays--June 1999
New Hampshire Estuaries--July 1999
Charlotte Harbor--September 1999
Mobile Bay--September 1999
______
Responses by Mr. Wayland to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1: One of the principal goals of the legislation I
introduced, S. 1222, is to create partnerships between all of the
federal agencies that oversee estuaries; among federal, state, local
governments; and between the public and private sectors. Often, the
notion of ``partnership'' is easier to develop in theory than to
execute in practice. Do you have any recommendations for what we could
do to ensure that a true partnership is carried out at all levels?
Response. EPA supports the goal of improving partnerships between
federal, State, and local agencies, and other organizations. We have
been working cooperatively with many federal agencies in supporting
estuarine management and protection of coastal and estuarine waters and
resources for a number of years. In particular, EPA's National Estuary
Program and NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program and National
Estuarine Research Reserve System have significant experience in
working together with State and local governments and other
organizations to enhance our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
There are a number of lessons from the National Estuary Program
(NEP) that can be applied to partnership efforts more broadly. In
general, we know that partnerships need time and commitment to develop,
as well as continued nurturing to maintain these partnerships over
time. It takes time for groups to build strong partnerships and develop
the trust to collectively reach decisions, and to ensure buy-in on
these decisions. It is also important to ensure that all of the right
players are involved in a decision that may affect them, and that they
are involved in early stages of an effort. For example, we have seen
the importance of involving groups that have not always been a part of
coastal discussions, such as oil and gas interests, and the housing and
development sector. It would be difficult to legislate these
ingredients of success.
As an indication of how important it is to EPA that successful
partnerships be established and maintained, I would call the
Committee's attention to the Top 10 Lessons Learned document, developed
by EPA in partnership with over 100 watershed practitioners and their
supporters throughout the Nation. One of the top 10 lessons learned is
on partnerships (Partnerships Equals Power). This document describes
how focusing on common interests, respecting each participant's view
point, thanking each other, being willing to learn about others' needs
and positions, and building trust make strong and long lasting
partnerships. The other lessons learned are:
The Best Plans Have Clear Visions, Goals, and Action
Items
Good Leaders are Committed and Empower Others
Having A Coordinator at the Watershed Level is Desirable
Environmental, Economic and Social Goals are Compatible
Plans Only Succeed if Implemented
Good Tools Are Available
Measure, Communicate and Account for Progress
Education and Involvement Drive Action
Build on Small Successes.
The Top 10 Lessons Learned document is available at our website
(www.epa.gov/owow/lessons) or by calling the National Center for
Environments. Publications and Information (1-800-490-9198).
Question 2: You mention the common environmental problems of
estuaries in the U.S., such as nutrient overenrichment, toxic chemicals
and habitat loss. Is there much interaction between the 28 member
estuaries of the NEP to develop common solutions to address these
problems? Would S. 1222 help elevate the discussion to a national
level?
Response. Yes, there is considerable interaction among the 28 NEPs.
We believe that S. 1222 could greatly assist efforts to elevate the
discussion and interaction on these issues at a higher level,
particularly regarding habitat restoration. In fact, the expertise
developed by the NEPs could be used by the Collaborative Council in
developing the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy proposed by S.
1222.
Technical transfer and assistance is a key component of the NEP
approach. Collectively, the NEPs have created a significant knowledge
base and wealth of experience dealing with the problems that threaten
the health of virtually all estuaries, including nutrient
overenrichment, toxic chemicals, and habitat loss. EPA believes that an
important role of our coastal management program is to facilitate the
exchange of information among NEPs and between them and other coastal
communities.
In addition, there is considerable interaction among the estuaries
in NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserves and the State coastal
zone management programs as well as interaction between EPA and NOAA
where we share information on coastal management. S. 1222 would provide
additional support for the coordination we are engaged in with those
programs, too.
__________
Statement of Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Michael L. Davis,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am here today
to present the Department of the Army's views on S. 1222, the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.
Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Mission
For over 200 years the Nation has called upon the Army Corps of
Engineers to solve many of its water resources problems. Historically,
the Corps has emphasized its flood damage reduction and navigation
missions. In recent years, however, pursuant to the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 and subsequent WRDAs, the Corps has
elevated its environmental restoration and protection mission to a
status equal to its flood damage reduction and navigation missions. The
Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate, and
environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and
protection opportunities. The Corps environmental mission has been
expanding over time with major changes in environmental law and policy,
such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires
each Federal agency to assess fully its actions affecting the
environment, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
(commonly called the Clean Water Act) in which the Corps was given a
major responsibility for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill
material into all of our Nation's waters, including wetlands.
Subsequent WRDAs have expanded further the environmental protection and
restoration mission of the Corps of Engineers.
The Corps has a powerful toolkit of standing authorities and
programs that can be brought to bear to help solve environmental
problems. Over the last decade alone the Corps has helped to restore
hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat of many types, and which
benefit thousands of fish and wildlife species. Examples include:
28,000 acres of habitat restored for the Upper Mississippi River
(98,000 projected by 2005); hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands
restored in Louisiana; 35,000 acres of restored flood plain under
construction for the Kissimmee River Restoration Project in the
Florida; and, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored under
authorities which authorize the Corps to beneficially use dredged
material for ecosystem restoration.
If enacted, S. 1222 would add to the Corps environmental portfolio.
Specifically, S. 1222 would allow the Corps to use its unique skills to
restore and protect estuary habitat and help achieve an economically
and environmentally sustainable future for the Nation and the world.
Significance of Estuarine and Coastal Areas
Throughout the world, estuarine and coastal areas serve as focal
points for human use and development. These same areas also perform
critical functions from an ecosystem perspective, providing habitat and
food for myriad fish and wildlife species. Estuaries are unique in that
they serve as a transition zone between inland freshwater systems and
uplands, and ocean marine systems. There is an urgent need to protect
and restore these ecosystems recognizing the economic, social, and
environmental benefits they provide. As with many environmental issues,
future generations depend upon our actions today. In this regard, we
applaud the co-sponsors of S. 1222 for their vision and leadership in
this area.
S. 1222
The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance coordination
and efficiently finance environmental restoration and protection
projects. The goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by
the year 2010 is in consonance with the President's Clean Water Action
Plan and the goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands, annually,
beginning in the year 2005. We also agree with the philosophical basis
for the legislation, that estuaries and coastal areas are being
degraded rapidly, and that there is an urgent need to attain self-
sustaining, ecologically based systems that are integrated into
surrounding landscapes. The proposed national framework, or national
estuary habitat restoration strategy, to be completed at the end of the
first year, should help partners identify and integrate existing
restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and identify processes
to develop new plans where they are needed. This framework document
could help us maximize incentives for participation, leverage Federal
resources, and minimize duplication of efforts. We support the
requirement to publish the draft strategy in the Federal Register for
review and comment to enhance public involvement. We believe that the
legislation is consistent with the National Estuary Program (NEP) which
was established to manage and protect aquatic ecosystems in coastal
watersheds. The NEP strives to protect and restore habitat through
consensus and initiatives which are community-based. The legislation
also is consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation Protection
and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), or Breaux Bill, a unique multi-Federal
and State agency partnership which is working to restore and protect
approximately 73,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana over a 20
year period.
Thus, with a few important changes, the Department of the Army
could support S. 1222. First, it is unclear which, if any, agency is to
lead the Collaborative Council. This language implies a lead role for
the Department of the Army and directs the Secretary to convene
meetings. In addition, funds are authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of the Army for administration and operation of the
Collaborative Council. Funds also are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of the Army to implement estuary restoration and
protection projects. While S. 1222 does not explicitly state the intent
of Congress, the Department of the Army is prepared to take a
leadership role if that is the desire of the Congress.
In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I strongly
recommend that the legislation be amended to 65 percent Federal cost
sharing in accordance with WRDA 1986, as amended, especially since the
bill states that estuary restoration projects could be implemented
under section 206 of WRDA 1996 on Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. As
noted in the legislation, successful implementation of estuary habitat
restoration projects will depend upon partnerships. At the heart of
partnerships are the beneficiary pay reforms, especially cost sharing,
which were first included in WRDA 1986, and expanded upon in subsequent
WRDAs. These reforms allowed local sponsors the opportunity to be
active participants in the water resources development process, thereby
revitalizing the Army civil works program. Cost sharing serves as a
market test of a project's merits, ensures active participation by
project sponsors and beneficiaries, and ensures project cost
effectiveness. We have found it to be an eminently successful policy.
We are concerned that S. 1222 deviates from the basic cost sharing
policies established in the WRDAs for environmental restoration
projects, and that the variation in range of possible Federal cost
shares, from 25 to 65 percent, could cause confusion amongst the
public.
Section (d)(1) of S. 1222 states that the Collaborative Council
shall not select an estuary habitat restoration project until each non-
Federal interest has entered into a written cooperation agreement in
accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. This
requirement was developed with flood damage reduction projects in mind,
and provided the Federal Government with some measure of certainty that
non-Federal sponsors were fully recognized public bodies empowered to
act on the behalf of constituencies, and to assume certain financial
and legal obligations. Our experience is that while the need to meet
section 221 requirements are still valid for most civil works projects,
there are situations where these requirements eliminate very good
potential non-Federal sponsors from consideration. For example, certain
well-known and established environmental organizations could serve as
sponsors for environmental restoration projects envisioned by this
legislation. Environmental projects often differ significantly from
flood damage reduction projects in that structural measures are kept to
a minimum. These projects are formulated to simulate natural functions
and values and often result in projects with minimal or no operations
and maintenance requirements. Finally, many environmental restoration
projects are located in areas where project operations pose no threat
to human life or property. For all of these reasons, the Corps has put
policies in place to enable consideration of non-governmental
organizations for section 1135 projects (Project Modifications for
Improvement of the Environment), and our WRDA 1998 proposal contains a
provision that would amend section 206 of WRDA 1996, Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration, and a provision that would amend section 204 of WRDA 1992,
Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials, to also allow the Corps to
consider, where appropriate, non-governmental organizations (NGO) as
sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects. Because
of the similarities between these environmental authorities, we
recommend revising S. 1222 to allow NGO's to sponsor estuary habitat
restoration projects. Further, we recommend that the Collaborative
Council make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on case-by-
case bases.
Turning to the factors to be taken into account in establishing
criteria for determining project eligibility, we recommend that the
legislation require a consideration of the quality and quantity of
habitat restored in relation to overall project cost. For environmental
restoration projects implemented by the Corps, decision criteria of
this kind tend to force a discipline to into the plan formulation and
benefit analysis process that facilitates achieving optimal project
designs. The criteria help benchmark performance reviews, and stand as
a context for describing tradeoff decisions. A requirement to address
both quality and quantity of habitat restored would provide that
information required to evaluate performance, at both the project and
program levels, and facilitate production of bi-annual reports tied to
the national estuary restoration strategy.
Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches are new,
and when dealing with natural systems, there is a need to test new
ideas, learn from successful projects and not so successful projects,
and manage adaptively to adjust to ever-changing conditions. Adding a
demonstration component with a cost share that is consistent with the
rest of the program, and a requirement for non-Federal sponsors to
manage adaptively, would encourage the partners to try out new ideas,
and learn more about how to restore and protect estuary and coastal
areas. Environmental restoration efforts for the Florida Everglades,
the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program,
and the Breaux Bill, all acknowledge, to varying degrees, the value of
demonstration projects and adaptive management approaches.
The Army Civil Works program plays a critical role in providing and
maintaining water resources infrastructure to meet future needs in
consonance with other national priorities and a balanced budget. We try
to avoid creating false hope by not authorizing projects that we cannot
reasonably expect to fund or complete within a reasonable timeframes.
In light of the $20 billion backlog of ongoing Corps construction
projects, and other authorized projects awaiting construction, the
dollar magnitude for new projects and programs in the Administration's
proposal for WRDA 1998 was constrained. Thus, while we could support
being involved in a program to restore and protect estuaries and
coastal areas, we are concerned that this new program could negatively
impact other new and ongoing projects and programs which have been
carefully prioritized and evaluated for phased implementation over a
period of years. We are committed to a sustainable long-term
construction program and more timely project delivery to non-Federal
sponsors. The Administration's proposal for a new harbor services fee
is one means to help address these funding constraints.
conclusion
The Corps has been increasingly involved in recent years with
efforts to protect and restore the benefits of estuaries and their
surrounding habitat. We are especially proud of our efforts in
conjunction with the Coastal America initiatives. Some examples of
actions where the Corps, using its available programs, was in the lead
for multi-agency, multi-level efforts (Federal, state, local and
private) include restoration of a coastal salt marsh area in the
Galilee Bird Sanctuary, Rhode Island; the initial demonstration area
for restoration of tidal wetlands in the Sonoma Baylands, California;
and, the Sagamore Salt Marsh Restoration, Massachusetts. Our fiscal
year 1999 budget request includes study funds for 10 potential projects
directed at protecting or restoring the benefits of estuaries, as well
as funding for many other activities that would be beneficial to the
environment in or adjacent to our Nation's estuaries.
My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff on S.
1222 and other legislation before your committee, including a 1998
WRDA. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work on this
important legislation continues. The Department of the Army is looking
forward to working with the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture,
Interior, and Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to restore and protect our nation's aquatic resources as
outlined in the President's Clean Water Action Plan. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
or the committee may have.
______
Response by Michael Davis to Additional Question from Senator Chafee
Question. One of the principal goals of the legislation I
introduced, S. 1222, is to create partnerships between all of the
federal agencies that oversee estuaries; among federal, state and local
governments; and between the public and private sectors. Often, the
notion of ``partnership'' is easier to develop in theory than to
execute in practice. Do you have any recommendations for what we could
do to ensure that a true partnership is carried out at all levels?
Answer. The Army would approach implementation of S. 1222 in
accordance with policies and procedures which grew out of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, subsequent WRDAs, and long-
standing partnership and public involvement practices. We would
recommend looking to models of successful partnerships established for
the Florida Everglades, coastal Louisiana, San Francisco (CALFED Bay
Delta), the Upper Mississippi River, to name a few, and adapting
aspects of those models when implementing of S. 1222. You can be
assured that Army Civil Works is committed to making partnerships work,
and that the cost sharing principles established in WRDAs enhance
greatly the effectiveness of partnerships for water resources projects.
__________
Statement of H. Curtis Spalding, Executive Director of Save the Bay,
Inc. Providence, RI
On behalf of Save The Bay's 20,000 members, I would like to thank
Senator Chafee and the Committee for this opportunity to present
testimony in support of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act. Save The Bay is a member-supported nonprofit
organization. Our mission is to restore and protect Narragansett Bay
and its watershed.
Five years ago, over 20 nonprofit organizations met to discuss the
future challenges for our nation's estuaries and to set a course of
action to meet those challenges. Many of our coastal areas were
beginning to reap the benefits of the Clean Water Act. In Narragansett
Bay, harbor seals and oysters were starting to return after decades of
absence due to polluted water. Despite similar limited recoveries in
many of our nation's estuaries, we shared a deep concern that many
species of fish, birds and other animals were not recovering as we had
expected. Also troubling, some coastal areas not previously affected by
water pollution were now in serious decline.
After months of inquiry and discussion, we saw that the problem
with the health of our estuaries was no longer grossly polluted water,
but the ongoing loss of habitat for fish, birds, shellfish and plants
along our shorelines and in our watersheds. Thus in late 1994, Restore
America's Estuaries was formed. It is a current partnership of 11
nonprofit organizations from Seattle to Galveston to the Gulf of Maine.
Over the past 4 years, each organization has identified and targeted
the habitat resources in its own estuary and coastal environment that
are threatened and in need of restoration. Restore America's Estuaries
has pledged collectively to restore one million acres of habitat to our
nation's estuaries by the year 2010.
How the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act Will Restore
America's Estuaries
An important word in the title of this legislation is
``partnership.'' It is a lesson we have learned well in Narragansett
Bay communities. Over the past 3 years we have provided technical
assistance to many neighborhood associations, conservation commissions,
golf course managers and land trusts to help them restore their local
salt marshes or eelgrass beds, which are Narragansett Bay's most
threatened habitat resources. People care so much that they are
volunteering their time and energy to restore these areas. Save The Bay
trained these volunteers to research the Bay's salt marshes. Local
community groups have adopted local salt marshes and eelgrass beds. We
connected them with the other groups and agencies that could help them
accomplish their restoration goals. We have helped these groups get
things done by educating them about coastal restoration and helping
them apply for and win funding from existing government grant programs.
The measure of our success, although in its beginning stages, is our
willingness to be a true partner with these local activists. These are
not ``Save The Bay'' habitat restoration projects, they belong to the
community.
The one barrier to greater success is the lack of a coordinated and
unified program at the Federal level to help facilitate and fund
community based restoration projects. And there are limited resources
on all levels of government. In Portsmouth, Rhode Island, a
neighborhood association struggled for 5 years through a maze of
regulation, amassing funds from several government and private programs
and overcoming government inertia to help restore five acres of salt
marsh. A similar restoration effort in Narragansett took 8 years.
Unfortunately, the current agency structures do not encourage habitat
restoration and in fact are an active deterrent. The only encouraging
point on local restoration projects in Rhode Island is that these
efforts have been rewarded. Rarely seen wildlife and healthy coastal
and estuarine habitats are returning to Rhode Island's coastline. But
the struggle to design, fund and coordinate these projects is too long
and too costly for most volunteer organizations and community groups to
sustain.
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act can change this
situation by making effective use of limited resources. The bill will
help coordinate many overlapping plans and programs and bring down the
barriers to habitat restoration. The bill places a strong emphasis on
moving on-the-ground restoration projects forward quickly, as opposed
to funding more plans and studies that tend to be collect dust in
government libraries.
The Situation in Narragansett Bay
Why do we need this bill to become law as soon as possible? Because
the foundation of life in Narragansett Bay is in critical condition.
The Bay's natural systems its eelgrass beds, salt marshes and fish runs
which allow it to function healthfully, are severely damaged or
disappearing. For example, we have only about 100 acres of eelgrass
left in the Bay, which once supported thousands of acres. Eelgrass
prevents shoreline erosion, filters pollution, and provides clear
water, food, shelter, nurseries and breeding grounds to shellfish,
juvenile lobsters, and young fish. About half of our salt marshes have
been lost. What we have left is degraded and getting worse. Salt
marshes are nurseries for many species, help prevent erosion and filter
toxins from our water. Flounder, striped bass, mussels, scallops,
fiddler crabs and scores of birds rely on salt marshes for some or all
of their lives. We have only 15 functioning fish runs left in Rhode
Island. To survive, many fish must be able to get to fresh water to
spawn. One of our Bay's greatest fisheries the Atlantic salmon now can
only be read about in books, due to the destruction of their fish runs.
We must turn the tide soon, and begin to repair decades of damage and
neglect or it may be too late.
Narragansett Bay is not just a place where the fresh water of the
rivers meets the salt water of the ocean. It is a place that shelters
and nurtures a complex web of life. From the smallest creatures living
in its mud to the seals that migrate here for the winter, the Bay is
home to hundreds of species. Plants and animals including humans depend
on each other and form what we call the ``web of life'' in Narragansett
Bay.
We can compare Narragansett Bay to the human body. The decline in
our eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs are warning signs, not so
different from changes in a person's vital signs. We would not ignore a
loved one's complaint of chest pains, shortness of breath or numbness
in their arms and legs because these are signs of a potentially deadly
heart attack or damaging stroke. Likewise, we cannot ignore the Bay's
symptoms. If eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs continue to decline
and disappear, the Bay will be little more than an empty body of water.
The Bay life that depends on these areas the lobster, shellfish, birds,
fish and plants will disappear. Necessarily, many people who make their
livelihoods off the Bay will have to find other work. This is not the
kind of Bay we want or should leave for our children.
Crashing Fish Stocks
The most evident sign that the Bay's web of life is unraveling is
the near collapse of many Narragansett Bay fisheries in the past twenty
years. Many fish populations are in decline despite improvements made
to control toxins and water pollution. Despite stricter management of
commercial fishing, fish populations have not recovered.
Although much of the decline in Bay fisheries can be attributed to
over-fishing, the loss of eelgrass beds and salt marshes is preventing
any significant recovery of fish stocks. Eelgrass beds critical to
thriving Bay fisheries have dwindled to only 100 acres remaining in
Narragansett Bay. A 1988 report by the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (RIDEM) estimated that between 1965 and 1982,
Rhode Island lost over 850 acres of coastal salt marshes about 20
percent of the marsh we had in 1965. We are now feeling the pain of
ongoing habitat loss.
Save The Bay has focused our attention on three critical habitats
in Narragansett Bay which are most in jeopardy underwater eelgrass,
salt marshes and fish runs. Restoring these critical habitats is
essential if we are to sustain the myriad of Bay creatures that depend
on them.
Eelgrass Beds A Flagship for Life in Our Bay
Eelgrass is:
an underwater marine plant;
a primary source of food for hundreds of Bay plants and
animals;
a critical nursery and shelter for shellfish and finfish;
a supplier of clear water; and,
a guard against shoreline erosion by dampening waves and
currents.
(Batiuk et al 1992, Thayer et al 1975, Short and Short 1984).
Eelgrass, one of 50 kinds of seagrass, is a marine plant that lives
completely underwater. Eelgrass is one of the most diverse and
productive underwater habitats found in the United States and Europe.
Eelgrass can form large meadows or small separate beds, which range in
size from many acres to just a yard across (Burkholder and Doheny,
1968). The largest remaining meadow in Narragansett Bay borders the
eastern shore of Jamestown and covers about 25 acres. Found in depths
from 3 feet to 20 feet, eelgrass growth and survival is dependent on
clear water and strong sunlight.
Eighty species of worms, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms,
fishes, reptiles, and birds depend on eelgrass as a food source (McRoy
and Helfferich 1980; Thayer et al. 1984). This list of dependent
species includes economically important finfish and shellfish species
such as summer and winter flounder, weakfish, blue crabs, rainbow
smelt, bay scallops, blue mussels and spotted seatrout. Research has
demonstrated that eelgrass provides higher survival rates for juvenile
American lobster than rock or mud habitat types (Barshaw and Bryant-
Rich 1988).
Eelgrass loss can have devastating consequences. Eelgrass decline
led to the extinction of the eelgrass limpet (a type of snail) in the
1930's, one of the few marine species extinction known in this century.
Our disappearing eelgrass has been a primary cause of the collapse of
brant geese populations in the Bay. Brant geese depend on eelgrass as a
primary food source.
Eelgrass loss also has dire economic consequences. The loss of
eelgrass in Narragansett Bay led to the collapse of the bay scallop
fishery in Rhode Island. The bay scallop fishery has been nonexistent
in Rhode Island since 1957, primarily due to the loss of eelgrass beds.
The bay scallop needs eelgrass as a settling area and as a refuge for
mature scallops (Pohle et al. 1991). There is a neighborhood in Warwick
along Greenwich Bay that used to be known as ``Scalloptown'' because so
many scallop fishermen lived and worked there. Greenwich Bay and other
northern locations in Narragansett Bay once supported hundreds of acres
of eelgrass and healthy bay scallop populations. Eelgrass restoration
in Narragansett Bay could contribute to the revival of the once
thriving commercial bay scallop fishery. Eelgrass restoration can also
help rebuild other commercially important fisheries. More than 20 types
of commercially valuable fish feed in the eelgrass beds of Narragansett
Bay at some point in their lives including winter and summer flounder,
lobsters and tautog.
Restoration is possible. Efforts to re-establish eelgrass have
taken place over the last three decades. The National Marine Fisheries
Service believes Narragansett Bay has a high potential for eelgrass
restoration, based on its historical distribution and a concentration
of scientific and academic resources in the region (Fonseca, et al,
NMFS, 1994). Active restoration through transplanting began in
Narragansett Bay in 1994. Both the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the University of Rhode Island have identified and transplanted
eelgrass in sixteen separate sites in the Bay. While these efforts have
had limited success due to a variety of factors including predators
grazing the transplanted stock, storm damage and the relative low
density of transplanted eelgrass, research and experiments with
improved methods of restoration should continue.
Although poor water clarity poses the greatest problem for eelgrass
restoration, we can take steps to correct this problem. The eelgrass
beds which remain in the Bay offer hope that areas of the Bay may be
able to host transplants. But, taking no action is not acceptable. The
clear water that is necessary for restoration is also critical to
saving the eelgrass remnants still clinging to Narragansett Bay.
Ultimately, we must improve the conditions for eelgrass immediately if
we are to save this vital thread in the Bay's web of life.
Salt Marshes A Place of Bountiful Plants & Creatures
A salt marsh is:
a nursery and spawning ground for two-thirds of the United
States' major commercial fish;
the largest producer of basic food per acre anywhere on
earth;
a nursery for 63 species of fish in Narragansett Bay; and,
a shoreline stabilizer and shield against coastal storms.
(Lieth, 1975; Teal & Teal, 1969; McHugh, 1966; Dept. of Interior,
1989; Knudson et al, 1982)
Salt marshes provide enormous economic and environmental benefits.
Approximately two-thirds of the United States' major commercial fish
depend on estuaries and salt marshes for nursery or spawning grounds
(McHugh 1966). Among the more familiar salt marsh-dependent fishes are
menhaden, bluefish, flounder, sea trout, mullet, croaker, striped bass
and drum. At least 63 fish species use Narragansett Bay as a nursery,
with the highest use in the fall (Department of the Interior, 1989).
Salt marshes are also important for shellfish including bay scallops,
soft-shell clams, grass shrimp, blue crabs, oysters, quahogs and other
clams. Blue crabs and grass shrimp are especially abundant in the tidal
creeks that feed salt marshes. Salt marshes produce more basic food
energy per acre than any other known ecosystem including tropical
rainforests, freshwater wetlands or agriculture fields (Lieth, 1975 and
Teal & Teal, 1969).
Salt marshes protect private property by shielding coastal
shorelines from storms and by dampening the power of waves, which
stabilizes the shoreline (Knudson, et al. 1982). While most wetland
plants require calm or sheltered waters, established salt marsh grasses
are effective against erosion (Kaldec & Wentz, 1974; Garbisch, 1977).
Restoration of salt marshes may help protect our health as well.
Rhode Island is home to 42 different mosquito species. The salt marsh
mosquito, along with three other species, is known to carry the Eastern
Equine Encephalitis virus and transmit it to humans, horses and other
mammals. Large populations of these mosquitoes can present an increased
health threat to humans. To breed and develop, mosquitoes need standing
water. In the 1930's ditches were dug through many of Rhode Island's
salt marshes in a vain attempt to eliminate standing water on the
marshes. Not only did the ditches fill in with debris creating larger
mosquito breeding areas, but also restricted nature's best mosquito
control larvae eating minnows and other fish from reaching the mosquito
breeding grounds. Ditching, in most cases, created a larger problem
than previously existed. Old mosquito ditches are affecting most of the
Bay's salt marshes. Restoration is necessary to remove the ditches and
help nature control mosquito populations and the Eastern Equine
Encephalitis virus.
Despite all of these important benefits, we recruited over 80
volunteers to survey the health of Rhode Island's remaining salt
marshes. Their findings are alarming and demonstrate the existing
threats to Rhode Island's salt marshes. Seventy percent of the Bay's
remaining salt marshes are affected by restrictions to the daily ebb
and flow of tides, reducing their ability to support Bay fisheries.
Over 60 percent of the salt marshes show signs of dumping or filling.
Mosquito ditches drain over 50 percent of the marshes. About 1,200 of
the 3,800 remaining acres of Bay salt marshes are impacted by invasive
plant species such as the tall common reed, phragmites. Phragmites can
grow to over 10 feet tall, block shoreline vistas and pose a fire
hazard when they die in the winter and early spring leaving dry plant
material close to coastal homes. Nearly thirty percent of our remaining
salt marshes have no protection from polluted runoff from lawns, golf
courses and parking lots. About 58 percent of Narragansett Bay marshes
suffer from the polluted discharges of storm drains.
Restoration is feasible and the only way to bring back the marshes.
Successful salt marsh restoration efforts have occurred in many New
England states including Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In Massachusetts, salt marshes north of Boston have been restored
through an innovative mosquito control program called ``Open Marsh
Water Management.'' This technique involves re-creating the natural
water conditions in the marsh thus allowing mosquito-eating minnows to
survive in tidal pools and creeks. Connecticut has reopened many Long
Island Sound marshes to the normal ebb and flow of tides halting the
growth of invasive phragmites in the process. Locally, Rhode Island
began restoring the marshes at the Galilee Bird Sanctuary by scraping
off old dredge spoils, opening culverts, and recreating tidal creeks. A
community-sponsored marsh restoration was recently completed at Common
Fence Point in Portsmouth. The project involved removing dredge spoils
and re-grading a five-acre area of phragmites to allow salt marsh
grasses to re-colonize the area. Since the completion of the project in
the fall of 1997, plants and animals are beginning to return to the
area. Many community groups throughout Rhode Island want to restore
salt marshes, but lack the necessary funding and technical support.
Fish Runs A Legacy of Vanishing Abundance
A fish run is:
a freshwater river or stream that runs directly to the
Bay;
the place where native herring, salmon, smelts and shad
return each spring to spawn; and,
the spawning grounds for herring stocks that are an
important food source for striped bass, bluefish, herons, otter and
osprey.
(RIDEM, 1996; Desbonnet & Lee, 1991)
River herring, Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, sturgeon and
American shad depend on fish runs for survival. These are saltwater
fish that are hatched in freshwater, but mature and spend most of their
lives in the Bay or the ocean. These fish must return to the freshwater
rivers and streams where they were born in order to spawn. Narragansett
Bay previously supported commercially valuable Atlantic salmon and
alewife (river herring) fisheries. River herring are a primary food
source for striped bass whose continued recovery is dependent on
increasing sources of food. The Atlantic salmon fishery was short lived
in Narragansett Bay after the industrial revolution began harnessing
the power of the Blackstone, Ten Mile and Pawtuxet Rivers. The salmon
were effectively blocked from returning to the waters of their birth.
The Blackstone and Pawtuxet each ended up with one power producing dam
for every mile of river by the middle of the 19th century. The Atlantic
salmon was eliminated from its Bay spawning runs by 1869 (Goode, 1887).
The commercial herring fishery depended on Rhode Island fish runs.
As with the Atlantic salmon, the herring fishery declined, but managed
to linger much longer. Herring do not need the same type of river
conditions as salmon. They attempted to adapt to other rivers and
streams that were not dammed in the southern areas of the Bay.
Commercial harvesting was forced to a halt in Narragansett Bay by 1930
because of declining fish stocks. A few areas still support small runs
of river herring including Gilbert Stuart Brook in North Kingstown and
the Annaquatucket River in North Kingstown. The largest and healthiest
herring and shad run in Narragansett Bay is on the Nemasket River in
Massachusetts a tributary of the Taunton River where over one million
fish came to spawn in 1996 (pers. comm, P. Brady).
But many fish runs remain obstructed. In Rhode Island and
Massachusetts combined, there are 27 rivers that could be spawning
grounds for herring, shad and Atlantic salmon. Only two of these river
systems were never harnessed for water power or water supply and host
small native runs of herring. Ten more rivers have fishways any
structure that allows fish to swim over dams, including fish ladders to
help herring and shad pass over dams and swim to spawning areas. But 15
are still closed to spring fish runs of herring, shad and salmon. Among
these 15 rivers are three of the top five freshwater tributaries of
Narragansett Bay the Blackstone, Pawtuxet and Ten Mile rivers.
There are a number of steps we can take to restore our fish runs.
We can remove unnecessary dams and build fish ladders over dams that
must remain. We also can restore streams and improve water quality to
make these rivers and streams once again hospitable to fish runs.
What this Crisis Means to Rhode Islanders
On September 22, 1997 Senator Chafee came to a small boat yard in
Narragansett Bay to announce the introduction of the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222). This legislation is a vital
component in our efforts to bring back healthy conditions not only in
Narragansett Bay but in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound
and many of the other vital estuaries of the United States. At that
press conference Senator Chafee said, ``Narragansett Bay is good for
the soul.'' No truer words had ever been spoken about the meaning of
Narragansett Bay to all Rhode Islanders.
Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from its
shores, it is part of what makes Rhode Island special. The Bay is our
lifeline it nourishes our environment, strengthens our economy,
enhances our leisure time and protects our children's futures. We need
to care for the Bay and invest today in its health and very survival.
This investment will help ensure a secure future for Rhode Island.
Narragansett Bay is an engine for Rhode Island's economy. It is
estimated that Narragansett Bay generates $2.4 billion in annual
revenue from marine and Bay related activities (estimates, Rorholm and
Farrell, 1994). Commercial fishing and the tourism industry are major
contributors to our state economy. Restoration is a small investment to
keep this economic engine running.
Commercial fishing is estimated to generate $42 million dollars for
the Rhode Island economy each year. For many communities, the
harvesting of quahog, fish and shellfish is central to a healthy local
economy. The fishing industry understands the importance of balancing
the needs of industry with ecological concerns. Fishermen realize the
need to restore Narragansett Bay to give the fish and shellfish they
harvest an ability to replenish and thrive. Without restoration, the
fishing industry's future in Rhode Island is uncertain.
No one understands this more than Paul Bettencourt and Don Dawson
of Pawtcuket, RI. Like two gruff midwives, these graying fishermen
assist in the final leg of an otherwise impossible spawning journey by
dipping a long-handled scoop net beneath the foam and magically lifting
a half dozen squirming, blueback herring above the roaring mouth of the
Ten Mile River. They help the herring upstream into Omega Pond beyond
the salt waters of the Bay a task these fish have been unable to
accomplish themselves for many generations. They do this because they
have witnessed the consequences of disappearing fish runs firsthand. As
a young man, Paul Bettencourt made a living harvesting herring for bait
for other fishers angling for striped bass, lobsters and blue fish.
Paul now refers to himself as a living ``dinosaur.''
But restoration means much more than helping fishermen. In 1993,
for the first time in Rhode Island's history, the travel and tourism
industry surpassed manufacturing to become the state's second largest
industry. In 1997, tourism brought in over $2 billion to the state.
Narragansett Bay is key to that industry. People come to Rhode Island
from all over the world to enjoy the beauty and splendor of
Narragansett Bay. Whether sailing Bay waters or fishing for striped
bass this resource is an enormous treasure for residents and visitors
alike. An increasingly unhealthy Bay will lose its appeal.
Narragansett Bay is part of our lives. Tony Giardino knows this.
Born just south of Naples, Italy, Tony came to Rhode Island in 1927.
Fishing trips with his dad at Narragansett Pier sparked a lifelong
passion for the sport and the Bay. Tony's Barbershop, a fixture on
Providence's Hope Street for the last fifty years, is a great place for
a haircut and stories about the big ones that did not get away
including his 58-+ pound striper. When Tony learned to fish, flounder
was almost always the fish of choice they were plentiful and did not
put up much of a fight, once hooked. But the Rhode Island tradition of
teaching kids to fish by catching flounder is fading fast and, without
adequate restoration measures, may soon be gone forever. Tony taught
his kids to fish by first catching flounder but says now it is ``pretty
much a waste of time'' to take his grandchildren in search of flounder.
``They're just not out there anymore,'' says Tony. ``I am worried that
the flounder are disappearing and I think it is a shame that I cannot
teach my thirteen grandkids to fish for flounder.''
Narragansett Bay is as important to our future as it has been to
our past. We can leave our children a Bay that gives them the pleasure
of discovering the wonders of a summer beach by collecting seashells
and tasting fresh baked clams and scallops. We can pass on the
opportunity to swim in the Bay's waters or hear the rustle of reeds in
the salt marsh. We can afford them the thrill of landing their first
mighty bluefish. We can guarantee them the joy of seeing a heron
fishing in a salt marsh or saluting the rising moon. We can allow them
to see a quahogger working a rake. All of these opportunities are part
of our Rhode Island and national heritage, part of our past and
present. These opportunities can be a part of our future if we make a
commitment to restore Narragansett Bay and all of the other nation's
estuaries great and small.
Make no mistake. Narragansett Bay and most of our nation's
estuaries are in crisis. Rhode Island and many other regions have only
a limited time to take action and resolve this crisis. If we do not
restore America's estuaries soon, many fish, plant, and bird species
may become extinct in this country. With this disappearance, the United
States will lose many jobs that depend on these species and our quality
of life will plummet.
In conclusion, Save The Bay applauds the leadership of Senator
Chafee on this critical issue. The need is so great and the situation
so precarious that to delay at this point would certainly mean greater
losses for our coastal environment, our economy and our quality of
life. Twenty-six colleagues of Senator Chafee, from both sides of the
aisle, also understand this grave situation and have signed on as co-
sponsors. If we truly want to restore our nation's fisheries, preserve
our coastal heritage and improve our economy we must give our Federal
Government agencies the opportunity to actually help with this task.
Not just with more funding but with tools to break down the barriers of
bureaucracy and to build partnerships with local community efforts.
______
Responses by Curtis Spalding to Additional Questions from Senator
Chafee
Question 1. Much of what our efforts in the past have focused on,
with respect to water quality for estuaries and other waters, is
pollution prevention, not habitat restoration. How do you see the two
actions, protecting the resource from further degradation, and nursing
the resource back to health, interacting to reach the larger goal of
improving overall water quality?
Response. Save The Bay and indeed all RAE member organizations
believe that protection and active habitat restoration are two sides of
the same coin of environmental health for our estuaries. While it is
true that much effort and resources have been devoted to pollution
prevention and better waste treatment technology, the science of
habitat restoration is just beginning to explore and test new
techniques. One of the most compelling arguments for linking
restoration and protection efforts is the remarkable connections that
habitats provide in estuaries and other waters. For example, underwater
seagrasses, once established, create the ideal physical, biological and
chemical conditions for more seagrass to grow. They also provide
invaluable benefits to the overall water quality such as filtration of
sediments and nutrients as well as dampening waves. Coastal and
riparian wetlands provide not only habitat for fish and other wildlife
but also ``pollution prevention'' services to the rivers and coastal
waters they border. They trap sediment, filter runoff and control
coastal and riverbank erosion. In this way, coastal habitats offer
their own unique ``pollution prevention'' services that enhance our
considerable investment in engineering-based pollution prevention.
Question 2. What is the biggest challenge that Save The Bay has
faced in getting habitat restoration projects of the ground? Is it
working with government agencies, lack of funding or something else?
Response. Our biggest challenge in Rhode Island is getting
technical assistance to local restoration efforts. We literally have
dozens of groups ready and willing to initiate local restoration
projects but without the biology, engineering and design expertise most
of these projects will have to wait perhaps years to get going. The
state has yet to make either a financial or policy commitment to
coastal and estuarine habitat restoration. There is no ``Office of
Habitat Restoration Assistance'' where these groups can go for help. We
have helped a few groups cobble together a package of technical
assistance, design work and funding. Funding can also be an issue. It
not so much that there isn't enough, it's a matter of finding it and
knowing how and where to apply.
__________
Statement of JoAnn Burkholder, Professor and Pew Fellow, North Carolina
State University
A Former Marine Fisheries Commissioner's Perspective
Salt marshes, underwater grasslike meadows filled with shellfish.
mangrove forests, and quiet, open waters with rich fisheries are what
come to mind for people when they consider estuaries, the natural areas
where rivers meet the sea. But the reality of this view has rapidly
changed in the past several decades. Different scenes now inundate us
with the ``signs of the times'' . . . of elderly folk's remembrances of
times when a rowboat filled with fish could be taken within an hour, in
areas where fish are now rare; of commercial fishermen who acknowledge
overfishing pressures involved with fish declines, but who seem to have
no voice when they question why their fish nursery grounds have
received another sewage outfall, of why yet another coastal river that
was classified as an ``outstanding resource'' has been destroyed by the
newest subdivision. As Chair of the Habitat & Water Quality Committee
on North Carolina's Marine Fisheries Commission, I had no answer for
them because in that state, and many others, fisheries are managed
``separately'' from water quality issues, and the respective
commissions that governed these issues had not once met in the decades
since they had been formed.\1\
The overall economic value of our estuaries is significantly
underestimated because estuaries provide many ``intangible'' services,
as well as tangible goods such as seafood. . . . One acre of tidal
estuary has been calculated to equate the operation of a. $115,000
waste treatment plant (1984 figure, consumer price index 103.9;
adjusted for 1997, CPI 160.6; increase of 54.6 percent--Dr. J. Foley,
natural resource economist, Norm Carolina State University) in
pollutant filtering/removal capabilities.\2\ The total land value,
alone, of estuarine habitat has been estimated at about $128,000 per
acre when fish production is factored into consideration. By
comparison, 1 acre of prime farmland in Kansas was valued at $1,800
with an annual production value of $900.\2\ Estuaries are also among
the most productive ecosystems in the world. U.S. estuaries and coastal
wetlands provide spawning grounds for 70 percent of our seafood
including shrimp, salmon, oysters, clams and haddock, with associated
jobs for millions of people. \2\
In their position along the land-water margin of our coastal zones,
estuaries are known to be highly vulnerable to human pressures.
Estuaries receive most of the excessive loadings of pollutants that
reach marine environments.\3\ As a result, these waters and the fish
and waterfowl that directly depend on then have been seriously impacted
by sediment erosion from adjacent land development; microbial pathogens
from septic leachfields, urban runoff and land disturbance; excessive
nutrients from untreated or poorly treated sewage; oil spills from
common boating practices as well as major incidents; pesticides from
cropland and lawn runoff, and other stressors.\4\ These impacts are
exacerbated by often-dramatic changes in hydrology within the
watersheds that estuaries ultimately service. Extensive (among and
channelization of freshwater rivers completely altered the natural salt
balance Us many estuaries, as well as the volume of water supplied.\5\
Ditching and filling in of salt marshes and other wetlands in estuarine
ecosystems move pollutants into receiving rivers quickly and
directly.\1\ Pollutant loadings are on the increase in many coastal
areas of our country,\2\ coinciding with exponential human population
growth and associated loss of the wetlands which acted as a filter to
protect the rivers that drain them.\6\ Over half of the worldly
population already live within a 100-mile radius of a coastline, a
pattern that includes our country. \6\ More than half of our coastal
habitats have been destroyed or damaged by dredge/filling and by waste
contamination, including many of the sea-grass beds that are vital
habitat for commercially important finfish and shellfish.\2\ \7\ A
steadily increasing proportion of our coastal wetlands and adjacent
creeks that provide vitally important habitat for our shell fisheries
have disappeared as coastlands are developed. Many of those that remain
look healthy . . . but then, one rices the posted signs that prohibit
fishing for Oysters or clams because the shellfish have filtered out
too many pollutants from adjacent lands, and would no longer be safe
for human consumption. Overall across the nation' only about half of
our shellfish waters are now ''clean'' enough to produce edible
seafood.
These are the overt, easily noticed ``signs of the times.'' But
other, more subtle human influencing on estuaries will likely prove
much more serious in the near future, unless we support measures such
as S. 1222, in order to better equip ourselves to combat them.
Scientists understand acute or obvious, severe impacts of pollutants on
fish and other wildlife supported by estuaries. By contrast, little is
known about the chronic or sublethal impacts of many of our actions on
fisheries and other important estuarine, resources. Repeated research
on all coasts of our country has shown that fish from waters near major
human population centers have suppressed immune systems, higher
incidence of bleeding sores, gonadal tumors and other diseases, and
other serious health impairment relative to fish in cleaner waters. . .
. Physiological stress in fish that lead to decreased growth,
reproduction, survival of young, and long-term survival of adults has
been demonstrated from small amounts of pollutant such 49 pesticides,
petroleum compounds, and trace metals, over longer time internals.
Such toxic substances (as caustic chemicals) would be expected to
cause adverse impacts. However, even the effects of more pollutants
that are regarded as relatively ``benign,'' such as nutrient over-
enrichment--especially of nitrogen and phosphorus, the same kinds of
nutrients that would be used to fertilize house plants--are proving to
be much more serious than had previously been suspected. The foundation
of the food web in aquatic ecosystems is algae. These plants are open
microscopic, and they have enormous surface area relative to their
small size. Bathed in their water environment, algae have easy access
to dissolved nutrients. They can be stimulated by extremely small
levels of nutrient supplies, micro-quantities in comparison to how we
typically think about in adding nutrients, which is by the pound (for
lawn fertilizer) or the ton (for our crops) Thus, aquatic ecosystems
are highly sensitive to nutrient loading, and too many nutrients often
translates into noxious blooms of algae as estuaries are shifted out of
their natural balance. Although algae are generally good for estuaries,
nutrient over-enrichment from sewage, cropland runoff, lawn runoff,
animal wastes, and other sources can stimulate too much algal growth.
At night the respiration of these small plants--millions of which can
be contained in a few drops of water--can rob the oxygen from the water
and cause fish kills. Such conditions increasingly characterize many of
our estuaries. This description is especially true of many quiet
lagoons or upper embayments with poor water exchange/renewal, where
nutrients have time to stimulate substantial algal growth before they
are flushed from the system. Too many algae can block light from
reaching beneficial underwater seagrass meadow habitat for our
fisheries. Without enough light, the seagrass meadows disappear, ant
such habitat loss has been strongly correlated with devastating
declines in commercial fisheries.\7\
The proliferation of algal overgrowth that shade out and destroy
seagrass beds is an obvious impact of nutrient over-enrichment.
However, the following two examples illustrate other more subtle but
serious impacts of chronic nutrient enrichment on aquatic ecosystems.
In the first case, recent research has demonstrated a more subtle
impact of nitrate loading on the most important seagrass habitat
species on the north temperate coasts of the U.S., namely eelgrass or
Zostera marina. Very small amounts of nitrate loading to the overlying
water, given daily for several weeks can cause these plants to die as a
direct toxic effect, unrelated to algal overgrowth.\7\ Zostera is
highly sensitive to nitrate loading (e.g. from septic effluent
leachate) because, surprisingly, it has no way to stop nitrate uptake
through its leaves, For thousands of years, historically this plant was
accustomed to nitrogen-depauperate coastal waters. The ability to take
up nitrate, day or night, through the plant leaves--nitrate from storm
runoff or other sudden, unexpected source--may once have represented a
great advantage in nitrogen-limited waters over other plants that
generally cannot Me up nitrate in darkness. However, with increased
coastal nitrate loading from human activities, our most important north
temperate seagrass now appears to be seriously disadvantaged because of
this ``strategy'' to take up nitrate at all costs, whenever it is
available in the water. The excessive nitrate uptake is rather
analogous ``too much candy''--it is not good for these plants. It
forces Zostera to direct most of its energy and other nutrient
supplies, such as carbon, into amino acid production, even when it does
not need the amino acids. Thus, too much nitrate--at concentrations
that would be regarded as very low, relative to current conditions in
many estuaries that drain increasingly urbanized watersheds--drives
Zostera into severe internal imbalances in other nutrients, which can
lead to death. This phenomenon was first reported in 1992. The full
extent of damage to eelgrass meadow habitat from chronic exposure to
elevated water-column nitrate has only begun to be examined.\7\
A second compelling example of subtle but serious impacts of
nutrient (both phosphorus and nitrogen) over-enrichment to estuaries
clearly has direct implications for human health. In 1991, I led a
research team that discovered the toxic dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria
pisicida, as a causative agent of massive estuarine fish kills.\9\ At
sublethal, chronic levels the toxins a from Pfiesteria can also cause
major incidence of fish disease, in which millions of fish can be
affected with large open, bleeding sores. The affected fish often die,
but more slowly and much less noticeably than would be detected in an
obvious, acute kill in which fish accumulated at the water surface.
Moreover, chronic exposure to small amounts of Pfiesteria's toxins over
days to weeks may cause much more serious problems at the fish
population level than an acute fish kill that affects a small number of
fish relative to the total population size.\10\ The known range of
chronic end sublethal impacts from these toxins on fish, thus far,
includes several immune system suppression, unpaired reproduction,
significantly depressed survival of the young, destruction of the
osmoregulatory system (i.e., fish cannot control their salt balance,
which is very serious in the changing salinity environment
characteristics of estuaries), and large-scale disease. Such impacts
suggest that Pfiesteria's toxins seriously damage the ability of fish
to reproduce, and of young as well as adult fish to survive or fight
disease.
These impacts of Pfiesteria on fish health--even the obvious
impacts that can be visually observed through major fish kills--have
only been known for less than a decade, because of this organism's
rapid ``attack/retreat'' behavior which made it difficult to detect and
track.\9\ Two other important points of information were gained within
the past 5 years, which clearly illustrate that Pfiesteria can be
stimulated by human activities, and that chronic or sublethal exposure
to Pfiesteria's toxins merit concerted attention and action--because
these toxins can impair the health of people, as well go fish. First,
we determined that Pfiesteria can be strongly stimulated by nutrient
over-enrichment from multiple apthropogenic sources such as human
sewage, animal wastes, cropland and town fertilizer runoff\10\ \11\
Second, we learned that people who are exposed to toxic cultures of
Pfiesteria, or to toxic outbreaks where fish me diseased or dying from
Pfiesteria can be seriously hurt just by inhaling the overlying
air.\12\ \13\
Production of airborne neurotoxins had not previously been known
for toxic dinoflagellates. Before this unusual feature of Pfiesteria
was determined, people who worked with dilute toxic cultures Of fish-
killing Pfiesteria without protection from airborne toxins sustained a
suite of effects.\12\ Short-term impacts (hours) included narcosis,
nausea, vomiting, burning eyes and skin, blurred vision, severe stomach
cramping and acute respiratory difficulty. Longer-term impacts (weeks
to months) included severe headaches, open sores that heal slowly
(months) and do not respond to antibiotics, and impairment of all three
nervous systems--central, peripheral, and autonomic. Lingering impacts
(years) have included easy infections suggestive of a compromised
immune system, certain visual impairment, episodes of foggy memory, and
peripheral autonomic nervous system dysfunction. The central nervous
system impacts to laboratory workers from Pfiesteria's toxins were most
striking, and involved severe cognitive impairment and short-term
memory loss. Imagine what it is like to appear normal, but to have no
idea, of where you are, to be unable to put words into sentences, or to
understand English. You have lucid moments in which you are gripped
with fear because you realize that something is terribly wrong; then
you slide back down. As you begin to recover, you must take reading
lessons to be able to read again. Imagine life style changes--that even
after you are able to test normally for learning and memory, you must
compensate because you have lost the ability to process information as
quickly as you could before the illness occurred, and you do not
recover it. Imagine not being able to strenuously exercise because when
you try, you develop severe bronchitis or pneumonia. Consider what it
would be like to be a fairly young, energetic person who must be on
antibiotics more than a third of the year, 5 years after being affected
. . . what it would be like to watch as increasingly potent antibiotics
do not help you recover from the most recent, nearly constant illness,
and to fear the prospect of reaching the point at which the most potent
antibiotics no longer can help. The above writing describes the lives
of several laboratory workers, ongoing five to 7 years following
exposure to dilute, field densities of toxic Pfiesteria culture.
The first clinical evaluations of people exposed to small toxic
outbreaks of Pfiesteria in estuaries were completed in late summer
1997.\13\ The resulting impact that were documented on learning and
memory function were described by health officials as ``profound.''
About 85 percent of the fishermen who had been in these toxic outbreak
areas for 6-8 hours per day, for several weeks or more, tested in the
lower 8 percent of the U.S. population for learning ability and memory,
once corrected for age and education and about 75 percent of the
examined fishermen tested in the lower 2 percent of the U.S. population
in cognitive functioning ability. The documented impacts were striking
even for people with minor exposure--25 percent of the people who were
examined after they took a boat ride through a toxic outbreak, or stood
on a bridge over an affected area, tested in the lower 8 percent of the
U.S. population in their ability to learn and remember. Most of the
affected people had recovered and were able to test. at least, in
normal range for cognitive ability and memory function within 3 months
following exposure. However, 20 percent of the fishermen who had been
exposed longest to the toxic outbreaks were unable to test normally
until 6 months after their last exposure. Although they recovered to
normal testing range, much of the 6-month interval remains ``lost''--
they have no memory of it, and that period likely will remain lost as
it has for the exposed laboratory workers.
Such impacts from Pfiesteria, stemming from nutrient over-
enrichment to quiet estuarine waters, were completely unanticipated.
Many scientists, having carefully evaluated all of the known
information data on Pfiesteria, are now considering a sobering
hypothesis, that Pfiesteria represents the first of such ``hidden'' or
previously unknown microbial pathogens to have been discovered as we
inadvertently continue, through excessive pollutant loadings, to shift
estuaries from their natural balance. As scientists, we may have done
the ``easy part,'' that is, we previously recognized aquatic microbes
that cause obvious problems for fish or human health, but a new group
may be emerging that counts Pfiesteria among its first known
representatives. What is clear, at present, is that this example of
subtle but serious impacts from water quality degradation in our
estuaries unites the issues of estuarine water pollution, fish health,
and human health. For the sake of our own health as well as the health
of our fisheries, we must move beyond the obvious to gain much sponger
appreciation for The subtle but serious impacts of our actions in
degrading water quality and otherwise altering estuarine habitats.
Exponential human population growth in many coastlands of our
county is projected to continue for at least the next two decades.\2\
Thus, balancing the enormous economic grown along our coastlands with
conservation practices--that is, wise use of our coastal resources--is
a challenge that is both immediate and pressing. We have not been
winning this battle, and we can do much better. S. 1222 represents a
major, exciting step toward meeting this challenge.
Estuary Restoration: Maximizing Progress
As a scientist who has acted in policy evaluation, in positions
shalt were appointed by both republican and democratic Governors, I
have long considered the question of how to maximize progress in
improving the quality of our estuaries. I regard the partnership, cost-
sharing approach outlined in S. 1222 as highly constructive in bringing
all stakeholders together, from industries and municipalities to
individual citizens, in working to achieve this overall goal. Within
that context, the suggestions offered here include four major areas of
emphasis, and stem from my earlier efforts in contributing to a policy
document with similar focus.\1\
Certain efforts are critically needed to maximize progress in
restoration of our nation's estuaries. First, we should accelerate
river and watershed cleanup through a strong incentive program. This
cleanup effort needs to incorporate alternate/improved methods of waste
disposal that reduce point source pollutant loadings (e.g.,
encouragement of adequate methods of land application, plant upgradings
to employ biological nutrient removal techniques). Non-point pollution
historically has proven much more difficult to control, and a major
effort must be undertaken to design incentives programs that work for
farmers, municipalities attempting to control urban runoff, and animal
production industries, for example. Small-scale contributors, who
collectively can become significant, should also be a focus of these
programs, such as homeowners or golf course managers who use
fertilizers and pesticides in lawn care. Acceleration of river and
watershed cleanup, additionally, must involve restructuring hydrologic
flow patterns to restore natural flow patterns in watersheds that drain
into estuaries. A critical problem facing many coastal areas, and
already impinging on estuarine ecosystems, is depletion of coastal
aquifers and other water supplies.\5\ Strong water reuse programs are
needed as an essential component of estuarine system restoration.
Coastal reserves should be expanded to further conserve key
environmental habitats such as estuarine fish nurseries.\1\
Secondly, success in the above actions will require additional
information/programs including resource inventories where needed at
state and local levels, so that baselines can be established where
needed and progress can be tracked. Such demonstration of progress will
provide, of itself, a strong incentive to foster sometime difficult
efforts to achieve continued positive action. Accurate maps of
submersed aquatic vegetation, wetlands, shellfish beds, nurseries,
spawning grounds, and other habitats vital to our fisheries should be
delineated and updated at appropriate intervals.\1\ Programs to
strengthen protection at these critical habitats should be
strengthened. Attainment of con of the above goals also will require
additions answers and information that must be provided by research.
Examples of research needs include:
development/testing of water reuse techniques to maximize
effectiveness in specific locations/regions;
design of techniques and models to improve accuracy ire
quantifying the contributions of various pollutant sources;
development of improved indicators or biosensors of water
quality and habitat degradation;
assessment of the contribution of groundwater to estuarine
habitat/water quality degradation;
design of improved techniques to create value-added
products from various waste sources;
development of improved methods for constructing habitats
with adequate functioned value to replace lost natural habitats; also
development of improved techniques for restoring functional value to
degraded wetlands, seagrass beds, and other vital estuarine habitats
for our fisheries; and
characterization of the full extent of chronic and
sublethal impacts from major pollutant loadings on both aquatic
communities (especially early life history stages) and the health of
people who live and work near the affected estuarine waters.
Lastly, but arguably of greatest importance in information
acquisition is the need to support research in natural resource
economics, so that the full value of both short-term and the long-term
goods (products) services (filtering pollutants, flood control, habitat
provision, aesthetics in attracting, tourism, etc.) that are
contributed by estuaries can be accurately appraised and imparted to
our citizens.
A third major ingredient to maximize progress in restoration of our
nation's estuaries will be to promote development of comprehensive
environmental education and outreach programs that begin in pre-school,
extend to high school and college, and continue to touch all citizens
throughout their lives.\9\ Such programs are needed in every state from
the heartland to the coasts--for example, a major body of research now
indicates that the ca. 700 square-mile zone of low-oxygen that extends
out from the Mississippi delta along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana has
resulted, in large measure, from pollution carried, from north-central
states down the Mississippi River. The receiving estuary is impacted by
states far removed from coastal Louisiana, and restoration will not be
possible without understanding, cooperation, and assistance from the
heartland states 'upstream.' Federal, state and local programs that
encourage responsible development should be developed/strengthened,
with the goal of restoring and maintaining the high-quality waters and
habitat, needed to sustain our fishery resources.
The fourth major area of emphasis that will be required to minimize
success in estuary restoration will be to work to both significantly
improve enforcement of existing laws aimed at conservation (wise use)
of estuarine resources, and to strengthen legislation where needed.\1\
Many laws designed to protect or improve water quality in our rivers
and receiving estuaries would go far toward achieving widescale
estuarine restoration, if they were meaningfully enforced. It is
imperative that the set of tasks that must be undertaken to accomplish
this goal include development of a strong incentive program to
encourage all participants to both want to follow existing laws and to
have the means afforded for that to be possible. Innovative, creative
programs will be required, and must be developed, to increase the
funding support that will he needed to achieve this extremely important
goal. They are within reach;\1\ this country is great, in large
measure, because of people through our history who have contributed
creative, constructive thinking in solving major problems. As
previously mentioned, many impacts on estuaries from human activities
originate upstream. States should enact/strengthen a freshwater
wetlands protection statute, similar to those that are available in
many coastal states for saltwater wetlands. This freshwater wetlands
statute should provide incentives to private landowners to conserve
these important habitats for water quality control. Such improvements
will need to be accompanied by changes in the current ``turfdom'' of
estuarine resource management in order to achieve a more integrated
approach among, for example, fishery and water quality managers.\1\
Efforts are also needed to strengthen the success of the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA). Partnerships at state levels should work to
create programs to provide the fiscal resources and technical
assistance to local governments in preparing and implementing high-
quality land use plans.\1\ Moreover, the design of land use plans
should be altered so that these plans are required to consider the
cumulative and secondary impacts of growth not only on development of
the land itself, but also on water quality and water supply. For
example, at present, land use plans developed under CAMA are not
require to assess the carrying capacity of adjacent waters to
assimilate the additional wastes that would be associated with expanded
community growth and development. The greatest progress in restoring
our estuaries will be accomplished when that connection can be realized
in the increasingly urbanized coasts setting.
references
\1\ Coastal Futures Committee (1994) Charting a Course for our
Coasts--Report to the Governor. Final Report to recommend changes in
coastal resource policy in North Carolina on the 20th anniversary of
the Coastal Area Management Act. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Raleigh, 106 pp. Note: Dr.
Burkholder was the only scientist on the committee, and represented the
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission.
\2\Miller, G.T. (1992, 1997) Living in the Environment. Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont (CA).
\3\ Office of Technology Assessment (1987) Wastes in Marine
Environments. U.S. Congress, OTA-0-334. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
\4\Kennish, M.J. (1994) Practical Handbook of Marine Science, 2d
edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, LA.
\5\Postel, S. (1997) Last Oasis--Facing Water Scarcity. W.W. Norton
& Company, New York, NY.
\6\Bryant, D. E. Rodenburg, T. Cox & D. Nielsen (1995) Coastlines
at Risk: An Index of Potential Development-Related Threats to Coastal
Ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, District of
Columbia.
Deichmann, U. (1996) A Review of Spatial Population Data base
Design and Modeling. National Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis Technical Report 96-3 (March). Santa Barbara, California.
\7\ Burkholder, J.M. K.M. Mason & E.J. Glasgow Jr. (1992) Water-
column nitrate enrichment promotes decline of eelgrass Zostera marina:
evidence from seasonsal mesocosm experiments Marine Ecology Progress
Series, vol 81, pp. 163-178.
Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C Stevenson, V. Carter, S.
Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom & R.A. Batiuk (1993) Assessing water quality
with submerged aquatic vegetation. BioScience, vol. 43, pp. 86-94
\8\Sindermann, C.J. (1996) Ocean Pollution--Effects on Living
Resources and Humans. CRC Press, Coca Baton, LA.
\9\Burkholder, J.M., H.J. Noga, C.W. Hobbs, H.B. Glasgow Jr. & S.A.
Smith (1992) New ``phantom'' dinoflagellate is the causative agent of
mayor estuarine fish kills. Nature, volume 358, pp. 407-410; and
mature, vol. 359, p. 760.
\10\ Burkholder, J.M. (1997) Implications of harmful marine
microalgae and heterotrophic dinoflagellates in management of
sustainable fisheries. National Academy of Sciences special issue on
sustainable marine fisheries. Ecological Applications Supplement, vol.
8, pp. S37-S62.
\11\Burkholder, J.M. &. H.B. Glasgow Jr. (1997) Pfiesteria
piscicida and other Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates: Behavior, impacts,
and environmental controls. Limnology & Oceanography, vol. 42, pp.
1052-1075
\11\Boesch, D.F. (ed.) (1997) The Cambridge Concensus--Forum on
Land-Based Pollution and Toxic Dinoflagellates in Chesapeake Bay.
University of Maryland, Cambridge.
\12\Glasgow, H.B. Jr., J.M. Burkholder, D.E. Schmechel, P.A. Tester
& P.A. Rublee (1995) Insidious effects of a toxic dinoflagellate on
fish survival and human health. Journal of Toxicology & Environmental
Health. volume 46, pp. 101-122.
\13\Grattan, L.M., D. Oldach,. T.M. Perl, M H. Lowitt, D.L.
Matuszak, C. Dickson, C. Parrott, R.C. Shoemaker, M.P. Wasserman, J.R.
Hebel, P. Charache & Job. Moms Tr. (1998) Problems in learning and
memory occur in persons with environmental exposure to waterways
containing toxin-productng Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like
dinoflagellates. The Lancer (accepted).
______
Statement of J. Walter Milon, Professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida
Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee: I thank you for the opportunity to present a brief
summary of research on the economic value of the Indian River Lagoon,
an estuary of national significance and part of the Environmental
Protection Agency's National Estuary Program. The information presented
here is derived from a study I coordinated as part of a team organized
by Apogee Research Inc., a nationally recognized leader in
environmental and natural resource economics. This study was sponsored
by the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) and the
St. Johns River Water Management District, the state sponsor for the
IRLNEP. The study is presented as one documented example of the value
of estuaries nationwide.
The Indian River Lagoon, one of the nation's most biologically
diverse estuaries, stretches 156 miles along Florida's east coast
spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin counties.
These five counties are home to more than 1 million residents and host
more than 6 million visitors each year. The number of residents in the
five counties of the Lagoon is expected to increase from 1.25 million
to 1.54 million between 1995 and 2005--a 24 percent increase in 10
years.
In developing estimates of the economic value of an environmental
resource such as an estuary it is important to consider the scope and
extent of human activity related to that resource. The accompanying
Table 2-4 (from Section 2 of the report Economic Assessment and
Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon which is included as Addendum A)
shows the scope of activities considered in the Indian River Lagoon
study. These activities range from traditional economic uses such as
the value of commercial and recreational harvests from the Lagoon to
more intangible economic values such as the enhancement of land values
adjacent to the resource and individuals' values for preserving the
resource. The full report presents the valuation methodologies and data
collection used in the study so I will not describe those here.
The results summarized in Table 2-4 show the importance of the
Lagoon to the economy of the region in 1995. Recreational fishing by
residents and tourists was estimated to contribute approximately $340
million per year; swimming, boating, water sports, and nature
observation activities around the Lagoon contributed another $287
million annually. Commercial harvesting of shellfish such as clams,
oysters, and crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually. In
addition, residential land values were enhanced by the presence of the
Lagoon in the amount of approximately $825 million (see Table 2-1 in
Section 2) which can be expressed as an annualized value of $33
million. Collectively, the direct values associated with the Lagoon on
an annual basis amounted to more than $725 million.
These Lagoon-dependent activities create additional indirect
impacts on the regional economy. Businesses related to recreation,
tourism, and fisheries generate nearly $4 billion or about 17 percent
of total output within the region (see pp. 10--12 of Addendum B).
Resident and tourist spending for Lagoon related activities accounted
for more than 19,000 jobs in the region.
These measures of the economic contribution of the Indian River
Lagoon can be compared to the costs of implementing the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) developed as part of the
IRLNEP. The CCMP includes recommendations to maintain and restore the
Lagoon through water quality management and habitat protection. These
costs were estimated to be less than $18 million annually (see pp. 12--
14 of Addendum B) indicating that the costs of sustaining the
activities dependent on the Lagoon are modest relative to their
economic contribution within the region. Properly designed funding
plans could spread these costs equitably so that the average citizen in
the region would pay no more than $10 per year. In addition, public
surveys conducted for this study showed that residents would be willing
to pay more than three times the estimated annual cost to implement the
CCMP (see Addendum A, pp. 2-12--2-13).
The results of this study, while limited to a single estuary, help
to illustrate the economic importance of estuaries in regional
economies and the linkage between environmental quality and economic
development. The economy of the Indian River Lagoon region depends upon
the ecosystem services provided by the estuary and future development
within the region will be linked to adequate maintenance of the health
of this ecosystem. Studies such as the one I am reporting to you are an
integral link in helping citizens and public officials understand the
relationship between the health of estuaries and local economies (see
Addendum C for a supporting statement from the St. Johns River Water
Management District).
I hope this information will be useful to the Committee. I will
gladly provide you with any details about this study or any other
information about economic valuation of environmental and natural
resources that would assist the committee in its deliberations.
______
Addendum A to the Written Statement of J. Walter Milon
``Estimated Economic Value of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995''
section 2 of economic assessment and analysis of the indian river
lagoon--natural resource valuation of the lagoon.
report submitted to the finance and implementation task force, indian
river lagoon national estuary program by apogee research, inc. in
association with resource economics consultants, inc. january 1996.
Introduction
The Indian River Lagoon as an Economic Asset
The Indian River Lagoon is many things to many different people: it
offers unique vistas of tropical habitats and barrier islands; it
supports a diverse array of flora and fauna; it attracts people to
live, visit, and enjoy the region's natural amenities; it supports
industries and jobs from renewable resources; and, in its entirety, it
is one ofthe most unique ecosystems in the United States.
Some may assert that it is highly presumptuous to assume that
economic value can measure the worth of this ecosystem to society.
There are several reasons why a measure of economic value for the
Indian River Lagoon is useful and indeed critical to the success of
proposed resource management programs. First, in a society that
frequently gauges the importance of objects and places by their
monetary value, information about the economic value of a natural
resource may enhance public understanding of the contributions that
resource makes to the community. Second, information about the economic
value of the Lagoon can help to establish priorities for the use of
public funds to maintain its value. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, economic value information is necessary to evaluate the
economic merits of action plans developed by the Management Conference
for the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
Economic value information presented in this volume is based on
both primary (newly collected for the specific purposes of this study)
and secondary data (collected previously for other studies). Where
applicable secondary data were available from previous economic or
biologic studies or surveys of Indian River Lagoon, those data were
utilized. However, in at least three areas existing data were
insufficient or inadequate and required the collection of primary data:
A critical lack of data for all types of recreational
activities (fishing, swimming. boating, nature study) within the
Lagoon. Most ofthe available data did not identify if these activities
occurred within the Lagoon or in the adjoining Atlantic Ocean.
No activity- and site-specific estimates of the nonmarket
values associated with recreational activities within the Lagoon.
No estimates of passive use values ofthe Lagoon.
In order to provide the necessary primary data, two separate
surveys were conducted. A telephone survey collected information from
residents of Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin
Counties, while an intercept survey collected information from
nonresident visitors. Visitors were surveyed at Sebastian Inlet State
Park, Ron Jon Surf Shop in Cocoa Beach. Melbourne International
Airport, Mangrove Mattie's at Ft. Pierce Inlet, and the Kennedy Space
Center. The data collected in the surveys were used to develop:
1. Participation rates and economic values for recreational
activities in the Lagoon by both area residents and nonresident
visitors;
2. Estimates of willingness to pay for Lagoon restoration and
management programs; and
3. Estimates of passive use values.
The survey results, questionnaires and methodology are summarized
in this section and described in detail in Section 3 and Appendices 3-A
through 3-E.
Other elements of the economic valuation of the Indian River Lagoon
summarized in this section address three areas:
1. The effects of riverfront location on residential property
value, discussed in Section 4,
2. The value to recreational anglers of access to the Lagoon and of
increased catch rates for their targeted species, discussed in Section
5, and
3. The value of commercial shellfishing for Lagoon-dependent
species, discussed in Section 6.
The following subsection introduces concepts important to
understanding economic valuation.
Types of Economic Value
The broadest, and perhaps most straightforward, distinction to make
in economic valuation is between market and nonmarket values. Market
values are the most common type of dollar values measured because
market values result from the normal day-to-day transactions for
private goods such as food, clothing, and household goods. Market
values are relatively easy to identify as long as information is
available about the total volume of the transactions.
On the other hand, nonmarket values are values that people have for
goods they enjoy but for which there are no explicit transactions to be
monitored and therefore no readily available dollar values from such
transactions. For example, when a recreational angler decides to fish
in the Lagoon, he or she derives value from the fishing experience yet
does not have to make an explicit payment for the right to fish (other
than a license, if required). The fact that the angler does not pay for
the right to fish is a result of the ``public good'' nature of the
Lagoon. That is, the Lagoon is not owned by any entity, rather it is a
resource held in common by the public. By way of comparison, if the
angler had instead decided to go bowling, he would have had to pay for
the recreational activity according to the time of participation (e.g.,
number of frames or games). The amount the angler would be willing to
pay to fish is the proper measure of the nonmarket value of
recreational fishing in the Lagoon. But, since no transaction actually
occurs, some method must be used to identify this nonmarket value.
Recreational fishing also provides a good example of an activity
that has both market and nonmarket value components. Since the angler
may incur certain expenses to go fishing in the Lagoon (e.g., bait,
fuel expenses, and equipment), he has revealed a willingness to pay the
market price for goods and services that accompany the fishing
experience. This is a measure of the market value of recreational
fishing. Combining this market value with a measure of the nonmarket
value yields the total economic value of recreational fishing,
generally
Total Economic Value = Market Value + Nonmarket Value
Many activities that utilize the resources of the Lagoon such as
recreational boating, swimming, and nature study have both market and
nonmarket values. Therefore, a complete valuation of the Lagoon must
consider the total economic value whenever appropriate. Some
activities, however, may be fully valued in the market and have no
nonmarket value component. Other activities, such as passive viewing of
the Lagoon or a concern that the resources of the Lagoon continue to
exist for future generations (referred to as existence value), have no
market value component and would be measured solely by nonmarket value.
A second important distinction in the types of economic values is
between direct and indirect values. Direct values are the result of an
explicit. causal linkage to an activity. For example, the sales of fish
landings of the commercial fishing industry is an expression of the
value of the waters and especially the quality of the water of the
Indian River Lagoon since the industry harvests the commercially
valuable (market) products of the marine ecosystem. Similarly,
recreational anglers' activities have a direct value that is explicitly
linked to the Lagoon. On the other hand, indirect values are less
explicit and difficult to link with resources. For example, a boat
manufacturer located near the Lagoon may have higher sales due to
recreational boating activities on the waters of the Lagoon. But the
Lagoon has only an indirect value to the manufacturer because boats can
be sold in other markets or used in other water bodies and the
manufacturer's output is not tied as directly to the Lagoon as is the
commercial fisherman's output.
This report addresses only the direct economic values of human
Lagoon-related activities. as indirect values are beyond the scope of
the study. The analysis includes both market and nonmarket uses of the
Lagoon, and estimates in Section 3 a passive use value from willingness
to pay data collected in the surveys of residents and nonresident
visitors.
Economic values for recreation activities and passive use developed
from the surveys are based on the contingent valuation method (CVM).
This widely applied method uses survey questions to elicit people's
values for goods and services that are not provided through traditional
market processes. The questions are typically designed to measure an
individual's willingness to pay for a good or service, whether enjoyed
actively or passively. The question format may be developed to create a
hypothetical market or a hypothetical referendum. The hypothetical
referendum is designed to elicit from the respondent an estimate ofthe
increase in his or her value resulting from a choice, such as
supporting increased stormwater management for Lagoon environmental
quality improvement. \1\ This referendum format was used in both the
resident and nonresident surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Questions asked respondents directly what he/she would be
willing to pay in the form of an increase in local taxes for certain
programs to improve Lagoon environmental quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hypothetical referendum applied to estimate a willingness to
pay for Lagoon CCMP programs by its nature generates somewhat
subjective dollar values. Because the individual is responding to an
interview rather than an actual purchasing or decision-making
situation, his or her statement of willingness to pay is made without
an actual consideration of affordability or ability to pay. The
respondent does not have to open a wallet or check book before stating
a willingness to pay. He probably does not consider what purchases he
may have to delay or forego in order to state his willingness to pay.
Willingness to pay estimates of dollar value are therefore
approximations.
The following four subsections of Section 2 describe the analytical
approach and the results of the economic valuation:
Lagoon riverfront location effects on residential
property value;
Market and nonmarket value of resident and nonresident
recreational activities;
Resident and nonresident willingness to pay for Lagoon
environmental quality; and
Market value of commercial fishing.
A fifth subsection assembles and summarizes economic values.
Lagoon Riverfront Residents Land Value
The influence of the presence and environmental quality of a
waterbody, particularly in coastal areas, on the value of adjacent or
nearby land is significant. The value that people have for the Lagoon
is partially capitalized \2\ in the prices of land in proximity to the
Lagoon with the result that land parcels located near or on the
riverfront can be expected to command higher prices than parcels
further from the riverfront. Both market and nonmarket values, such as
the aesthetic value of the Lagoon view, may be capitalized in land
value. The difference between the aggregate value of land near or on
the Lagoon riverfront and the aggregate value of parcels more remote
from the riverfront is an approximate measure of the capitalized value
that people have for the Lagoon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Capitalized value may be defined as the present value of a
stream of benefits obtained from the land over the anticipated
ownership period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To approximate the capitalized value, the study obtained appraised
residential-use land value data developed by county property
appraisers. The staff of Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, Indian River,
St. Lucie and Martin counties provided parcel counts and appraised land
values for riverfront and nonriverfront residential use property.
County data files permitted only riverfront land to be distinguished
from nonriverfront land; the value effects of location near, as opposed
to on, the riverfront could not be estimated. The analysis performed
with the data addresses the impact on land value only and not
improvements to land. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An analysis of the effect of riverfront location was not made
for improvements to land because of the uncertainty in the data
introduced by the wide variation in improvements. Nevertheless, the
value of improvements made to riverfront residential properties is
informative. Appraised value of improvements to riverfront property
range from $431 million in Brevard County to $89 million in St. Lucie
County. The total appraised value of improvements aggregated across the
five counties is approximately $1.17 billion. Since these appraised
values are approximately 85 percent of market value, the aggregate
market value of improvements is about $1.4 billion. In contrast to
values for land alone discussed above, the value of improvements is
only partially attributable to riverfront location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2-1, in the five-county region the difference in
residential land appraised value attributable to Lagoon riverfront
location is approximately $700 million. Considering that the county
appraised land values are approximately 85 percent of estimated market
value, consistent with Florida Department of Revenue Guidelines, \4\
the difference in residential land market value attributable to Lagoon
riverfront location would be about $825 million ($700 million divided
by 0.85). This figure is an underestimate ofthe actual influence ofthe
Lagoon on land values since it includes residential riverfront only and
not all land in proximity to the Lagoon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Florida Administrative Code 12D-8002 (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a county-by-county basis, as Shown in Table 2-1, the difference
in appraised land value attributable to the Lagoon ranges from $304
million in Brevard County, which includes about half of the length of
the Lagoon system, to $69 million in St. Lucie County. In the case of
Volusia County, about half of the north-south dimension of the county
is within the Lagoon region and half is within the Halifax River
Region; therefore half, or $100 million, of the total Volusia County
difference in appraised land value attributable to estuaries and their
tributaries is included in the aggregate $700 million.
In order to compare the capitalized land values with other annual
dollar flows estimated in this study, the land values must be converted
to annual dollar flows. These approximate capitalized values may be
converted to annual flows by the simple exercise of multiplying the
capital value by a discount rate that represents the time value of
money. That is, the discount rate selected should exclude risk and
inflation expectations normally contained in market interest rates. A
risk-free interest rate is represented by 30-year U.S. government
bonds. As of August 31, 1995, the 30-year bond rate was 6.6 percent.
\5\ This rate is adjusted to exclude inflation expectations by
deducting the 1994 rate of inflation, or 2.6 percent. \6\ Therefore the
analysis used a discount rate of 4.0 percent (6.6 less 2.6) to convert
capitalized land values to an annual flow. The annualized total market
value of riverfront location is approximately $33 million ($825 million
multiplied by 0.04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wall Street Journal, 31 August 1995.
\6\ Carol McLarty, oral communication, 8 September 1995. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another approach to examining the difference in value attributable
to Lagoon riverfront location is to develop certain ratios for
comparison. A ``value indicator'' may be constructed by relating
percentage of value and percentage of parcel count for both riverfront
and nonriverfront land. as detailed in Section 4 of this report. The
ratio of the value indicator for riverfront land to that for
nonriverfront land relates the relative value of the two locations.
Table 2-2 summarizes the results of this exercise for the five
counties. Volusia County demonstrates the highest ratio of riverfront
to nonriverfront value at 8.1 while Brevard County demonstrates the
lowest ratio at 4.6. In other words, this comparison suggests that
riverfront land in Brevard County is 4.6 times as valuable as
nonriverfront, while in Volusia County riverfront land is 8.1 times as
valuable as nonriverfront.
While land values are not as sensitive to incremental improvements
in environmental quality of the Lagoon as recreational and commercial
fishing values, it is clear that a significant value is associated with
the Lagoon presence. Deteriorating environmental conditions in the
Lagoon over the long term could negatively affect the value of
riverfront property.
Table 2-1. Incremental Value of Residential Land Attributable to the Indian River Lagoon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Riverfront Nonriverfront Average Value of Land
County Average Average Parcel Attributable Market
Parcel Parcel Difference to Riverfront Value\1\
Value in Value Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volusia\2\............................. $132,919 $15,937 $116,981 $100,077,000 $117,738,000
Brevard................................ 106,351 23,174 83,177 303,930,000 357,565,000
Indian River........................... 237,197 31,429 205,768 90,949,000 106,999,000
St. Lucie.............................. 71,928 12,578 59,350 69,025,000 81,206,000
Martin................................. 212,136 40,389 171,128 137,066,000 161,254,000
Total.............................. $125,362 $20,548 $104,814 $701,047,000\3
\ $821,762,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Appraised value divided by 85 percent, as discussed in text.
\2\Volusia County entries are adjusted to recognize that roughly half of the north-south dimension of the county
is within the Lagoon basin (Mosquito River) and half is within the Halifax River basin. Since county parcel
counts and values could not be separated for the two basins, the total numbers of each are simply divided in
half. Thus the value of Indian River Lagoon riverfront residential land in Volusia County is estimated at
$100.1 million, while the total value of all estuarial riverfront land (Mosquito River plus Halifax River) is
$200.2 million.
\3\The total value calculated vertically will not equal the total calculated horizontally because of statistical
anomalies in the data. The statistically non-normal distribution of the nonriverfront parcel values reduces
the average nonriverfront parcel value, which in turn inflates the average riverfront parcel value and the
average difference. Thus when the average riverfront parcel value is multiplied by the total riverfront parcel
count, the product is overestimated.
Table 2-2. Comparison of Riverfront and Nonriverfront Value Indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverfront Value of
County Value Nonriverfront Riverfront to
Indicators Value Indicators Nonriverfront
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volusia.......................................................... 7.91 0.98 8.1
Brevard.......................................................... 4.21 0.92 4.6
Indian River..................................................... 7.15 0.95 7.5
St. Lucie........................................................ 5.46 0.95 5.7
Martin........................................................... 4.9 0.93 5.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Recreational Activities
The two surveys conducted in this study sought to identify the
types of recreational activities, rates of participation in those
activities, and value of market expenditures made for those activities
by both residents and nonresident visitors to the five counties ofthe
Indian River Lagoon.
As detailed in Section 3 and associated appendices, a stratified,
random digit dialing telephone survey of 1,000 adult (at least 18 years
of age) residents was conducted in February and March of 1995. Two
hundred interviews were conducted in each county, resulting in sampling
error rates of + 3 percent for the region and + 8 percent for each
county (with a 95 percent level of confidence in both cases).
The nonresident visitor survey was completed during April and May
1995, using personal interviews with adults who are not Florida
residents. A total of 500 interviews were completed. producing a
sampling error rate of + 4.5 percent. Interviews were conducted at five
popular visitor destinations in the region. Sebastian Inlet, Ron Jon
Surf Shop, Melbourne Airport. Mangrove Matties and Kennedy Space
Center. Due to limited information on visitor populations in individual
counties, the survey results cannot be evaluated for individual
counties.
Recreational Participation
Survey results indicate that participation in water-based
recreation in the Indian River Lagoon is significant for both residents
and visitors. Resident respondents indicated a 24 percent participation
rate in recreational fishing and 17 percent in boating, as shown in
Figure 2-1. Visitors indicated a heavier preference for swimming and
nature observation, with participation rates at 55 percent \7\ and 48
percent, respectively, as shown in Figure 2-2. Overall, the results
indicate that a large share of nonresident visitors associate their
recreational activities with the Lagoon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The swimming participation rate for visitors seems high,
particularly in comparison with the rate for residents at 9 percent.
While visitors may correctly report that 55 percent swim in the Lagoon,
a potential problem could be that visitors did not distinguish the
Lagoon from the ocean and are really reporting swimming in the ocean.
This issue is discussed further in Section 3 This high participation
rate and possible confusion is reflected in a very high dollar value
for visitor swimming, as discussed below and shown in Figure 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Value
Total annual recreational expenditures by residents are estimated
by multiplying the per person participation rate for each recreational
activity times each county estimated 1993 population (from the 1994
Florida Statistical Abstract, Table 1.35). The multiplication product
is then multiplied by the average respondent-estimated annual
expenditures for that recreational activity. Total annual recreational
expenditures by visitors are similarly estimated by multiplying the per
party estimates given by those surveyed times the total number of
visitor parties. Resident recreational activities total $256.5 million
across the five counties, with recreational fishing at $149.1 million
representing over half of the total as shown in Figure 2-3. The largest
single activity value for visitors is swimming at $112.2 million, which
reflects the high participation rate reported, but may also reflect
some confusion between swimming in the Lagoon and swimming in the
Atlantic Ocean. Total 1995 visitor recreational expenditures are $230.9
million, including recreational fishing expenditures estimated at $43.3
million. Visitor expenditures are summarized in Figure 2-4.
Combined estimated 1995 recreational expenditures of both residents
and visitors surveyed total $487.4 million. The combined estimated
expenditure for recreational fishing and shellfishing alone totals
$198.5 million, demonstrating the significance of recreational fishing
in the economic value of the Lagoon. These expenditures for fishing as
well as the other activities represent the estimated market value of
the recreational activities, as discussed earlier. Table 2-3 summarizes
both resident and visitor respondent-estimated expenditures for
recreational activities in the region (Section 3 and related appendices
provide more detail).
While a nonmarket value also exists for all of these activities in
the form of the value of access to the activities which exceeds the
cost of the activities (in economic parlance, consumer surplus).
collecting and analyzing the necessary data is beyond the scope of this
study. However, because data were already available for recreational
fishing, the value of access to the Lagoon for resident recreational
fishing is estimated in this report. The data \8\ utilized were
collected for the Indian River Lagoon region in 1992. Section 5
describes in detail the development and application of statistical
techniques known as random utility travel cost models with which the
value of access is estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey, 1992, developed
by the National Marine Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, with an add-on component titled the
University of Florida Participation Survey. See J. W. Milon and E. M.
Thunberg, ``A Regional Analysis of Current and Future Florida Resident
Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing (Report SGR-I 12).''
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using travel cost model techniques, the annual value of access to
the Lagoon for recreational fishing by residents is estimated to range
from $589 per angler in Martin County to $110 per angler in Se. Lucie
County. Extending the per angler values across 1995 county populations
and participation rates yields a total nonmarket access value of $140
million per year for recreational fishing in the Indian River Lagoon.
Table 2-3. Estimated 1995 Expenditures for Lagoon-Related Recreation
(Millions of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Activity Resident Visitor Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing and Shellfishing........ $155.2 $43.3 $198.5
Swimming........................ 23.7 112.2 135.9
Boating......................... 49.1 9.5 58.6
Nature Observation.............. 22.2 65.8 88.0
Water Sports.................... 4.8 N/A 4.8
Hunting......................... 1.5 0.1 1.6
Total Expenditures.......... $256.5 $230.9 $487.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual total economic value of resident recreational fishing
may be approximated by adding the estimated nonmarket access value of
$140 million to estimated expenditures of $155.2 million. providing an
estimated $295.2 million for the annual total economic value of
recreational fishing by residents of the five-county Lagoon region.
Adding the estimated visitor expenditures for recreational fishing,
$43.3 million, yields an estimated total value for Lagoon recreational
fishing of $338.5 million per year. Since this study does not include
the Lagoon access value to visitors. $,38.5 million is only a partial
estimate of the total economic value of recreational fishing to all
anglers enjoying the Indian River Lagoon.
Willingness to Pay for Lagoon Environmental Quality
Perception of Present Lagoon Environmental Quality
In the surveys of residents and visitors, respondents were asked a
series of questions intended to elicit their perceptions of the
environmental quality of the Lagoon, their opinions of the relate the
effectiveness of environmental quality programs intended to improve the
quality of the Lagoon. and their willingness to pay for such programs.
On a scale of I (excellent) to 7 (very bad). residents rated the
present condition of the Lagoon at an average of 4.37. Since 4.37 is
significantly above the scale midpoint of 3.5, this average response
indicates a public perception that the Lagoon is somewhat deteriorated;
moreover, a majority of residents indicated that the Lagoon is either
continuing to deteriorate or staying the same.
Nonresident visitors, on the other hand, rated the Lagoon quality
at an average of 2.87. significantly lower than the scale midpoint 3.5.
This average response indicates a perception that the Lagoon is of
above average environmental quality. The majority of visitors also
responded that they had insufficient information to judge whether the
Lagoon is improving or deteriorating in quality. The results of the two
surveys show that residents have a more negative view of Lagoon
environmental conditions than those who visit the area for a short
time. This may reflect the poorer environmental quality of resources in
visitors' home regions and/or a ``halo effect'' of the vacation
experience in which the Lagoon appears highly aesthetic and therefore
above average in environmental quality because it is an unaccustomed
sight.
Perception of Lagoon Restoration and Improvement Programs
The resident survey included descriptions of three action plans
that are composites of several CCMP action plans. The several CCMP
action plans were combined into three composites in order to give
survey respondents a more complete picture and still stay within the
time constraints of the interviews. The survey asked the respondents to
give an opinion on the relative effectiveness of those action plans.
The composite action plans are:
Wetlands Protection--described simply as enforcing and
supporting conservation measures to limit development of privately
owned wetlands;
Land Acquisition--described as creating a public trust
fund to buy and maintain wetlands; and
Stormwater Management--described as limiting storm water
runoff and improving water quality.
The composite action plans are discussed in more detail in Section
3 and Appendix 3-A.
Respondents indicated that they perceive stormwater management most
likely to improve environmental quality in the Lagoon. Notably, this
priority was consistent across all five counties. Land acquisition was
perceived as the least effective plan, consistently across all five
counties.
Willingness to Pay for Lagoon Restoration and Management Programs
Resident willingness to pay for the stormwater management action
plan was consistent with the indicated perception of the plan's
potential effectiveness. The average annual household willingness to
pay for stormwater management is $58. The median value of annual
household willingness to pay is $40, the amount that 50 percent of the
respondents would be willing to pay for stormwater management. Land
acquisition has an average willingness to pay of $33 per household with
a median of $29, and wetland protection has an average willingness to
pay of $25 per household with a median of $19. Depending upon the
action plan, from 68 to 75 percent of respondents indicated their
willingness to pay for a program to improve the environmental quality
of the Lagoon.
The survey questionnaire also presented the three action plans as
``programs,'' alternatively combining two action plans. Those programs
which included stormwater management have higher means and medians than
those programs that do not have stormwater management. As discussed in
Section 3, the highest respondent annual willingness to pay for such a
combination is $66 (median $52) for a combined wetland/stormwater
management program Average willingness to pay for a total combined
program of all three action plans is $60 (median $30). Overall there
are relatively rumor differences between the composite plan
alternatives and the total program' suggesting a maximum amount that
residents are willing to pay for any program to improve the Indian
River Lagoon.
The survey of nonresident visitors asked if they would be willing
to pay a special tax on lodging and restaurant bills that would be
earmarked for these programs (note that no such tax is presently
contemplated). The average willingness to pay per visit by travel group
or party is $23 (median $25). Of The 500 respondents, 78 percent
indicated they are willing to pay some increase in tax.
Resident and Visitor Passive Use Values
The willingness to pay values for both residents and visitors
represent passive use values associated with the Indian River Lagoon.
Passive use value represents the preference that individuals may have
for natural resources such as the Lagoon that is in addition to current
direct uses of the resource. Passive use values may reflect an
individual's desire to use the resource in the future, to know that the
resource is available for others to use now or in the future, or simply
to know that the resource will continue to exist in its present or an
improved condition.
In the case of resident willingness to pay, statistical analysis
described in Section 3 and Appendix 3-E shows that the estimated values
are only weakly related to current direct uses of the Lagoon.
suggesting that nearly all of the estimated willingness to pay may be
characterized as passive use value. Aggregating the resident respondent
willingness to pay across the number of households in the region yields
a total estimated annual resident passive use value of $14.6 million to
$25.9 million, depending on whether average or median values are used.
Multiplying the mean nonresident visitor willingness to pay across
the estimated number of visitor travel groups or parties yields a total
of $29.9 million. Statistical analysis of nonresident visitor responses
in Appendix 3-E shows that a smaller share of this total may be
considered passive use value, as a larger share of their willingness to
pay is related to direct use motives than is the case with residents.
Market Value of Commercial Fishing
Over twenty species of commercially valuable shellfish and finfish
have traditionally been harvested from the Indian River Lagoon or are
dependent upon the Lagoon during some stage of their development. The
annual dockside value of the landings of both shellfish and finfish was
$12.8 million in 1992 and $17.0 million \9\ in 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Unpublished data, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 1, 1995, gill and entangling nets are prohibited in
Florida waters as the outcome of a 1994 voter referendum This study,
therefore, considers the market value of only those commercial species
which can be legally harvested: clams, blue crab (hard and soft shell),
shrimp, and oysters. Of the total 1992 landings, approximately $8.4
million or 66 percent was contributed by these four species. Of the
total 1994 Endings, $12.6 million or 74 percent was contributed by
shellfish (the increase is due almost exclusively to an increase in
clam harvests). The 1994 landings total of $12.6 million is used in
this study to estimate the contribution of commercial fishing to the
1995 total economic value of the Lagoon.
Section 6 of this report develops a statistical model based on the
historical relationship between submerged aquatic vegetation and
shellfish landings. The model is applied to simulate increases in value
of shellfish landings based on assumed increases in coverage of the
Lagoon floor with submerged aquatic vegetation and increases in the
reconnection of mosquito impoundments with the Lagoon. The model and
projected values can be used to estimate the change in value of the
commercial fishery in response to improved water quality and seagrass
coverage but are not a direct input to estimating the present, 1995
economic value ofthe Lagoon.
Estimated Economic Value of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995
The economic values estimated in this study are composed of:
Annual expenditures for recreational activity and the
nonmarket value of access to the Lagoon for recreational fishing;
Annual values in terms of willingness to pay for programs
to improve Lagoon environmental quality, and the expression of
willingness to pay as a passive use value for the Lagoon; and
The effect of Lagoon riverfront location on the value of
residential land.
The economic value of the Lagoon resource is approximated in this
study as annual flows of $487.4 million in market expenditures for
recreational activities, $140 million in nonmarket value of access to
the Lagoon for recreational fishing, $44.5 to $58.0 million in passive
use values of those who live and visit the Lagoon, $12.6 million for
commercial fishing value and $33 million annually in the incremental
value of residential land attributable to riverfront location. The
total estimated annual economic value of the Lagoon ranges from $717.4
to $730.9 million, depending upon whether one uses average or median
values for estimated passive use value. These values are displayed in
Table 2-4.
The annual economic value of the Lagoon is distributed across each
of the five counties in Table 2-5. Brevard County clearly enjoys the
greatest proportion of the Lagoon's annual economic value at $193.4
million, reflecting both the relatively long shore line and large
population of that county. Indian River County has the least proportion
of Lagoon annual economic value, consistent with a relatively short
shore hoe and small population compared to the other five counties in
the Lagoon region. Other demographic characteristics and recreational
levels which influence the distribution of economic value across the
counties are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this report. The
distribution of resident versus nonresident recreational expenditures
and activity levels is also discussed in detail in Section 3.
Commercial shellfishing estimates across the counties are not available
since the data are not collected by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection on a county-by-county basis.
It is important to note that these dollar values are approximations
based on statistical techniques that have wide acceptance and use in
the field of economics and specifically resource economics. Tables 2-4
and 2-5 thus show an approximate annual economic value of the Indian
River Lagoon that comprises the majority of human use and nonuse values
for the natural resource.
The annual economic value of the Lagoon is distributed across each
of the five counties in Table 2-5. Brevard County clearly enjoys the
greatest proportion of the Lagoon's annual economic value at $193.4
million, reflecting both the relatively long shore line and large
population of that county. Indian River County has the least proportion
of Lagoon annual economic value, consistent with a relatively short
shore line and small population compared to the other five counties in
the Lagoon region. Other demographic characteristics and recreational
levels which influence the distribution of economic value across the
counties are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this report. The
distribution of resident versus nonresident recreational expenditures
and activity levels is also discussed in detail in Section 3.
Commercial shellfishing estimates across the counties are not available
since the data are not collected by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection on a county-by-county basis.
It is important to note that these dollar values are approximations
based on statistical techniques that have wide acceptance and use in
the field of economics and specifically resource economics. Tables 2-4
and 2-5 thus show an approximate annual economic value of the Indian
River Lagoon that comprises the majority of human use and nonuse values
for the natural resource.
Table 2-4. Estimated Total Annual Economic Value of Human Uses
(Millions of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Total Use
Use Category Resident Use Value of Visitor Use Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Fishing and Shellfishing..................... $295.2 $43.3 $338.5
Swimming.................................................. 23.7 112.2 135.9
Boating................................................... 49.1 9.5 58.6
Nature Observation........................................ 22.2 65.8 88.0
Water Sports.............................................. 4.8 Included in boat
category 4.8
Hunting................................................... 1.5 0.1 1.6
Passive Use............................................... 14.6-25.9 29.9-32.1 44.5-58.0
Commercial Shellfishing................................... 12.6 Not applicable 12.6
Riverfront Residential Land............................... 33.0 Not applicable 33.00
Total Lagoon Value.................................... $456.6-467.9 $260.8-263.0 $717.4-730.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2-5. Estimated Total Annual Value of Human Uses of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995 By County
(Millions of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value by County
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Region Total
Use Category Volusia Brevard River St. Lucie Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Activities:
Fishing\1\................ $ 58.0 $ 124.3 $ 22.2 $ 31.3 $ 50.8 $286.6
Shellfishing.............. 2.5 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 6.1
Swimming.................. 6.7 7.6 3.1 2.8 3.5 23.7
Boating................... 5.6 27.5 3.7 4.9 7.5 49.1
Nature Observation........ 2.6 9.7 5.7 2.1 2.1 22.2
Water Sports.............. 0 2.1 1.0 1.1 0.5 4.8
Hunting................... 0 0 1.5 0 0 1.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Activities Sub-
total........................ 75.4 173.9 37.8 42.4 64.5 394.0
Passive Use (Residents)....... 4.9-8.7 5.2-9.2 1.2-2.2 1.9-3.4 1.4-2.4 14.6-25.9
Commercial Shellfishing....... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.6
Riverfront Residential Land... 4.7 14.3 4.3 3.2 6.5 33.0
TOTALS.................... 85.0-88.5 193.4-197.4 43.3-44.3 47.5-49.0 72.4-73.4 454.2-465.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes both estimated nonmarket values and estimated expenditures.
______
Addendum B to the Written Statement of J. Walter Milon
``Environmental Sustainability for a Healthy Economy in the Indian
River Lagoon Basin''
foreword
The Indian River stretches for 156 miles spanning Volusia, Brevard,
Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties. These five counties are
currently home to more than one million residents and in 1995 hosted
almost 6 million visitors. Last year, residents and visitors enjoyed 24
million recreation days fishing, boating, and swimming in the Lagoon,
or otherwise taking advantage of its natural beauty (One recreation day
is measured as one person engaged in one activity for one day. While
not everyone recreates, those that do, do so often. This is how
recreation day estimates can exceed population estimates.) Forecasters
expect that future recreational activity in the Lagoon will increase,
as more people are drawn to the area's enviable amenities.
Recreation and tourism are important parts of the regional economy
that together account for about half a billion dollars a year in
purchases of Lagoon-related goods and services. Other uses of the
Lagoon bring its total value to more than $730 million a year. These
purchases include goods and services supplied by businesses directly
related to recreation and tourism, such as surf shops and hotels, and
also by businesses that indirectly support recreation and tourism, such
as grocery stores and insurance companies. In 1995, Lagoon-based
recreation and tourism supported more than 19,000 jobs economy-wide and
generated more than $250 million in personal income for residents of
the five Indian River Lagoon counties.
Sustaining the Lagoon's economic contribution to the community
depends on the continued health and possible enhancement of Lagoon
ecology. It is not hard to imagine, for example, that in the absence of
management actions, unabated pollution, overuse, and other stressors
associated with the two percent annual population growth in the five-
county area could quickly degrade Lagoon resources.
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) of the
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) is the blueprint
for environmentally sustainable development in the watershed. The CCMP
specifically addresses priority problems that threaten environmental
sustainability and future recreational opportunities. It offers 69
separate recommendations that are designed to enhance Lagoon resources
and support economically important recreational activities, such as
fishing, shellfishing, boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and
nature observation. If implementing the CCMP prevents even a 10%
decline in the value of the Lagoon, it will sustain more than $70
million a year in economic benefits to the five counties within the
watershed.
Preserving the health of the Lagoon is not cost-free. But
investment in management actions to sustain or improve the health of
the ecosystem are good for the local economy and good for local
residents if its benefits exceed its Costs. Since the Lagoon is already
relatively clean and its living resources relatively plentiful, it
should not be surprising that costs of maintaining and improving this
healthy environment are modest.
Implementing the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program's
CCMP will cost less than $18 million a year, including about $7.4
million a year to continue selected on-going programs ant $10 million a
year for new activities such as wetlands creation and stormwater
management. This cost is small compared to the extensive investments in
the Lagoon being planned by local governments, the state of Florida,
and the federal government.
While these costs are reasonable and far less than the benefits one
could reasonably expect as a result, it's a fair question to ask
whether individuals in one area will pay more than individuals in
another. In fan, this turns out not to be the case since costs are
spread relatively evenly across the five-county region.
To illustrate the relative cost distribution, we can divide the
cost of new CCMP anions assigned to each county by the number of
households in each county. The average household in Volusia County
would pay the least, $17.66 a year, while the average household in
Indian River County would pay the most, $22.61 a year. Households in
Brevard, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties would pay $18.44, $20.13, and
$22.59 a year, respectively. The types of actions, scale of projects,
and number of households determine average costs. The difference
between the lowest and highest average household cost is small, about
the cost of a sandwich. This result indicates a relatively fair
distribution of CCMP costs across the region.
Interestingly, area residents are willing to pay between $52 and
$66 a year to implement the CCMP--roughly three times the average cost
per household--if CCMP actions result in a healthier ecosystem and
additional opportunities to fish, swim, and generally enjoy the
Lagoon's resources, according to a survey of 1,000 residents. Tourists
also said they want to support CCMP implementation and are willing to
pay about $9 a person per visit to improve the quality of the Lagoon.
To the extent visitor dollars help support implementation, as they will
through sales taxes, average costs to resident households will be less
than presented above.
Finding ways to pay for CCMP actions should not delay
implementation: benefits are high, Costs are reasonable and distributed
equitably, and residents and tourists are willing to pay more. Some
$7.4 million in CCMP actions are already financed from a variety of
sources including local wastewater and stormwater fees, SWIM funds,
property truces, federal grants, and special appropriations of the
Florida legislature. These and other, targeted sources of revenue also
are effective and efficient ways to finance new and expanded programs.
This document explains why the Indian River Lagoon CCMP's
scientifically-based management actions are needed to sustain an
environmentally healthy economy well into the next century and shows
that CCMP actions are cost-effective and fair. In concise detail, it
describes for residents and their elected officials how the CCMP can
deliver stronger local economies, increased revenues, and more jobs,
even as population grows and stress on natural systems increases. In
the years to come, we will point to our resource-rich watershed with
pride, knowing that our decisions today sustained a way of life unique
to the Indian River basin.
Derek Busby,
Director, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.
______
A Healthy Lagoon Supports Economically Valuable Recreation and Tourism
More than 1.25 million people live in the five counties bordering
the Indian River Lagoon. Last year, another 6 million visited the area.
Recreational opportunities and an enviable quality of life afforded by
Lagoon resources are a major reason people live in and visit the
region.
Lagoon-based recreational activity generates significant local
economic value--more than $730 million in 1995. This value is tied to
the estimated 24 million recreation days the Lagoon supported last
year, 14 million for residents and 10 million for tourists. A
recreation day is equal to one person engaged in one recreational
activity for a day. This is the same level of activity as the entire
population of Melbourne going fishing, boating, swimming, jetskiing,
windsurfing, hunting, or manatee watching on or near the Lagoon every
day ofthe year.
Recreational uses, along with other land and water-based
activities, however, can place stress on the Lagoon ecosystem. Angling
can reduce Lagoon fishery stocks, boats can be a source of water
pollution, and ocher motorized watercraft can disturb aquatic life in
sensitive areas. Surface runoff, discharge from wastewater treatment
planes, and improperly managed septic tanks also can impair the
Lagoon's health.
Protecting the Lagoon will be critical over the next ten years as
more people move to and visit the area. The number of residents in the
five IRL counties is expected to increase from 1.25 to 1.54 million
between 1995 and 2005. This would be an increase of 24 percent. If the
number of visitors increases at the same rate, by 2005 over 7.3 million
tourists will be coming to the region each year. At current
recreational participation rates, in ten years the Lagoon could be
providing almost 30 million recreation days, 6 million more than last
year.
CCMP Action Plans
Point Source Discharges: Ensure compliance with the IRL
Act and reduce or eliminate, where possible, industrial wastewater
discharges to the IRL.
On-Site Sewage Disposal: Determine the impacts of onsite
sewage disposal on the resources of the IRL and develop and implement
strategies to address these impacts.
Fresh and Stormwater Discharges: Develop and implement
strategies to address the impacts of freshwater and stormwater
discharges on the resource of the IRL.
Marinas and Boat Impacts: Engage the boating public and
marine industry as active participants in the protection and
restoration of IRL rcsources.
Biodiversity: Develop and implement a coordinated
research and management strategy to preserve, protect and restore
biodiversity in the IRL.
Land Acquisition: Develop and implement coordinated
strategy to protect environmentally endangered habitats within the IRL
basin through acquisition.
Wetlands: Preserve, protect, restore and enhance the
wetland resources of the IRL region.
Sea Grasses: Protect and restore so grass integrity and
function in the IRL by attaining and maintaining water quality capable
of supporting healthy submerged aquatic vegetation community to a depth
of 1.7 m.
The CCMP is a Blueprint for Environmentally Sustainable Growth
The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan, or the CCMP, is a blueprint for preserving Lagoon resources into
the next century, and as such, it is a guide for maintaining economic
prosperity in the IRL region.
The CCMP embraces the three primary goals of the Indian River
Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan, or IRL SWIM, a
program administered jointly by the St. Johns River and South Florida
water management districts. By adopting SWIM goals in its CCMP, the IRL
National Estuary Program recognizes the SWIM program's significant
planning and restoration accomplishments. The CCMP adds a fourth goal
that specifically addresses funding needs.
Indian River Lagoon CCMP Goals
I. To attain and maintain water and sediment of sufficient quality
to support a healthy estuarine Lagoon system.
II. To attain and maintain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which
supports endangered and threatened species, fisheries, commerce, and
recreation.
III. To achieve heightened public awareness and coordination of
interagency management of the Indian River Lagoon ecosystem.
IV. To identify and develop long term funding sources for
prioritized projects and programs to preserve, protect, restore, and
enhance the Indian River Lagoon system.
In 15 separate action plans (see sidebar), the CCMP specifically
addresses priority problems that threaten environmental sustainability
and future recreational opportunities. In the absence of management
actions tO avoid or minimize such threats, the Lagoon has a limited
ability to absorb human stress without degrading. This ability is
called carrying capacity.
When an ecosystem like the Indian River Lagoon reaches its carrying
capacity, environmental degradation occurs, recreation days decrease,
and economic values diminish Fortunately, carrying capacity is not
fixed. Management measures, such as those in the CCMP, can reduce
stressors, enhance the Lagoon's ability to replenish its resources, and
minimize the impacts of development on natural resources.
Within the 15 action plans, 69 separate recommendations are
designed to enhance Lagoon resources that support economically
important recreational activities, including fishing, shellfishing,
boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation. The
anion plans represent a combination of hands-on restoration work, such
as wetlands restoration, impounded marsh reconnection, sea grass
planting, and stormwater abatement projects. They also include art
array of actions that will strengthen and integrate on-going activities
and help make the most of available financial resources.
Many local, state, and federal organizations will help implement
the CCMP. The region's five counties--Volusia, Brevard, Indian, St.
Lucie, and Martin--as well as the 41 cities in the region will play
lead roles. The St. Johns and South Florida water management districts,
local water control districts, and other regional organizations,
including the Treasure Coast and East Central Florida regional planning
councils and the successor to IRLNEP also are key participants. State
and federal agencies will help fund CCMP implementation and provide
technical assistance. These include the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and Department of Community Affairs, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
CCMP Action Plans
Impounded Marsh Management: Restore the functions of marshes
impounded for mosquito control purposes.
Endangered and Threatened Species: Protect endangered and
threatened mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates
of the IRL.
Fisheries: Conserve and protect fin and shell fisheries of the IRL.
Public Involvement and Education: Facilitate implementation of the
IRL CCMP through public involvement and education.
Future Implementation: Establish a modified management structure
that will oversee the implementation of the IRL CCMP and provide for an
organization to support the activities of the modified management
conference.
Data and Information Management: Develop and implement a strategy
to coordinate the management and dissemination of data and information
concerning the IRL.
Monitoring: Develop and maintain a monitoring network which will
provide adequate and reliable data and information on water quality,
sediment quality and the biological resources of the IRL on which
management decisions may be based.
Just How Valuable is the Lagoon? $733 Million a Year
In 1995, the value of Lagoon resources to residents tourists was
more than $733 million. The bulk of this amount, $533 million, is
counted in direct expenditures, including recreational spending,
commercial shellfish landings, and the premium paid for Lagoon-front
property. This value is captured in everyday market transactions, such
as boat rentals, shellfish sales, and home purchases. These
expenditures to not include water-borne commerce, since shipping
generally is unaffected by water quality.
The Lagoon's total economic value also includes another $200
million that is not reflexed in market transactions. For example, the
value of fishing in the IRL is great enough that anglers are willing to
pay more than they currently spend for bait, fuel, and other items.
Additionally, residents and tourists are willing to pay more to
improve the Lagoon beyond what they already pay for environmental
programs (through taxes). These are often called nonmarket values and
they can be estimated and added to values that are more easily measured
in market transactions.
Lagoon-Based Recreational Spending Tops $487 Million Annually
Residents and tourists spent more than $487 million last year to
enjoy fishing, shellfishing,swimming, boating, other water sports,
nature observation, and hunting in and around the Lagoon. Residents
spent $257 million while visitors spent $231 million. Total spending
levels may be much higher as this figure does not include related
purchases of the more expensive recreational equipment that people
don't typically buy every year, such as boats or recreational vehicles.
The Lagoon Provided Shellfish Worth Almost $13 Million in 1994
Commercially harvested clams, oysters, crabs, and shrimp were worth
$12.6 million at the docks in 1994. Various finfish also contribute to
commercial landings, but it has been difficult to calculate their value
since July 1, 1995, when the ban on gill and entangling nets went into
effect and commercial finfishing practices changed dramatically. Even
before the ban, clams, shrimp, and crabs represented more than half of
the total value of all commercial fishing.
$825 Million in Property Values Are Tied to the Lagoon
Proximity to the Lagoon adds $825 million to market value of
Lagoon-front property relative to non-Lagoon-front property in the five
IRL counties. On an annual basis, the Lagoon generates $33 million a
year in value for residential landowners. This is because people pay a
premium to be on the water for aesthetics and convenience. Market
values of riverfront property range from $358 million in Brevard county
to $81 million in St. Lucie county, generally reflecting relative
length of each county's Lagoon shoreline.
Access to Lagoon Fishing Grounds is Valued at $140 Million a Year
Currently, anyone can fish in the Lagoon free of charge because it
is a public resource. That is to say, no organization, public or
private, charges an entry fee to fish. Anglers do of course pay modest
sums for fishing licenses and boat registration fees. They also pay
sometimes not so modest sums for boats, rods, and other fishing
equipment. The amount people spend on such fees and equipment generally
reflects only part of the value to them of fishing in the Lagoon. In
fan, many IRL anglers would be willing to pay more to fish in the
Lagoon, up to a certain dollar amount, before they would choose to fish
somewhere else.
Collectively, IRL residents are willing to pay up to $140 million
more a year than they currently pay to fish in the Lagoon, according to
a study prepared for IRLNEP. This value could increase to $200 million
by 2010, based on projected population and fishing participation rates.
Individual access values vary by county of residence. The average
angler living in Martin county is willing to pay $589 more a year to
fish in the IRL system, while the average angler living in St. Lucie
county is willing to pay $110 more a year.
Fishing access values are not the only kind of access value that
can be calculated. Based on the IRLNEP study, we can expect that
residents and tourists also would be willing to pay more than they
currently pay for other Lagoon-based recreational activities, such as
nature observation and boating. Estimates of these values have not been
developed, but they would certainly show that the value of Lagoon
resources is substantially higher than the $733 million per year
already estimated.
People Would Pay Up to $58 Million More to Protect the Lagoon
Residents care enough about the Lagoon that they are willing to pay
up to $26 million more each year to protect its resources. A survey
asked 1,000 IRL households about three environmental programs:
Stormwater Management--Residents said they would be willing to pay
the most for stormwater management, about SSO per household a year,
saying they believe limiting stormwater runoff will result in the
greatest water quality improvements.
Land Acquisition--Residents said they are willing to pay about $30
per household a year to create a public trust fund to buy and maintain
wetlands.
Wetlands Protection--Residents said they are willing to pay about
$22 year to enforce and support conservation measures to limit
development of privately owned wetlands.
When presented with a combination of these programs, respondents
said they would be willing to pay an average of $60 per household a
year, suggesting a maximum amount that residents are willing to pay for
any program to improve the Lagoon. Notably, residents are willing to
pay the most among three generic programs for the one that is not only
an environmental priority but that probably will be most expensive for
the region to implement: stormwater management.
In addition to the $26 million residents said they were willing to
contribute to Lagoon management, nonresidents said they would be
willing to pay up to $32 million more a year to support stormwater
management and wetlands protection programs for the Lagoon. A survey of
SOO nonresident visitors showed that the average travel party (2.75
people) is willing to pay an additional $23 per party each time they
visit the Lagoon if revenues were earmarked for the Lagoon.
The Lagoon Provides 19,000 Jobs and $250 Million in Annual Income for
IRL Residents
The Lagoon's value also can be measured by the number of jobs and
income associated with Lagoon-based activities, in addition to monetary
value of goods, services, and other values.
Lagoon-based recreation currently provides over 19,000 jobs. This
is equal to five times the workforce at Patrick Air Force Base, two and
a half times the workforce of Harris Corporation, and exceeds the
entire workforce of Cape Canaveral, including government employees,
contractors, and other on-site workers, by more than 3,000.
Lagoon-based recreation also currently provides $250 million in
personal income for area residents. This averages $200 a year per
resident, which could buy about 50 pounds of clams.
The CCMP Will Protect Lagoon Values and Create Benefits for the IRL
Community
The CCMP will do two things: at a minimum it will prevent further
degradation of the Lagoon ecosystem that would have occurred in the
absence of its management anions; and it will enhance the quality and/
or quantity of Lagoon resources beyond current levels. Both outcomes
will provide significant economic benefits to the IRL community.
In economic terms, a benefit is defined as an increase in value or
prevention of loss of value. If, as experts expect, the value of Lagoon
resources will decline as use increases, preserving any portion of
current value constitutes a benefit in the same way that increasing
current values creates a benefit.
The potential benefit of the CCMP can be illustrated in the
following example. Imagine that the economic value of Lagoon resources
will increase 5 percent with implementation of CCMP management actions,
but will decrease 5 percent without implementation. The economic
benefit of CCMP implementation under these assumptions is 10 percent of
the total value (the absolute difference between the two cases). In
this example, the CCMP is worth well over $70 million a year
(undiscounted) to the local economy.
Recall that by 2005, the Lagoon will be supporting millions more
recreation days and the cumulative effects could have significant
consequences for the Lagoon. It is not hard to imagine that in the
absence of CCMP management anions, pollution, overuse, and other
stressors associated with the two percent annual population growth rate
projected for the five counties could quickly degrade the Lagoon
ecosystem. With the CCMP, resource managers can maintain the Lagoon's
carrying capacity and continue to provide the recreational
opportunities that residents and visitors have come to expecta.
It is impossible to predict the exact value of the Lagoon with and
without the CCMP because our scientific understanding of complex
ecological cause and effect relationships is still evolving. Using
existing science, CCMP management anions have been specifically
targeted to address environmental problems that could threaten economic
sustainability. At a minimum, we can be sure that the CCMP will provide
an economic benefit for every dollar of value it preserves, as well as
every dollar of value it creates. Moreover, it is clear from the
analysis presented thus far and continued below that that the IRL
community has hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in its quest for
environmentally sustainable development.
Economic Gains in Lagoon-Based Recreation and Tourism are Multiplied
Throughout the IRL Economy
The economies of the five counties bordering the Indian River
Lagoon depend on healthy natural ecosystems for their welfare.
Businesses related to fisheries, recreation, tourism, and agriculture
generate about $4 billion worth of goods each year within Brevard, St.
Lucie, Volusia, Martin, and Indian River Counties. The economic sectors
comprising these natural resource-dependent businesses account for
about three quarters of the value of all primary goods (i.e., non-
service sector) in this region. Manufacturing, including everything
from T-shirts to semi-conductors, accounts for the remainder of the
non-service sector output.
In turn, much of the construction industry and retail trades depend
directly on the primary producing sectors for their livelihood. Hotels,
for example, are not built unless tourists want to visit the Indian
River Lagoon region. Retail shops depend on residents and tourists to
buy their goods; insurance agencies and bankers need local marinas,
tackle shops, and other Lagoon-related businesses to buy their
services. So in many ways, the regional economy depends on primary
economic sectors like recreation, tourism, agriculture, and
manufacturing to drive much of the activity in other areas of the
economy.
These interrelationships multiply any increase in the value of
Lagoon-based recreation and tourism throughout the regional economy,
increasing the total impact of CCMP implementation beyond what appears
in the recreation and tourism sector alone. Every time residents spend
$10 on recreation in the Indian River Lagoon, total sales in the region
increase by $12.40. The additional increase results from spending by
businesses like marinas, tackle shops, or grocery stores to buy more
goods for their shelves and pay their employees to continue operations.
Every time tourists spend $100 for a hotel room, total sales in the
region increase by $192. The additional increase results from hotel
owners' purchases of local supplies and services to keep the hotel
running. Suppliers to the hotel industry, in turn, reinvest portions of
their earnings in the local economy to supply their businesses.
Conservatively, residents and tourists spend $487 million a year on
Lagoon related activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating,
water sports, lodging, and restaurants this figure excludes purchases
of boats, recreational vehicles, and other major capital goods). When
this level of expenditure ripples through the regional economy, it
results in nearly $75O million worth of goods and services.
The tourism and recreation seaors also create thousands of jobs
within the five-counry region. For cxarnple, every $1 million in
tourist spending on Lagoon-based activities generates between 51 and 56
jobs, depending on whether it is spent in the lodging or retail seaor.
Simply preserving the quality of the Indian River Lagoon, therefore,
sustains more than 19,000 jobs across all five counties. Enhancing
water quality, increasing habitat, or providing additional points of
access to the Lagoon can generate thousands more jobs over the next 5
years.
All other things being equal, Florida economists predict IRL
economy will grow almost 16 percent between 1995 and 2000, implying an
increase of $81 million in the annual value of Lagoon-based recreation
and tourism. This presumes that the Lagoon continues to support its
current share of the economy. It also presumes that the quality and
quantity of Lagoon resources can be sustained, as the CCMP Is designed
to do.
Through the multiplier effect described above, an increase of this
magnitude will create another $43 million in local trade, for a total
impact of $124 million. This level of activity will add more than 3,000
new Jobs to the 19,000 currently supported by Lagoon-based economic
acuity. Such additional employment opportunities are comparable to
adding another Holmes Regional Medical Center or Rockwell International
to the list of local employers.
But What About Costs?
All told, the CCMP will cost slightly less than $18 million a year
over the first five years of CCMP implementation (the CCMP planning
period is five years). About $7.4 million of this represents Costs for
activities and programs that were on-going or planned before the CCMP
was developed. The $7.4 million includes more than $5 million for
managing fresh and stormwater discharges. Framers of the CCMP included
selected ongoing actions in the Plan to highlight important efforts and
facilitate integrating new CCMP anions into existing county, special
dstra, and other resource management plans.
Costs for new projects a little over $10 million a year. Almost all
of these new COStS, $8 million annually, are for technical engineering
studies and design work associated with reducing and managing fresh and
stormwater discharges. This work lays the foundation for construction
projects that will address fresh water and stormwater discharge
problems. At this time, COStS of actual construction are still being
estimated, but is reasonable to expect the total for the five-county
region will total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The remaining $2 million in new COStS includes a variety of in-the-
ground projects, such as muck removal, as well as a number of new
initiatives that will enhance planning and coordination among the
Lagoon's many stewards. The relative proportion of existing to new
COStS within CCMP action plans varies substantially. This variability
is more a function of the organization of actions among plans than
necessarily reflexive of past expenditures and future needs in any one
area.
Average Costs Per Family Will Be Modest
Bringing CCMP costs down to the household level helps to put them
into perspective. If all CCMP COStS, for already planned as well as new
activities, were divided equally among IRL households, each would pay
$33.81 a year. Existing programs would claim $14.17 and new initiatives
would capture the remaining $19.64. Remember that 1,000 IRL households
said they would be willing to pay an additional $60 a year to support
programs like those contained in the CCMP. The average cost of the CCMP
per household is roughly half of what the average household said such
programs were worth to them.
The truth is, however, that IRL residents will not bear the full
COSt of CCMP implementation. Floridians outside the IRL community will
contribute to state programs and water management district projects,
through state sales taxes and federal income taxes redistributed to the
state in the form of federal assistance. This will reduce the total
CoSt of the CCMP to the IRL community. American and foreign tourists
also will offset some CCMP costs by paying for implementation as sales
and other special taxes levied on the goods and services they purchase
while in the region flow to government programs.
Costs Are Spread Equitably Across the Five Counties
While COStS of implementing the IRL CCMP are reasonable and far
less than the benefits one could reasonably expect as a result, it's a
fair question to ask whether individuals in one area will pay more than
individuals in another. In fat, this turns out not to be the case since
costs are spread relatively evenly across the five-county region.
Together, all new CCMP costs represent less than one half of one
percent of each county's total annual personal income. If COStS of new
CCMP anions were paid entirely by residents (see above to see how this
will not be the case), the average citizen in Volusia County would pay
the least, $7.42 a year, while the average citizen in Indian River
County would pay the most, $9.50 a year. Citizens in Brevard, St.
Lucie, and Martin Counties would pay $7.75, $8.46, and $9.49 a year,
respectively.
For all intents and purposes, costs per person are the same in all
five counties. The difference between the highest and lowest average
cost per person is just barely enough to buy a Big Mac on Sarno
Boulevard with nothing left after sales tax, not even for a small soda.
Many Options Exist to Finance the Indian River Lagoon CCMP
Fortunately, paying for the CCMP can be relatively painless,
without any need to raid the region's piggy bank. Implementing agencies
have already allocated funds for slightly less than half of the Plan's
total costs. The IRLcommunity can pay for the remaining $10 million in
annual costs with a variety of revenue sources in ways that spread
costs equitably, place some responsibility on tourists that enjoy
Lagoon resources, and minimize burdens for any one group.
For many CCMP anions, the easiest ways to fund implementation will
rely on enhanced revenues from existing sources. To some extent,
population growth alone will bring an increase in revenues. For
selected sources, however, local officials may want to adjust tax rates
and/or fee levels to be more in line with funding needs for targeted
activities.
Existing Revenue Sources
Local wastewater and stormwater utility fees;
Local general revenues (ad valorem tonics);
SWIM funds including WMD ad valorem tax revenues and
state matching funds;
Non-SWIM WMD funds, including ad valorem tax revenues,
permit fees, state and federal grants and funds from state land
acquistion trusts;
State land acquisition and environmental trust funds such
as CARL Preservation 2000, and others;
State general revenues and sate grant and loan programs
Federal hmdinr. including grants from EPA, USFWS, and others.
With existing or new revenue sources, citizens and government
representatives typically expect that some relationship exists between
a revenue source and the activities it supports. Many believe that
individuals and businesses should pay for environmental programs in
proportion to their contribution to problems or the benefits they
receive from ecosystem protection. While it is not always possible to
achieve this goal, several potential funding sources match up well with
CCMP anions. One simple funding package is illustrated on the next
page.
one ccmp funding scenario
This example illustrates how the $10 million in new annual CoStS
needed for CCMP implementation could be raised according to the
following criteria: (1) Nonresidents pay a reasonable share; t2) A
relationship exists between the revenue source and its use; and (3) No
single group pays a disproportionate share. These criteria were adopted
by the IRLNEP Finance and Implementation Task Force, which oversaw
projects to estimate COStS and benefits associated with CCMP actions,
and develop a financing strategy. One other criterion was followed for
this example: keep it simple.
For convenience, responsibility is split equally between residents
and nonresidents--Residents pay $6 million a year and nonresidents pay
$4 million a year. This division roughly reflects the breakdown between
resident and nonresident Lagoon recreation days: 14 million to 10
million in 1995.
In this example, residents' responsibility is split equally in two
$3 million shares to approximate the significance of CCMP costs related
to storrnwater management compared to all other CCMP costs. One share
is funded through a storrnwater utility charge and the other is funded
through an incremental increase in ad valorem tax rate that the Sr.
Johns and South Florida water management districts collect from IRL
county residents. Nonresidents pay their share through a single source,
a tax on lodging charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue source Annual target Basis Rate Example charge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stormwater utility charge....... $3 million........ 523,865 households $5.73/HH/yr....... $5.73/HH/yr
Ad Valorem Tax through WMDs..... $3 million........ appraised property 0.07 mills........ $10.50/yr for
in 5 IRL counties $175,000 house
@ $45 billion. (with $25,000
homestead
exemption)
Lodging Tax..................... $4 million........ Lodging receipts 5.8%.............. $5.80 on $100
of $69.2 million. hotel bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under one example of this approach, it may be appropriate to fund
anions mitigate impeas of marinas and boating on the Lagoon with
revenues from sources such as watercraft sales taxes, marine fuel
taxes, or boat registration and mooring fees. Similarly, fishing
license fees would provide a way for anglers to pay for fishery
research and stock management programs.
When CCMP projects will provide services or otherwise generate
benefits over a long period of time and require considerable Front
capital, as is the case with wastewater treatment plants and stormwater
management facilities, it is customary tO rely on loans or bonds. These
allow large, up-front COStS to be repaid over time consistent with
growth in population and use of Lagoon resources and have the added
advantage of distributing costs in proportion to a commuriity's
contribution to the problem.
When CCMP anions result in broadly available benefits, broad-based
revenue sources are often acceptable funding options. For example, a
small increase in the ad valorem tax rate of the water management
district could provide additional funds for wetlands restoration,
impounded marsh management, land acquisition, or species protection
programs.
conclusion
IRENEP's CCMP for the Indian River Lagoon specifies the scientific
rationale and management anions needed to sustain an environmentally
healthy economy well into the next century. Its actions are Cost-
effective and fair. Elected officials should be particularly interested
in the CCMP because it can deliver stronger local economies, increased
revenues, and more jobs--even as population grows and stress on natural
systems increases. In the years to come, we will point to our resource-
rich watershed with pride, knowing that our decisions today sustained a
way of life unique to the Indian River basin.
______
Addendum C to the Written Statement of J. Walter Milon
Statement of the St. Johns River Water Management District
Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee: The St. Johns River Water Management District would
like to present a supporting statement for the testimony of Professor
J. Walter Milon of the University of Florida The St. Johns River Water
Management District has been the state sponsor for the Indian River
Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), in partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since 1990. During that period,
the District has provided over $16 million in support of restoration
activities while EPA has provided approximately $5.5 million.
Why has our District expended so much to protect and restore the
Indian River Lagoon? The answer is simple--it is a sound investment.
Estuaries are the biologically essential, economically priceless, but
vulnerable connections between the land and the oceans. The entire
nation is served by estuaries. Commercial and recreational fishing,
maritime commerce, boating and tourism are just some of the activities
that people undertake on and along our coastal waterways.
In an age of shrinking public resources, local officials and
citizens (while generally supportive) have increasingly asked about the
economic sense of large public expenditures for environmental
protection. Until recently, however, it was not possible to illustrate
the Lagoon's worth in terms beyond its considerable aesthetic beauty.
With the advent of the Apogee study described by Professor Milon, it
became clear that the estimated costs of restoration were dwarfed by
the social and economic benefits provided by the Lagoon. These results
provided vital information to inform the public about the role of the
Lagoon in the regional economy and to rally local political support for
the CCMP.
Sustaining the Lagoon's economic contribution to the community
depends on the continued health and possible enhancement of Lagoon
ecology. It is not hard to imagine that, in the absence of management
actions, unabated pollution, overuse, and other stressors associated
with the two percent annual population growth in the five counties
could quickly degrade Lagoon resources.
The IRLNEP, like other estuary programs within the NEP,has
developed a blueprint for environmentally sustainable development in
the watershed. The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) specifically addresses priority problems that
threaten environmental sustainability and future recreational
opportunities. It recommends specific actions that are designed to
enhance Lagoon resources and support economically important
recreational activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating, water
sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation.
Admittedly, preserving the health of estuarine systems is not cost-
free, but investments in actions to sustain or improve the health of an
ecosystem are good for the economy and good for local residents if the
benefits exceed the costs. As in many other estuaries around the
nation, the Lagoon is already relatively clean and its living resources
relatively plentiful. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the
costs of maintaining and improving this healthy environment are
modest--especially when compared to the likely costs of restoring the
Lagoon as additional degradation occurs.
The Apogee study helped to focus on the benefits that improving the
Lagoon would bring to the region's residents. Many of these benefits
are already being recognized in the form of improved water quality for
shellfish aquaculture which is a growing industry in the Indian River
Lagoon. Recreational fishing is the largest single sector of human
activities documented for the Lagoon. The reconnection of saltwater
marshes which were separated from the Lagoon by dikes has greatly
enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. One study showed a
significant increase in the number of species utilizing reconnected
marshes versus those which are impounded. Five species were documented
using impounded marshes while over 90 species were recorded using
reconnected marshes.
The St. Johns River Water Management District is proud to be
playing a role in restoring one of America's most significant
waterbodies. Many local and state initiatives are underway to implement
the Indian River Lagoon CCMP. Some $17.4 million in CCMP actions are
already financed from a variety of sources including local wastewater
and stormwater assessments, private grants, and legislative
appropriations through the state's Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) program.
We believe that this work has clearly demonstrated the wisdom of
investing in the nation's estuaries by showing that the cost of letting
degradation occur is high compared to the cost of protecting and
restoring our estuaries now. Through the National Estuary Program, our
District and the over one-hundred local governments bordering the
Lagoon are sharing the responsibility and the rewards of protecting and
restoring a beautiful resource. We look forward to the continued
involvement and support of our federal partners in this important work
without which such progress would not have been possible.
With the above information in mind, the St. Johns River Water
Management District fully supports both S. 1321, a bill to reauthorize
the National Estuary Program, and S.1222, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act. Full implementation of these bills will
allow for continued and improved federal support of local efforts to
maintain and preserve our natural heritage. The need for this
legislation is highlighted by the fact that funding for the individual
members of the National Estuary Program has effectively declined over
the years as new programs have been initiated and overall funding
levels for the program nationwide have remained relatively constant.
The increase authorized by S. 1321 and the additional resources
projected under S.1222 are critical to local efforts to protect and
restore the nation's estuaries.
Thank you for the Committee's interest in the study results
presented by Professor Milon and for the opportunity to share our
views. Hopefully this information will be useful to the Committee
during its deliberations. The St. Johns River Water Management District
will be pleased to provide any assistance that the Committee may
request as it works to pass this vital legislation.
______
Responses to Additional Questions for Walter J. Milon from Senator
Chafee
Question 1: Much of what our efforts in the past have focused on,
with respect to water quality for estuaries and other waters, is
pollution prevention, not habitat restoration. How do you see the two
actions, protecting the resource from further degradation, and nursing
the resource back to health, interacting to reach the larger goal of
improving overall water quality?
Response. The goals of the Clean Water Act of 1972, with
refinements in subsequent CWA reauthorizations, to achieve fishable and
swimmable waters and to eliminate discharges were useful targets to
help the public understand the purpose of pollution control. These
goals, however, do not address the issue of what overall level of
``ecosystem quality'' does the public want for water resources such as
estuaries. In this context, ecosystem quality includes not just water
quality and fish populations but also other flora and fauna that are
dependent on an estuarine habitat. Habitat restoration offers the
potential to enhance overall environmental quality in degraded
ecosystems and should be considered a logical progression in our
national efforts to protect the environment. The problem, however, is
that it is often difficult to predict how policies or actions will
result in specific habitat improvements and to determine the public
benefits from these improvements. In my own research I have found that
the public (in this case Florida residents) strongly supports coastal
resource restoration proposals if the results of the proposals are
clearly defined. Federal policies that promote research on the
environmental consequences of habitat restoration actions along with
research on public perceptions and expectations about ecosystem health
are needed to provide a sound scientific basis to advance our national
policy goals beyond water pollution prevention.
Question 2: The results of your study are quite impressive, but
because of the warmer climate in Florida, I would imagine that the
Indian River Lagoon has longer fishing, recreation and tourism seasons
than Narragansett Bay or the Long Island Sound, which would increase
the economic benefits of the study. Have any studies been conducted on
the economic value of estuaries in colder climates? If so, how do the
results of such studies compare with your findings?
Response. The economic value of an environmental resource will
clearly depend on the number of people (residents and tourists) who
have access to the resource and the quality of that resource. While
estuaries in colder climates may have fewer user days than the Indian
River Lagoon, larger user populations and higher expenditures can
easily compensate. Under the National Estuary Program, several studies
have been completed to document these economic benefits. Unfortunately
the studies differ in their scope and level of detail so they are
difficult to compare. For example, a 1993 study on Massachusetts Bay
reported the value of the Bay ranged between $319-$963 million. A 1992
study of Long Island Sound estimated the economic value of fishing and
recreation to be more than $5.6 billion. Neither of these studies
addressed the property, amenity, or ecosystem values associated with
these estuaries. One of the most recent studies, and most similar to
the Indian River Lagoon study in scope and detail, was conducted for
Peconic Bay on Long Island. This study found that total revenues for
estuarine-dependent activities accounted for over $400 million or about
20 percent of the local economy (copies of the study can be obtained
from Professor Jim Opaluch at the University of Rhode Island (401/874-
4590)). This share of total economic activity attributable to
estuarine-dependent activities is strikingly similar to the 17 percent
share we reported in the Indian River Lagoon study. Thus, these results
support the proposition that estuaries provide a significant
contribution to local economies throughout the U.S.
__________
Statement of Ted Morton, Coastal Protection Program Counsel, American
Oceans Campaign
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Good morning. My name is
Ted Morton. I am the Coastal Protection Program Counsel for American
Oceans Campaign. American Oceans Campaign (AOC) is a national, non-
profit organization based in Santa Monica, California and is dedicated
to protecting and enhancing our nation's oceans and coastal resources.
I also serve as Chairman of the Aquatic Ecosystems Work Group of the
Clean Water Network. The Clean Water Network is comprised of more than
1000 citizen, conservation, labor, religious and other groups
nationwide working to improve the quality of streams, rivers, lakes,
wetlands, and coastal waters.
Since 1991, American Oceans Campaign has focused a significant
amount of attention to the health of estuaries. Working with numerous,
dedicated advocates from estuaries across the nation, we have long-
supported making more Federal funds available to improve estuarine
water quality and restore estuarine habitats. American Oceans Campaign
produced and distributed several public service announcements about the
importance of estuaries. We served on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project's Management Committee. In April 1996, American Oceans Campaign
published Estuaries on the Edge, an examination of the 28 estuaries
that are part of the National Estuary Program.
On behalf of my organization and its members, I wish to express my
thanks to Senators Chafee and Baucus, and to the other members of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, for inviting me to
testify today on legislative proposals to improve estuary protection.
introduction
Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the nation's premier water
quality law--the Clean Water Act. Across the nation, communities used
the anniversary to assess the condition of their lakes, streams,
rivers, and coastal waters. Many communities discovered that
significant progress had been achieved. More lakes and rivers are
considered safe for swimming and fishing today, than in 1970. In many
estuaries, the acreage of seagrasses and other aquatic vegetation is
increasing from levels just a decade ago. Much of the progress is
attributed to concentrating on ``point source'' pollution controls,
such as sewage treatment plant and industrial facility discharges.
Also, the public is becoming more involved in hands-on, community-wide
projects to protect their waters and citizens are letting their elected
officials know that they expect clean, healthy waters for their
families and communities. These efforts are helping to improve the
quality of many water bodies.
But, the examination prompted by the 25th anniversary also revealed
we still have much work to do before America meets one of the goals of
the Clean Water Act--to make all waters swimmable and fishable. In
particular, our coastal waters are troubled. A recent national water
quality report disclosed that about 38 percent of the nation's surveyed
estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or
swimming. \1\ Many beach waters and shellfish harvesting areas are
closed due to pathogen and toxic contamination. In 1995, almost one-
third of our nation's shellfish harvesting areas were closed or
harvest-limited; polluted urban stormwater was identified as the
leading source of pollution contributing to harvest restrictions. \2\
Other coastal waters are subject to an increasing number of fish
consumption advisories. Finally, estuarine habitat is threatened by
unwise development, sedimentation, and destructive fishing practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA, Water Quality Conditions in the United States: A
Profile from the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1998).
\2\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, The 1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified
Growing Waters (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997), 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since last summer, disturbing accounts of our nation's coastal
water quality have been featured in the headlines. For example, the
outbreak of a toxic microbe, Pfiesteria piscicida, in tributaries of
the Chesapeake Bay caused fish kills and human health problems. Red
tides along the Texas shore killed an estimated 14 million fish last
September and October. Sea turtles with tumors have been found off the
coasts of Florida. Sewage spills closed a number of Long Island Sound
area beaches last summer. The ``dead zone,'' an area approximately the
size of New Jersey where dissolved oxygen levels are too low to sustain
fish, continues to appear off the coast of Louisiana and Texas each
year. And, El Nino-related storm events overwhelmed sanitation and
storm sewer systems in California this winter, causing untreated sewage
to flow to the Pacific Ocean and forcing health officials to close
numerous beaches.
In order to improve the conditions of estuaries it is imperative to
develop and follow a comprehensive national strategy that entails many
critical components, including water quality improvements, habitat
restoration, smarter land use decisions, public education efforts, and
greater investments. I believe that a combination of Senator Chafee's
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222) and
Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays' Water Pollution Control and
Estuary Restoration Act (H.R. 2374) provides a significant start to
ensure that a comprehensive national strategy for estuary protection is
put in place.
the importance of estuaries
Estuaries are dynamic bodies of water along our nation's coasts
which are formed by the mixing of freshwater from rivers and streams
with saltwater from the ocean. Typically, these waters are semi-
enclosed by surrounding mainland, fringing wetlands, peninsulas, or
barrier islands. Many of the renowned water bodies of the United States
are estuaries--Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, San
Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound, for example. In addition to bays and
sounds, estuaries are commonly known as lagoons, sloughs, bayous, and
inlets.
The combination of freshwater and saltwater creates a distinct
environment where aquatic plants and wildlife thrive. An abundance of
land and ocean nutrients, ample light which promotes the growth of
aquatic vegetation, and a continuous mixing of the system by winds,
tides, and river inflows create conditions which give life to some of
the richest and most productive ecosystems in the world.
In addition, estuaries support a variety of coastal businesses and
are valued as places to live and visit. In 1990, it was estimated that
45 percent of the nation's population live in estuarine areas \3\--and
the predicted population trends suggest that this percentage will rise
in the upcoming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and National Ocean Service, Estuaries of the United
States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base (Rockville, MD:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990), 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The functions and values of estuaries are considerable. For
example:
Estuaries provide valuable commercial benefits.
Approximately 28 million jobs are generated by commercial fishing,
tourism, water-dependent recreation, and other industries based near
estuaries and other coastal waters. \4\ It is estimated that commercial
and recreational fishing contributes $152 billion to the nation's
economy and generates approximately two million jobs. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Dwight Holling, et. al., State of the Coasts: A State by State
Analysis of the Vital Link Between Healthy Coasts and a Healthy Economy
(Washington, DC: Coast Alliance, 1995), 8.
\5\ William M. Kier Associates, Fisheries, Wetlands, and Jobs: The
Value of Wetlands to America's Fisheries (Sausalito, CA: Clean Water
Network, et. al., 1998), 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estuaries provide important spawning and nursery habitat
for commercial and recreational fish species. More than 75 percent of
the U.S. commercial fish catch uses estuaries during at least one stage
of life--usually the critical early stages. \6\ In the Southeastern
United States, 96 percent of the commercial fish catch and more than 50
percent of the recreational catch are comprised of fish and shellfish
that are dependent on estuarine and coastal wetlands. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Elliot A. Norse, Ph.D., Global Marine Biological Diversity: A
Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making (Washington,
DC: Island Press, 1993), 65.
\7\ U.S. EPA, Wetlands Fact Sheet No. 2 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estuarine wetlands improve water quality by filtering
pollutants before they reach coastal waters.
Estuarine wetlands and barrier islands protect shorelines
and inland areas from coastal storms and flooding. In their natural
state, these areas are able to temporarily store large quantities of
flood waters and help to minimize damaging impacts of storm events.
major threats to productive estuaries
Estuaries are threatened by rapid population growth along the
coasts, habitat loss, and pollution. Some of the major problems
affecting our nation's estuaries include:
Nutrient pollution. Nitrogen can enter estuaries from a
variety of sources, including sewage treatment plants, failing septic
systems, combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from agricultural
lands, stormwater, and atmospheric deposition. Excessive loadings of
nitrogen disrupt estuarine life by accelerating the growth of algae.
When large blooms of algae develop, they block sunlight needed by the
estuary's submerged aquatic plants. In addition, as algae decompose,
they require such great amounts of oxygen, that other aquatic life are
deprived of oxygen. Oxygen-deficient conditions (called hypoxia) can
result in massive fish kills.
Loss of Habitat. Due to development pressures and
increasing pollution, natural estuarine habitats are being destroyed.
Coastal wetlands, mangroves, and submerged seagrasses provide important
nursery, spawning, and sheltering areas for fish, shellfish, and other
wildlife. Ninety-two percent of the original wetlands base of the San
Francisco Bay area has been destroyed. \8\ In addition, between 1950
and 1982, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay decreased from 40,627 acres to
21,647 acres--a 47 percent reduction \9\--because of increased
pollution, development and boating activities. The loss of fish habitat
is a frequently cited, contributing factor in the severe declines of
fish populations along our nation's coasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ San Francisco Estuary Project, Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (Oakland, CA: San Francisco Estuary Project, 1992), 44.
\9\ Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Charting the Course for
Tampa Bay, 1996 (St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program, 1996), 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathogens. Disease-causing microorganisms, called
pathogens, contaminate productive shellfish beds and recreational beach
waters in estuaries across the United States. Pathogens are found in
animal and human waste and enter estuaries from overburdened sewage
treatment plants, raw sewage overflows, agricultural runoff, and
malfunctioning septic systems. Eating shellfish or ingesting water
contaminated with pathogens can cause a variety of diseases in humans,
including gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and others.
Toxics. Often, elevated levels of toxics can be detected
in the sediments, the water column, and in the tissues of fish,
shellfish, and other organisms that inhabit estuaries. Heavy metals,
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and hydrocarbons are the
most common toxic contaminants in estuaries. These toxic substances
originate from a variety of sources, including agricultural runoff,
polluted urban stormwater, automobile emissions, and industrial
discharges.
national estuary program and chesapeake bay program as models for
comprehensive estuary protection
Estuaries are highly valued and intensely used waters, but only
recently were they recognized by Congress as a unique and severely
depleted resource requiring special attention. In 1987, Congress added
a specific provision to the Clean Water Act (section 117) to provide
direction and funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program. The Program is recognized for its work on
addressing nitrogen pollution and encouraging sound land-use planning.
During the 1987 Clean Water Act reauthorization, Congress also
established the National Estuary Program (NEP). The primary purpose of
the NEP is to resolve many of the complex issues that contribute to the
deterioration of our nation's estuaries.
Governors of coastal states nominate particular estuaries for
inclusion in the National Estuary Program. The EPA selects ``nationally
significant estuaries'' to participate in planning activities. After
designating a particular estuary, the EPA becomes responsible for
convening management conferences to address all uses affecting the
restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of each estuary. Conference participants include
representatives of the relevant interstate, or regional agencies,
Federal agencies, the Governor(s) and appropriate state agencies, local
government agencies, affected industries, educational institutions, and
citizens. The mission of these conferences is to develop a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that will protect
and restore the water quality and living resources of estuaries. The
priority actions identified in the CCMP are to be consistent with other
provisions of the Clean Water Act and other Federal laws.
The NEP has been, and continues to be a model for outstanding
watershed management plans; however, implementation of the plans is
more problematic. Over the years, we have discovered as more and more
plans are completed, they unfortunately languish on the shelf waiting
for the dollars necessary for implementation.
Currently, 28 nationally significant estuaries participate in the
National Estuary Program. These estuaries were added in five distinct
rounds, or ``tiers.'' Seventeen of the 28 estuaries have completed
their plans and are proceeding to implement the identified priority
actions. The table on the next page provides a quick summary of the
status of the local programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationally Significant Estuary Year Designated CCMP Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound (WA)................ 1987.............. Approved 1991
Buzzards Bay (MA)............... 1987.............. Approved 1992
Narragansett Bay (RI)........... 1987.............. Approved 1993
San Francisco Estuary (CA)...... 1987.............. Approved 1993
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds (NC)... 1987.............. Approved 1994
Long Island Sound (CT, NY)...... 1987.............. Approved 1994
Galveston Bay (TX).............. 1988.............. Approved 1995
Santa Monica Bay (CA)........... 1988.............. Approved 1995
Delaware Inland Bays (DE)....... 1988.............. Approved 1995
Sarasota Bay (FL)............... 1988.............. Approved 1995
Delaware Estuary (DE, NJ, PA)... 1988.............. Approved 1996
New York/New Jersey Harbor (NY, 1988.............. Approved 1996
NJ).
Massachusetts Bay (MA).......... 1990.............. Approved 1996
Casco Bay (ME).................. 1990.............. Approved 1996
Indian River Lagoon (FL)........ 1990.............. Approved 1996
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary 1990.............. Approved 1996
(LA).
Tampa Bay (FL).................. 1990.............. Approved 1997
Peconic Estuary (NY)............ 1992.............. Expected 1998
Tillamook Bay (OR).............. 1992.............. Expected 1998
Corpus Christi Bay (TX)......... 1992.............. Expected 1998
San Juan Bay (PR)............... 1992.............. Expected 1999
Barnegat Bay (NJ)............... 1995.............. Expected 1998
Lower Columbia River (OR)....... 1995.............. Expected 1998
Morro Bay (CA).................. 1995.............. Expected 1999
Maryland Coastal Bays (MD)...... 1995.............. Expected 1999
Mobile Bay (AL)................. 1995.............. Expected 1999
New Hampshire Estuaries (NH).... 1995.............. Expected 1999
Charlotte Harbor (FL)........... 1995.............. Expected 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the strengths of the National Estuary Program and the
Chesapeake Bay Program is their reliance on a watershed approach to
address and solve the problems of the estuary. By identifying,
examining, and correcting environmental problems that may originate
upstream, the estuary restoration plans and actions have a
substantially better chance of success. National Estuary Programs are
designed to consider a myriad of issues: stormwater pollution, nutrient
enrichment, heavy metals, seagrass loss, wetlands destruction, sewage
treatment, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, fishery landing
trends, wildlife populations, land-use practices, and others. Past
approaches to restoration and protection have typically concentrated on
a narrow examination of a particular type of pollution or a particular
species of fish. Although many of these efforts are making progress, a
more complete understanding of the cumulative effect of all the
estuary's stresses should produce more extensive beneficial results.
Another strength of the programs is the range of participation they
attract from interested parties. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, along
with other conservation organizations and many local businesses are
actively working to enhance and improve protections for the Bay. The
work of NEP Management Conferences provide great opportunities for
collaboration and building consensus among the varied interests of the
community. Joint decisionmaking during the studying and planning phase,
although sometimes difficult to achieve, can lead to far fewer hurdles
during subsequent implementation.
estuary legislation of the 105th congress
American Oceans Campaign is very pleased with the growing attention
that the 105th Congress is paying to the plight of estuaries. At least
four bills have been introduced that call for improvements for estuary
protection. In addition, several Members of Congress have sought
increased appropriations for the National Estuary Program in order to
fund implementation actions.
It is my opinion, that the enactment of the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222), introduced by Senators Chafee
and Breaux, and the Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act
(H.R. 2374), introduced by Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays,
would significantly advance a successful, comprehensive approach to
estuary protection. The combination of these two bills would foster
beneficial estuarine habitat restoration activities; augment efforts to
minimize water quality impairment from both polluted runoff and point
sources; encourage broad-scale, meaningful public participation in
estuary enhancement actions; and authorize substantially more Federal
dollars for restoring estuaries and vital estuarine habitat.
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222). On
September 25, 1997, Senator Chafee, along with several members of this
Committee, introduced S. 1222. The objectives of the bill include
improving coordination among various Federal and non-Federal estuary
habitat restoration programs and increasing the level of Federal
funding dedicated to these important restoration efforts. The bill is
supported by leading estuary protection organizations across the
nation, American Oceans Campaign, and by several other organizations
that are part of the Clean Water Network. American Oceans Campaign
considers the approach detailed in S. 1222 to be an essential component
of a national strategy to improve the health of estuaries.
In particular, the bill will improve efforts to restore estuarine
habitat in numerous ways:
It establishes an ambitious, critical goal of restoring one million
acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. Numerous commercial and
recreational fish and shellfish species use estuarine habitats for
nurseries and shelter. Such an increase in estuarine habitat should
significantly aid efforts to restore estuarine and marine fisheries to
sustainable levels.
It establishes a Federal inter-agency council to better organize
the various Federal programs involved in estuarine habitat restoration.
The Collaborative Council is to be comprised of the heads of five
leading Federal agencies involved in estuary protection and land-use
decisions. The activities of the Collaborative Council will increase
awareness about estuarine health among key Federal officials and
greatly assist coordination and priority-setting. One potential outcome
of increased coordination will be the compilation of completed and
ongoing restoration plans in the national estuary habitat restoration
strategy. A data base that gives a brief account of restoration
projects; the types of restoration methods used; the various
governmental roles included in the project; and the effectiveness of
the restoration will prove to be an invaluable resource for coastal
communities that are determined to initiate their own restoration
campaigns but unsure of how to start and what to include in a plan.
It promotes a through national approach for restoring estuary
habitat. The bill calls for the Council to develop a comprehensive
strategy that addresses fish and shellfish, wildlife, water quality,
water quantity, and recreational opportunities. Such a strategy should
aid in directing scientific and financial attention to the most
pressing estuarine habitat concerns, in balancing national attention
between small scale and larger habitat restoration projects, and in
evening geographical distribution of estuary restoration projects.
The bill encourages community-based involvement by seeking the
active participation of concerned individuals, non-profit
organizations, and businesses.
The bill authorizes appropriations to carry out estuary habitat
restoration projects. The increased investments will allow states to
leverage their own contributions to restoration projects and should
accelerate and enhance estuary restoration activities.
The Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act (H.R.
2374). On August 1, 1997, Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays
introduced H.R. 2374. The bill corrects the most glaring weakness of
the National Estuary Program--the lack of consistent, adequate Federal
funds for implementing approved comprehensive conservation management
plans. The bill enables States and local communities to make greater
progress in cleaning up estuaries, plus rewards the efforts put forward
by the community to develop an action plan for their estuary.
Working through the National Estuary Program (NEP) of the Federal
Clean Water Act, community leaders have collaboratively crafted
comprehensive estuary management plans (CCMPs) to restore their
estuaries. As previously mentioned, seventeen of the twenty-eight
estuaries in the NEP have completed their ``blueprints'' and are trying
to implement the identified priority actions.
The NEP provides Federal funding to assist states and local
communities in developing watershed plans; however, no Federal funding
is specifically allocated to help communities perform the priority
actions of the finished plans. To be part of the National Estuary
Program, an estuary is considered to be ``nationally significant.'' It
should therefore be in the national interest to ensure that plans to
restore these waters are implemented and given a proper opportunity for
success.
Some coastal states have been successful in securing earmarks
through EPA appropriations bills to help support implementation
activities. Others have used the existing Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Fund (SRF) to fund priority actions of the CCMP; however, this has
not proven to be a consistent source of Federal funding for estuary
priority actions. To its credit, U.S. EPA has encouraged greater use of
the SRF for implementing watershed protection activities through
workshops, publications, and missives. Unfortunately, coastal
communities continue to struggle in a quest for Federal funds to
augment local and state funds for completing priority actions listed in
their local CCMP. As a result, the ``blueprints'' for estuary recovery
are not fully being put into action.
Earlier this year, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
released a progress report on its restoration plan, which was completed
and approved in 1995. Of the 74 priority actions listed in the plan,
only eleven have been fully implemented. Little or no progress has been
achieved on sixteen actions. According to the report, a lack of funding
is the primary reason that the clean-up plan has floundered. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Taking the Pulse of the
Bay: State of the Bay 19989 Executive Summary (Santa Monica, CA: Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1998), 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2374 will strengthen protections for estuaries. The bill:
requires implementation of approved estuary management
plans. Local estuary management plans have been generally successful at
identifying water quality problems affecting an estuary. It is
essential that the solutions to identified problems are actually
carried out.
assures Federal funding for implementation. The bill
extends the State water pollution control revolving loan fund (SRF)
through fiscal year 2004. The SRF receives authorized appropriations of
$2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998, gradually increasing to $4 billion in
fiscal year 2004. The bill requires that states with approved estuary
plans set aside a percentage of the SRF increases to be used to
implement the priority actions of approved estuary plans. H.R. 2374
creates a State matching requirement for receipt of the Federal funds.
increases citizen involvement by requiring that
representatives of conservation organizations belong to the program's
management committee during development of the CCMP. Actively involving
citizens in the key decisionmaking arm of the local program will help
build support for restoration actions and expenditures that are needed
later.
allows Federal grants to fund select interim actions as
local management conferences craft their plans.
calls for a public assembly to be held and the management
conference to be reconvened within 4 years after implementation has
begun to gauge the success and status of the plan's implementation.
extends the authorization of the National Estuary Program
through fiscal year 2004.
Because it increases authorization levels for the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund, the bill would benefit coastal and inland states.
The need for increased funds for water quality infrastructure is
particularly great. In 1996, EPA released a national needs survey for
water quality infrastructure. Based on reports submitted by the states,
the report concluded that the United States will need to spend more
than $139.5 billion over the next 20 years to meet capital costs
eligible for funding under the SRF. \11\ For fiscal year 1999, the
Administration requested $1.075 billion for the Clean Water SRF. With
the support of American Oceans Campaign, other conservation
organizations, water infrastructure associations, and other interested
parties, the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $1.35 billion
for the SRF and the House Appropriations Committee has provided $1.25
billion. American Oceans Campaign commends Senators Bond and Mikulski
and Representatives Jerry Lewis and Stokes for their strong leadership
in increasing funding levels for clean water programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. EPA, 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Reprot to Congress,
Executive Summary (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the United States is to narrow the gap between our
infrastructure investments and our infrastructure needs, stronger
financial commitments from the Federal Government must be made. The
Lowey-DeLauro-Shays bill, by significantly increasing Federal
contributions to the revolving fund, signals stronger leadership in
meeting the future challenges of clean waters.
H.R. 2374 has been the subject of a hearing conducted by the Long
Island Sound Caucus, but has not yet received a hearing before the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill enjoys bi-
partisan support and currently has 20 co-sponsors. Last fall, 81
conservation, environmental, fishing, and public interest
organizations, representing 23 states and the District of Columbia,
joined together in a letter in support of the bill. (Attachment 1) In
addition, a coalition of labor and environmental interests, called the
Clean Water/Clean Jobs Coalition supports the House bill.
A Senate companion bill to H.R. 2374 has not been introduced. In
previous Congresses, Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, D'Amato, and Dodd
introduced similar bills to require implementation of CCMPs and assure
consistent Federal funding through the State Revolving Loan Fund.
During consideration of the Clean Water Act reauthorization in the 103d
Congress, much of the Lieberman bill, including requiring
implementation of approved plans, and authorizing funds from the State
Revolving Loan Fund program, the nonpoint pollution control program,
and the National Estuary Program to be used for implementation, was
included in the bill (S. 2093) that passed out of this committee.
In an effort to craft a comprehensive national strategy for
protecting estuaries and vital estuarine habitat, the Lowey-DeLauro-
Shays bill and the Chafee bill complement each other well. The bills
support community involvement. The bills reward locally driven
processes to determine what vital areas of estuarine habitat to restore
and what important actions for water quality improvement to undertake.
In addition, they increase the Federal financial commitment to
improving water quality and restoring habitat.
The National Estuary Conservation Act (S. 1321). Senator Torricelli
introduced S. 1321 on October 28, 1997. The bill permits grants that
are authorized under the National Estuary Program to be used to develop
and implement comprehensive conservation management plans. The bill
also increases the authorized levels for the NEP to $50 million a year
for fiscal years 1999 through 2004.
If enacted, Senator Torricelli's bill would set a meaningful
advancement for the National Estuary Program. The bill would open the
door to using NEP grants for implementation of approved CCMPs.
American Oceans Campaign believes that the Torricelli approach,
although a stride in the right direction, can only hope to exact modest
improvements in implementing approved priority actions in estuaries.
First, an annual Federal allocation of $50 million divided among 28
programs in various stages of their planning and implementation will
not fully solve the current problem of inadequate Federal funds
available to implement CCMP actions. For all of the programs, the
estimated cost their water quality improvement actions substantially
exceeds $50 million. A much more significant Federal investment is
needed to ensure these plans have a chance for success.
Second, a reliance on NEP grants rather than the state revolving
loan fund (as called for by H.R. 2374) to fund implementation
activities could lead to a less reliable source of Federal funding.
Many of the priority actions identified in the approved CCMPs will take
several years to complete. For example, several plans address the need
to upgrade or extend sewer service for wastewater treatment and to
expand the use of reclaimed water. Having a reliable source of Federal
funding to assist states and localities leverage their costs in making
these infrastructure improvements should minimize delays and cost
overruns, and thus, accelerate the clean up of these estuaries.
Finally, the bill could unintentionally create conflicts between
newer programs still involved in developing their CCMPs and older
programs needing funds for implementation. Although it is important to
support implementation activities, we do not want to squeeze dollars
from programs still developing their plans. It is likely that the $50
million will be a future target of earmarks in appropriations bills.
The bill needs to address how the distribution between planning and
implementing will be equitably carried out.
At the same time, I am concerned that the increased level of
authorization might entice EPA to significantly expand the NEP, and not
adequately address the great need to support implementation. The
pattern of the NEP is to accept additional nominations of estuaries
every few years. Between 1987 and 1995, the NEP grew from six estuaries
to 28. Certainly there are significant benefits to expanding the number
of nationally significant estuaries: an expanded knowledge of estuary
conditions in more parts of the nation; stronger public awareness about
the need to protect the estuary; increased citizen involvement in
planning the restoration of an estuary's vitality; and in the end, an
identified, comprehensive list of key actions needed to be taken.
However, additional local programs require greater expenditures for
administrative, technical, and scientific support.
In summary, local programs need significant and reliable sources of
Federal funds to leverage the dollars already being invested by states
and localities for implementation of comprehensive estuary management
plans. Although S. 1321 does allow NEP grants to be used for
implementation activities and increases the authorization level for the
program, I believe that to significantly advance the efforts to restore
our nation's significant estuaries, a more sizable, comprehensive and
dependable Federal funding source is required.
The Coastal Pollution Reduction Act (Mayaguez, Puerto Rico Deep
Ocean Outfall Act) (H.R. 2207). Representative Romero-Barcelo
introduced H.R. 2207 on July 22, 1997. The bill passed the House of
Representatives on November 13, 1997. Section 3 of the bill amends
section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act to allow NEP grants to be used
for implementation in addition to development of comprehensive
conservation management plans. The bill increases the authorization
level for the National Estuary Program to $20 million in fiscal year
1998. The bill is silent on extending the authorization of
appropriations beyond fiscal year 1998.
Representative Barcelo-Romero's bill corrects the limitation of the
National Estuary Program that only allows NEP grant money to be used to
support development activities. However, the increased authorization is
only established for one fiscal year and is wholly inadequate an
increase to enable significant progress in completing priority
activities of approved CCMPs. American Oceans Campaign does not
consider this approach to be a comprehensive measure for restoring
nationally significant estuaries.
American Oceans Campaign joins with other conservation
organizations in Puerto Rico and other national ocean advocacy groups
in opposing section 2 of H.R. 2207. This section will allow the
Mayaguez publicly owned treatment works to apply for a waiver from
secondary treatment requirements and to discharge inadequately treated
sewage at a to-be-constructed deep ocean outfall site.
other legislative issues in the year of the ocean
Before I conclude my testimony, I would like to briefly discuss
other important legislative issues affecting the oceans. As you know,
1998 has been declared the International Year of the Ocean by the
United Nations. To encourage greater ocean protections, American Oceans
Campaign is supporting a legislative ``Ocean Package'' and is
encouraging Members of Congress to support and ``Vote for the Ocean''
in 1998. Key elements of this legislative package include:
The Oceans Act (S. 1213/H.R. 3445). The Oceans Act was introduced
by Senators Hollings, Stevens, Boxer, and Kerry, and by Representatives
Farr and Saxton. The primary objective of the Oceans Act (H.R. 3445, S.
1213) is to reassess and refine U.S. programs and policies that affect
oceans and marine life in order to craft a more coordinated vision for
the future. The bill calls for the establishment of a 15 or 16-member
national commission to study U.S. policies affecting ocean quality and
health, including sustainable fisheries, pollution, transportation,
coastal hazards, and exploration. The commission would issue
comprehensive recommendations for improving national policies and
programs within eighteen months of its establishment.
Current Federal policies and funding to protect oceans and coasts
derive from different laws, and responsibilities for safeguarding the
oceans are divided among various Federal agencies. Often, the
objectives of these laws and agencies conflict. Using the commission's
recommendations, directors of the many Federal agencies charged with
protecting ocean resources will work with other governmental entities
and non-governmental partners to develop and implement a coordinated
ocean and coastal policy for the nation.
The Senate has already passed S. 1213. The House bill is currently
awaiting a mark-up by the House Resources Committee. We hope that in
this International Year of the Ocean, the U.S. Congress will take a
strong stand for a national ocean policy and pass the Oceans Act.
The B.E.A.C.H. Bill (S. 971/H.R. 2094). Beaches are the leading
tourist destination in the United States. In 1997, California's beaches
alone attracted almost 116 million visitors. This summer, many adults
and children will swim, snorkel, surf or wade in beach waters that,
unbeknownst to them, are contaminated by pathogens that may cause
gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and various nose, ear, and
throat infections.
To protect themselves from harmful pathogens, swimmers must rely on
beach water quality tests conducted by local public health agencies.
Unfortunately, the testing standards and monitoring practices used by
coastal states and localities vary significantly, and often vary within
a state. Several states do not regularly monitor their beach waters for
pathogen contamination and only a distinct minority of states and local
communities consistently notify the public about poor beach water
conditions.
The Natural Resources Defense Council conducts an annual survey of
public beach closures along our nation's coasts. According to its 1997
report, Testing the Waters, Volume VII, beaches were closed or health
advisories against swimming were issued more than 2,596 individual
times during 1996. Several of these lasted more than 1 day. These
figures underestimate the true extent of the problem since many states
to not regularly test beach waters.
To address these problems, Representatives Pallone and Bilbray
introduced the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health
Act (the B.E.A.C.H. bill), H.R. 2094, last summer. Senators Lautenberg
and Torricelli introduced a Senate companion bill, S. 971. The
B.E.A.C.H. bill establishes a common-sense, national approach to the
problems of inconsistent beach water quality testing and public
notification. The bill requires coastal states to adopt water quality
criteria for public recreational beach waters that are, at a minimum,
consistent with U.S. EPA recommendations. It also directs EPA to work
with states to develop monitoring programs that include timely public
notification about contaminated beach waters.
Beach visitors have a right to know that the waters they choose to
play in are safe for recreation. The B.E.A.C.H. bill promotes a
nationwide commitment to ensure beach-goers receive the basic
information needed to protect themselves and their families from
harmful pathogens.
Essential Fish Habitat. There are currently a number of threats,
both regulatory and legislative, to effective implementation of the
essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. The EFH mandate was overwhelmingly
passed by Congress in 1996 in order to address what Members of Congress
described as ``one of the greatest long-term threats to the viability
of commercial and recreational fisheries.'' The mandate requires that
fishery managers describe, identify, and protect areas necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity.
Unfortunately, we now understand that some Members of the
Appropriations Committees intend to repeal, weaken, issue exemptions
for, or eliminate funding for fish habitat protection provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act through this year's annual funding process. These
Members are responding to pressure from the non-fishing industry sector
(including timber, ranching, mining, development, hydro-power, and
others), which is concerned that the EFH mandate may compromise their
short-term economic gain. If these Members succeed in their attempts to
weaken, repeal, or debilitate the EFH implementation process, they will
have sacrificed a vital public resource to the interests of the private
sector.
Clean Water Appropriations. The Clinton Administration's proposed
budget for fiscal year 1999 includes a Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Initiative, calling for increases for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent polluted runoff, protect public
health, and restore waters. American Oceans Campaign fully supports
these increases and urges Congress to appropriate these moneys to bring
about the needed improvements to our nation's waterways. (Attachment 2)
Polluted runoff is a major source of water quality impairment in
coastal waters, rivers, and lakes. Polluted runoff threatens the health
of our families and destroys important fish and wildlife habitats. Each
time it rains, water runs off the land and picks up toxic pesticides
and fertilizers from farm fields and lawns, heavy metals and oils from
streets, manure from animal feedlots, metals from mining sites, and
sediment from constructionsites, farms, and timber operations. This
polluted runoff carries these contaminants into our drinking, fishing,
and swimming waters. In addition, sediment buries the underwater
vegetation in rivers and coastal waters that sustains juvenile fish and
shellfish.
In order to achieve the Clean Water Act's goal of having waters
safe for swimming and fishing, we must maximize our efforts to prevent
polluted runoff. So far, a few of the Appropriations bills have
included significant increases to support the Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Budget Initiative. As members of the committee with
oversight responsibilities for many of the clean water programs, I
encourage you to continue working to ensure full funding for clean
water improvements, particularly in the polluted runoff budgets for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Control Act (S. 1480). Last
November, Senators Snowe and Breaux introduced S. 1480 to address a
serious and growing national problem affecting our coasts. Harmful
algal blooms, such as red tides and brown tides, are increasing in
severity and frequency along our coasts. Outbreaks of harmful algal
blooms can cause fish kills, poison humans and wildlife, close
fisheries, and impair the aesthetics and recreational uses of coastal
waters. It has been estimated that the annual economic losses
associated with harmful algal bloom impacts range from $35 to $65
million.
A similarly significant problem affecting estuaries is hypoxia.
Waters that contain low levels of dissolved oxygen are considered to be
hypoxic. Hypoxic water conditions do not support marine life and create
``dead zones.'' Off the coast of Louisiana and Texas, a dead zone
covering 6,000 to 7,000 square miles (about the size of New Jersey)
appears during the summer months. The Chesapeake Bay and Long Island
Sound also experience periodic hypoxic conditions.
There is strong evidence linking nutrient loadings with hypoxia and
growing evidence associating many outbreaks of harmful algal blooms
with an overabundance of nutrients. Measures to restrict the amount of
nitrogen being introduced to estuarine and coastal waters from
agricultural operations, concentrated animal feeding operations, sewage
treatment plants, and atmospheric deposition will assist efforts to
control the outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
The Snowe-Breaux Harmful Algal Bloom bill authorizes additional
funds to support ongoing harmful algal bloom research and coastal zone
management activities conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Often, these activities involve partnerships with
coastal states and universities. American Oceans Campaign particularly
supports dedicating additional moneys to assist states in finalizing
and implementing coastal nonpoint pollution management programs. These
programs provide technical and financial assistance to states to help
develop strategies for addressing the threats of polluted runoff in our
nation's coastal waters.
Coastal Title to the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was last
reauthorized in 1987. During the 103d and 104th Congresses, bills to
reauthorize the Clean Water Act were presented for votes (the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee passed S. 2093 in 1994, the
House passed H.R. 961 in 1995). Neither of these bills garnered the
full support of American Oceans Campaign; however, we were supportive
of the addition of stronger coastal protection provisions in a Coastal
Title to S. 2093.
In future considerations of the Clean Water Act reauthorization,
American Oceans Campaign, along with the Center for Marine Conservation
and other coastal advocacy organizations urge Congress to add a Coastal
Title to the Clean Water Act. Such a title could be closely based upon
the Coastal Title that was added to S. 2093 in the 103d Congress. A
Coastal Title should include sections to: strengthen the National
Estuary Program (H.R. 2374), establish coastal and marine water quality
criteria; devise uniform beach monitoring programs that assures
appropriate public notification when waters are too contaminated for
safe swimming (S. 971, H.R. 2094); strengthen MARPOL compliance and
restrict garbage from ships; ensure the availability of adequate
pumpout facilities for recreational boat sewage and marine sanitation
devices; and strengthen ocean discharge criteria. I would welcome the
opportunity to help put together such a Title.
conclusion
It is time for the Federal Government to do more to advance a
comprehensive, national strategy for estuary protection. Efforts of the
National Estuary Program have improved the knowledge of water quality
problems affecting estuaries and have developed numerous actions that
will support the clean up of these waters. Coastal communities, states,
and citizen organizations have initiated successful estuary habitat
restoration projects and have identified several more projects needing
immediate attention.
The approaches contained in the Chafee Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act and the Lowey-DeLauro-Shays Water Pollution Control and
Estuary Restoration Act make substantial strides in achieving such a
comprehensive strategy. Both bills recognize the important
contributions states, localities, businesses and concerned citizens
make to improving estuaries. They facilitate inter-agency coordination
among various Federal agencies. They reward developing solutions to
sometimes difficult water quality and habitat concerns. Finally, they
increase the Federal financial contributions to ensure estuaries will
remain special, productive places for the future.
I urge this Committee to combine S. 1222 and H.R. 2374 in a
subsequent Committee mark-up and work to ensure passage of these
important estuary protection provisions by the end of this Congress. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on legislative initiatives to
improve estuary protections. I look forward to working with this
Committee on these and other estuary issues.
______
Letter from Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515-5401, July 6, 1998.
Hon. John Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Chafee: I write you today, as the sole representative
of the 3.8 million disenfranchised U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico
to propose an amendment to Section 301 (h) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act that would allow the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority (PRASA) to apply for a waiver from certain wastewater
treatment requirements affecting its Mayaguez facility.
Under existing law the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not
allowed to accept new applications for waivers from secondary treatment
requirements. The proposal does not alter the rigorous criteria for
issuing a waiver nor does it override the judgment of EPA. The proposal
before your committee reflects the goal of both Congress and the
Administration to find innovative, alternative and less costly ways to
apply existing statutes without compromising the environmental
objectives underlying existing law.
Many scientists and experts agree that plans to construct deep
ocean outfalls at locations can provide the best environmental and
economic alternative for wastewater treatment. The plans would not only
preserve but would even improve the coastal environments where these
discharges occur.
PRASA proposes the construction of a deep ocean outfall that would
release primary treated wastewater miles from shore at a depth and
location that will have no adverse impact on human and marine life.
This alternative would improve the coral environment where the
current outfall discharges and would also save the Government of Puerto
Rico about $65 million over 20 years that can be spent to address other
water supply and infrastructure problems affecting the island.
EPA and the Department of Justice have agreed to enter into a
Consent Order with PRASA that provides PRASA the opportunity to apply
for the construction of a deep water ocean outfall, which would be an
alternative to a secondary treatment plant. However, this alternative
cannot even be considered without this legislation; and under the terms
of the Consent Order, this alternative can only be considered if this
legislation is enacted by August 1, 1998.
If this legislation is enacted, EPA will have a choice as to
whether or not to allow the alternative measure. If it is not enacted,
there will be no choice, regardless of the environmental or economic
consequences. This is what this proposal will accomplish. It is a sound
approach to environmental regulations.
It is imperative to stress the fact that this is only a limited and
technical amendment that allows PRASA to refile under section 301(h).
PRASA would be required by EPA to meet the same stringent legal and
scientific tests, conduct the same environmental studies and implement
the same monitoring program applicable to existing recipients of
section 301(h) waivers. This amendment would not assure that a waiver
would be granted; that decision would remain entirely within EPA's
discretion.
EPA will be the ultimate decisionmaker, and will determine if
PRASA's proposed alternative is feasible and environmentally
beneficial. If, after the review, that alternative is acceptable, then
PRASA will immediately begin construction of the facility, with the
discharge location approved by the EPA. If EPA finds the alternative
unacceptable, then PRASA will proceed with the construction of the
secondary treatment plant.
Puerto Rico is not asking for preferential treatment. Rather, we
are only requesting that EPA balance the cost of constructing a
secondary treatment facility against the environmental, economic and
social benefits of constructing an outfall at a deep water location.
There are precedents for such limited amendment to section 301(h),
most recently for San Diego during the 103d Congress. In the instance
of San Diego legislation was enacted to allow EPA to consider a section
301 (h) waiver application proposing a similar alternative to secondary
treatment. I believe we deserve the same opportunity to implement an
alternative and seek a section 301(h) waiver.
My environmental record speaks for itself. I would not support any
measure that I believe compromises our resources or the environment of
the island. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and its
common sense approach. The proposal is limited and targeted, provides
for an efficient process, does not modify existing standards and would
be implemented by EPA only if environmental and economic objectives are
accomplished. I am hopeful that it will receive favorable action in the
Senate before the August Is' deadline.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any
questions please do not hesitate to contact Ruben Padron of my staff at
(202) 225-5046.
Sincerely,
Carlos Romero-Barcelo.
__________
Statement of Perfecto Ocasio, Executive Director, Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority
Mr. Chairman, my name is Perfecto Ocasio. I am the Executive
Director of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), the
public corporation that serves almost all of the 3.8 million American
citizens in Puerto Rico with potable water and wastewater services.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the need for this
legislation, which would benefit the environment and the economy of
Puerto Rico.
I would first like to present to the Committee a letter, from
Governor Pedro Rossello, urging quick Senate action on H.R. 2207, as a
matter of urgent importance to the people of Puerto Rico.
background
Under section 301(h) of the 1977 Clean Water Act, coastal
communities, including islands, were permitted an opportunity to apply
for an alternative to the requirements of secondary treatment for ocean
discharges that met stringent environmental equivalency requirements.
All applications were required initially to be submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by December 31, 1982. PRASA
submitted seven applications. Six were tentatively approved; only one--
the Mayaguez treatment plant outfall--was denied, finally in 1994,
because of the location of the outfall in the sensitive coral
environment of Mayaguez Bay.
consent decree alternatives
H.R. 2207, which was passed by the House last October, would allow
Puerto Rico to apply to the EPA for authority under section 301(h) of
the Clean Water Act to construct a new, state-of-the-art deep ocean
outfall at a location that avoids this coral environment. This would be
an alternative to secondary treatment at the current outfall location
in Mayaguez Bay. This option is specifically embodied in a recent
Consent Decree between the EPA and PRASA, which resolves a 15-year-old
legal dispute. The Consent Decree, supported by EPA and PRASA, requires
PRASA to meet a detailed schedule for the construction of facilities
necessary to achieve compliance with all of the requirements of the
Clean Water Act.
But it provides two alternatives. One is the construction of a
traditional secondary treatment plant, at high cost and energy
consumption, which will continue to discharge effluents into Mayaguez
Bay. The second alternative, illustrated in the accompanying chart, is
the construction of a deep water ocean outfall, sending primary treated
effluent several miles offshore into deep ocean currents, thus
relieving stress on the Bay and its sensitive coral ecosystems. The
deep water outfall could be less expensive to build and much less
expensive to operate than a secondary treatment plant. EPA would
determine whether the deep ocean outfall meets all Clean Water Act
standards. However, because of the urgent need for a solution, the
Consent Decree permits EPA consideration of the deep ocean outfall
alternative only if Congress authorizes this approach by August 1,
1998.
benefits of the legislation
This legislation provides Puerto Rico the same opportunity that
Congress has given other coastal communities in unique situations to
implement section 301(h). The bill does not in any way change any
applicable standards of the Clean Water Act. Without authority to
submit a waiver application to the EPA, PRASA may be required to spend
many millions of dollars for a secondary treatment plant that will have
no beneficial effect on the stressed marine environment of Mayaguez
Bay. These funds could be used for the renovation and upgrade of Puerto
Rico's deteriorating water facilities infrastructure and other water
supply, treatment and wastewater projects urgently needed in Puerto
Rico.
H.R. 2207 makes the following findings:
1. The existing discharge from the Mayaguez publicly owned
treatment works is to the stressed waters of Mayaguez Bay, an area
containing severely degraded coral reefs, and relocation of that
discharge to unstressed ocean waters could benefit the marine
environment;
2. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act should, consistent with
the environmental goals of the Act, be administered with sufficient
flexibility to take into consideration the unique characteristics of
Mayaguez Bay; and
3. Scientific evidence suggests that some deep ocean areas off the
coastline of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, might be able to receive a less-
than-secondary sewage discharge while still maintaining healthy and
diverse marine life.
coral reef protection
Just last month the President issued an Executive Order on Coral
Reef Protection. The legislation also provides Congress and the EPA
with an early opportunity to further the goals of this initiative. That
Order, which is designed to protect and preserve coral reef ecosystems,
requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to reduce
impacts on affected environments from pollution and sedimentation. H.R.
2207 will allow EPA the opportunity to determine whether a deep ocean
outfall can protect Mayaguez Bay. Without this bill, EPA and PRASA have
no options--except an inordinately expensive one--a course of action
that would continue pollution and sedimentation of the coral ecosystem.
This bill does not authorize construction of a deep ocean outfall, it
will simply allow us to conclude the necessary studies and complete an
application for EPA's review.
environmental impact statement
PRASA is already proceeding to ensure a thorough environmental
review of all options. Under Law Number 9, Puerto Rico's local
equivalent to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), PRASA and
the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) are preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A draft EIS was completed in
April recommending a deep ocean outfall as environmentally preferable.
A copy of the EIS is being submitted to the Committee.
The entire EIS record will be available to EPA as it considers the
strict standards of section 301(h).
congressional precedents
There are precedents for such a limited amendment to section
301(h). The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981 included a provision that specifically permitted the
city of Avalon, California to file. The 1981 provision concluded:
``failure to broaden eligibility risks requiring treatment for
treatment's sake, involving the expenditure of funds which could be
better used to achieve additional water quality benefits elsewhere.
This provision does not grant variances. It simply allows variances to
be sought with the burden on the applicant to make his case on
environmental grounds.''
The Water Quality Act of 1987 also included a specific provision
for the Irvine Ranch Water District, a California public agency, that
permitted the District to file for a section 301(h) waiver. More
recently, in 1994 Congress passed H.R. 5176, which allowed the city of
San Diego to apply for a waiver under section 301(h) within 180 days of
enactment. This action precisely parallels the provision here.
We urge you to act quickly. A legislative solution must be in place
before August 1, 1998. This will allow us to put to rest years of
litigation and focus our energies and capital resources on implementing
an environmentally sound solution for Mayaguez and other urgent
priorities.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue
for Puerto Rico.
__________
Statement of Juan C. Martinez-Cruzado, Ph.D., Mayaguezanos for Health
and Environment
Mr. Chairman: I am Dr. Juan C. Martinez-Cruzado, former President
of and spokesperson for Mayaguezanos for Health and Environment, Inc.
(MHE). We thank the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee very
much for this opportunity to express ourselves to you, even though we
are not constituents of any of you.
Until earlier this week, I had expected to be silent today. Mr.
Victor Negron, counsel to the Mayor of Mayaguez, had planned to present
testimony on behalf of the government and people of Mayaguez, MHE, and
La Liga Ecologica de Rincon. Unfortunately, a last-minute change in
circumstances prevented him from appearing today. His written testimony
is found on top of the packet that we have presented to the Committee.
Accompanying his testimony is a letter from the Mayor of Mayaguez
authorizing me to testify on behalf of the Municipality today. My
testimony is labelled attachment 1.
MHE is a community-based environmental community organization that
formed during our city's successful struggle against the establishment
of a coal-fired power plant that was to use 466 million gallons of
seawater per day from Mayaguez Bay. We hold our Bay in high regard, and
dream of the day in which we may be able to swim again in it without
getting skin rashes, ear infections, and other ailments.
We are also involved in other programs aimed at protecting the Bay.
For example, we took vigorous action to improve the bay's water quality
by filing a citizen suit against the tuna canneries that discharge to
the bay and negotiating with them the construction of secondary and
tertiary treatment facilities. This was done, I might add, despite the
opposition of the government of Puerto Rico.
When H.R. 2207 was introduced in the House of Representatives last
summer we opposed it very strongly because it would have given the
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) an opportunity not
only to submit a new 301(h) waiver application, but to exempt it from
the application revision procedures of section 125.59(d) of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, thereby eliminating all EPA review
criteria and all public participation and, in effect, leaving EPA with
no legal basis to deny any new PRASA--301(h) waiver application in
Mayaguez. Though that highly objectionable provision has since been
removed, we are still adamantly opposed to the bill because it has the
effect of retarding by too many years all actions and investments
needed to save the coral reefs and improve the water quality of
Mayaguez Bay.
We must stress that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands is characterized by indifference and negligence, and a
much less pro-environmental position than is generally the case on the
mainland. The Agency's handling of--301(h) waivers is a good example.
Since that provision was first added to the Act in 1977, more than 200
applications for waivers were submitted. During that 20-year or so
span, EPA has made its final determinations on all but seven of those
applications. Not coincidentally, the remaining 7 are all in Puerto
Rico or the Virgin Islands. In the meantime, partially treated sewage
continues to be dumped into the Caribbean and the Atlantic.
As Hispanics, we are very aware of discrimination by EPA, and so we
were very pleased that President Clinton signed an Executive Order on
Environmental Justice in 1993. However, the problem remains a very real
one for us.
In Mayaguez, it took EPA 6 years to conclude its enforcement
discussions with PRASA. When they finally produced a consent decree
(see attachment 4), EPA had agreed to sit on the law for 1 year,
explicitly to give PRASA a chance to weaken the law that EPA is called
on to enforce. The agreement of EPA to this provision is regarded by
many, including us, as a preliminary approval of the proposed deep
ocean outfall, despite the fact that no studies or documentations that
supported its viability were available. We were also distressed to
learn that EPA had helped draft H.R. 2207. In short, we believe that we
have been treated worse than those who live on the mainland. We cannot
trust EPA.
Even though EPA concluded 7 years ago that the waters of Mayaguez
Bay were already so stressed that no further impairment could be
tolerated, PRASA is still discharging the same barely treated
wastewater, at the same site, causing the same effects on our beaches
and corals. And here we are, now considering turning the clock back to
1979 and giving PRASA another opportunity to engage in a long--301(h)
waiver application procedure. The people of Mayaguez, who are sick of
waiting for action, can only regard this bill as an excuse to keep
doing nothing about the sewage in Mayaguez Bays and an attempt to
condemn our coral reefs to a slow death.
The desire for a quick solution to this discharge is so great that
even the Governor of Puerto Rico went out of his way in October, 1996,
1 month before the general elections, to promise to the people of
Mayaguez the start of the construction of the secondary treatment plant
by July, 1997 (see attachment 6). That promise, however, proved to be
an empty one.
Last May, PRASA submitted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the deep ocean outfall to the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board (PREQB). PRASA put in writing and on the map (see attachment 3)
the proposed point and depth of discharge. The depth, 400 feet, is
within, not under, the thermoclyne, suggesting that the wastewaters
will float to the surface, rather than sink to the sea bottom.
The proposed point of discharge is within waters used by humpback
whales to mate and give birth, and part of the area used for whale
watching activities. It is awfully close to the point where the
continental shelf drops off--this area provides critical habitat to
massive populations of fish larvae, and is thus a cornerstone of the
local fishery.
The proposed discharge point is only 2.5 miles from beaches of
Rincon and Anasco, well known as tourism spots and for their surfing
activities. Most of the year, strong ocean currents would bring the
pollution to those beaches. When cold fronts hit Puerto Rico in the
winter months, ocean currents shift to the southeast, where a major
coral reef--Manchas Exteriores--would be located 1.2 miles from the
point of discharge. As a result, the people of the municipalities of
Anasco and Rincon are joining the opposition to this bill. Close to 100
people attended the PREQB public hearings on June 22. Fifteen
testimonies, all in opposition, were presented, including testimonies
from hotel and parader owners in Rincon, fishermen in Anasco, various
people from Rincon, Anasco and Mayaguez, as well as environmental
organizations and marine scientists. (see attachment 8).
An engineer presented for a second time a proposal for secondary
treatment followed with discharge to existing wetlands for natural
tertiary treatment (see attachment 7). Land application of secondarily
treated wastewater will be less expensive than deep ocean disposal, and
will remove ALL discharges from the sea.
It is crystal clear that the deep ocean outfall is the worst
possible solution to a fairly straightforward problem. Undoubtedly, the
approval of H.R. 2207 will mean years and years of the current
conditions in which our corals are slowly dying and our children can
only swim in filth. If passed, H.R. 2207 will only keep Mayaguez in the
polluted conditions that it has endured for so many years. We urge you
to let H.R. 2207 die.
If the bill is not enacted, secondary treatment will be in
operation by 2001, according to the terms of the consent decree. Even
though secondary treatment is in itself a mediocre solution, as it
provides little relief to corals, this is far better than waiting
another decade for PRASA to bicker with, and probably sue EPA over
its--301(h) waiver application. In the meantime, our children will be
able to swim in safe waters and a sound alternative, tertiary
treatment, can be fleshed out.
We hope that this option will have renewed support, given President
Clinton's issuance of Executive Order No. 13,089, ``Coral Reef
Protection.'' As I'm sure you know, the Order is intended to renew and
deepen ``the Nation's commitment to preserve and protect the
biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S.
coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment.'' How ironic it would
be if the Senate were to approve H.R. 2207, and send it to the
President for his signature so soon after the issuance of the Executive
Order.
We must bear in mind that when Congress structured the--301(h)
waiver opportunity in 1977, it did it so with the clear understanding
that the opportunity to seek such waivers would expire in 5 years. In
other words, even where a sewage plant operator could persuade EPA that
it complied with all of the criteria found in the law, no application
for such a waiver could be accepted after December 31, 1 982. On that
day, the door closed. Why? Doubtless because Congress recognized that
there is something profoundly wrong with dumping barely treated waste
into the sea for decades. The 92d Congress was right. The 105th would
make a terrible mistake by undercutting the only sound feature of--
301(h).
Not long ago, it was commonly believed that the world's oceans were
a bottomless receptacle, a universal sink, a resource with no limits.
Therefore, it was thought that there was no problem with barging New
York City's garbage 112 miles offshore, and dumping it onto the sea
floor. The Soviet Union thought there was no problem with disposing of
decommissioned nuclear submarines by dropping them onto sea floor. Many
people still believe that we can harvest all the fish we please from
the world's oceans, because the ocean's ability to produce protein is
unlimited.
As this Committee is now very aware, all of these notions have been
proven to be tragically wrong. We have come to realize that the oceans
are much smaller and more fragile that we once thought. Fueled by
population and technological growth, our collective ability to tamper
with, if not destroy traditional ecological equilibria increases every
year, often with disastrous consequences. We now know better than to
think that indiscriminate dumping of waste is harmless. We can no
longer claim ignorance as an excuse.
Broadly speaking, there are three ways to deal with pollution; (1)
it can be prevented--this is the modern, and most cost-effective
approach; (2) it can be treated after the fact, as most pollution is
now handled; or (3) it can simply be dumped, untreated into a dark hole
where people do not know what is going on, hoping that the pollution
will never come back to haunt us. This is the waste management
philosophy of the Cave Men. The Senate disserves Puerto Rico by
applying this philosophy to our island, our people, our tropical
waters, and the tremendous array of wildlife that inhabit them.
The 92d Congress was right when it closed to door on 301(h) waivers
after 1982. The 105th Congress would make a terrible mistake by
reopening that door in 1998.
Thank you.
______
Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc.
Mayaguez, PR, July 10, 1998.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington DC 20510.
Re: H.R. 2207--Section 301(h) waiver for Mayaguez. PR Sewage
Treatment Plant
Dear Senator Chafee: This follows your question at yesterday's
hearing regarding the 12 years that it took EPA to conclude PRASA's
failed effort to obtain a Sec. 301[h] waiver for the Mayaguez plant. In
fact the process took 16 years, because even after PRASA was curtly
dismissed by EPA in 1991 (not even a hearing was granted on PRASA's
patently deficient applications], PRASA filed administrative and
judicial appeals for four more years - all the way to the Supreme
Court! The next month they went to Congress for permission to begin the
process all over again [H.R. 1371, 94th Cong., introduced March
30,1995.]
Senator Rodriquez's assertion that the Puerto Rico Senate would
expedite the next round of paperwork, even assuming that a legislative
body could play such a role, is at odds with the hard-ball litigation
tactics that were being applied as recently as three years ago.
Having now failed for 19 years to obtain from EPA a waiver allowing
it to [1 keep the current discharge where it is, and [23 avoid
secondary treatment, PRASA seeks from your Committee what would amount
to an open-ended waiver chat would allow the same thing. In the
meantime, they could file papers with EPA for another 12, or 16, or 19
years. And the economy of the Mayaguez would continue to bear the
burden of EPA's sewer hook-up moratorium.
Twenty-one years ago, Congress wisely set 1982 as the deadline for
these waiver applications. The Mayaguez matter is not the right context
for taking chunks out of what is probably the nation's most effective
environmental law.
Sincerely,
Juan C. Martinez-Cruzado.
______
Governor of Puerto Rico
June 18, 1998
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman: By this means I respectfully request your
support for H.R. 2207 [the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act],
legislation that will permit the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority [PRASA] to implement a Consent Order that it has signed with
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and to apply for authority
under the Clean Water Act to construct a deepwater outfall at the
Municipality of Mayaguez on the west coast of Puerto Rico. If H.R. 2207
becomes law and if the EPA determines that the environmental standards
of the Clean Water Act are met. then PRASA could relocate its
wastewater treatment discharges to deep ocean waters. That would
eliminate the current discharge site, which is contributing effluents
to a sensitive coral environment in the polluted Mayaguez Bay: it would
likewise eliminate a deterrent to the region's economic growth, by
allowing the EPA to lift its ban on development in the Mayaguez area.
For nearly 15 years PRASA and the EPA have been embroiled in
litigation over a solution to the problem of reducing stress on
Mayaguez Bay's delicate environment. Throughout the entire duration of
my administration, dating back to 1993, EPA has imposed a prohibition
on new development in the area because of Clean Water Act violations.
Now, finally, PRASA and the EPA have signed a Consent Order that offers
two alternatives. The first of these would require the very costly
construction of a traditional secondary treatment facility that would
continue to discharge wastewater into Mayaguez Bay. The second
alternative would entail the construction of a deepwater ocean outfall
that would release treated effluent several miles offshore into deep
ocean currents. A deepwater outfall would be less expensive to build
and much less expensive to operate than would a secondary treatment
facility. Should a deep ocean outfall be constructed, the EPA will
determine whether it meets all Clean Water Act standards.
However, the process leading to creation of a new outfall - which
both PRASA and the Mayaguez community deem to be the environmentally
preferable alternative -- cannot commence unless is H.R. 2207 is
enacted by August 1, 1998: that is the date which was agreed upon by
PRASA and the EPA in their Consent Order, as a means of guaranteeing
that a permanent solution would not be delayed indefinitely.
The legislation in question was passed by the House of
Representatives last year and has been endorsed by the EPA. Its
enactment into law prior to August 1, 1998 would greatly benefit our
precious environment, as well as the economic self-sufficiency
aspirations of the 3.8-million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. Your
leadership in the attainment of this urgent objective will thus be
deeply appreciated.
Thank you for your kind attention to this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Pedro Rossello.
__________
Statement of the Association of National Estuary Programs
Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee: On behalf of the Association of National Estuary
Programs (ANEP), we appreciate this opportunity to submit to this
Committee our views on protecting and restoring the Nation's estuaries.
The Association of National Estuary Programs is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to promoting responsible stewardship and a
common vision for the preservation of our nation's bays and estuaries.
ANEP's citizen members and grassroots supporters are working to ensure
that Congress continues to support the tremendous volunteer investment
made by citizens, scientists, and local decision makers in developing
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to protect the
nation's ``estuaries of national significance.''
We are pleased that this Committee is turning its attention to the
plight of the Nation's estuaries, and offer our endorsement of S.1321,
a bill to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and S.1222, the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Introduced by Senator
Torricelli, S.1321 is a bipartisan bill with 18 co-sponsors \1\ that
would reauthorize the National Estuary Program through fiscal year
2004. The National Estuary Program is established by section 320 of the
Clean Water Act, and administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in close partnership with the State and local governments,
interested citizens, and the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Cosponsors include Senators Graham, Mack, Sarbanes, Lautenberg,
Chafee, Reed, Moynihan, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Murray, Faircloth,
Landrieu, D'Amato, Gregg, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Cleland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well established that estuaries are the biologically
essential, economically priceless, but fragile connections between the
continent and the oceans. The entire nation is served by coastal
estuaries in numerous ways such as commercial and recreational fishing,
boating, wildlife habitat, transportation, and tourism. Through the
National Estuary Program, local governments and interested business and
industry groups come together with State and Federal governments to
reach agreement on long-term management plans that protect the future
economic and biological productivity of our estuaries.
To date, there are 28 estuaries in the national program: Eleven
programs are in the developmental stage and 17 are in the
implementation stage of their individual ``Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans'' (CCMPs). These 28 NEPs contain 45 percent of the
nation's surface water area and are downstream from 26 percent of the
nation's watersheds. These programs are clearly an important factor in
at least a quarter of the nation's inland and coastal watersheds. The
management plans for each of these 28 NEPs are each unique, but share
many characteristics in that they are all based on sound science, all
written by local stakeholder groups in partnership with the relevant
regulatory agencies, and all approved by the local and State
governments that will be principal partners in implementation. Local
citizens guide the development and implementation of their plans, and
work to leverage Federal and State dollars with contributions from
local governments and the private sector.
The Association of National Estuary Programs endorses S.1321.
Through its ten years of experience, the National Estuary Program has
become an excellent model for developing solutions to complex
environmental problems. The 28 programs implement their management
plans to improve water quality, habitat, and water flows. Strong
federal support is critical. By maximizing the federal investment on
the management plans and local partnerships that have been created, the
National Estuary Program provides real benefits to the health of the
nation's estuaries and the people who live there. S.1321 offers a
simple, straight-forward reauthorization of the National Estuary
Program.
Through the National Estuary Program, many environmental problems
are already improving. A few examples of NEP success stories include:
The San Juan National Estuary Program is reducing the
number of unauthorized raw sewage discharges from boater pump out
stations.
The Massachusetts Bays Program led an interagency approach
to shellfish bed restoration that will restore and protect 13 shellfish
beds along Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
More than 32,000 acres of critical habitat area has been
preserved in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Over 35,000 acres of impounded
marsh and mangrove wetlands are being reconnected to the Indian River
Lagoon on Florida's eastern coast, one of the most productive U.S.
ecosystems.
The programs in both Corpus Christi Bay, Texas and Tampa
Bay, Florida are developing long-term dredged materials management
plans to provide environmental protection and to maximize beneficial
uses of dredged materials. Tillamook Bay NEP watershed, the largest
milk producing region in Oregon, has performed a study that identifies
sources of bacteria associated with water pollution and links land use
practices to water quality.
The National Estuary Program will be valuable both as a model and
as an implementation mechanism for S.1222. Habitat restoration and
preservation is critically needed in many of the nation's estuaries of
national significance; fish and wildlife habitat loss is one of the
greatest problems in our estuaries and it deserves immediate attention
and action.
We would like to provide two comments on S.1321. First, we endorse
the provision that would allow funding to be used for both the
development and implementation of the CCMPs. However, we must express
our concern that increasing the State share of funding in the
implementation stage from 50 percent to 75 percent because it
diminishes the total effort that is needed to implement the CCMPs.
Maintaining the current level of federal partnership conveys a
commitment that attracts local sponsors and actually assists in
leveraging additional local dollars for the projects that improve water
quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and conserve water supplies. For
this reason we urge the Committee to maintain the State's funding share
for implementing the CCMPs at 25 percent.
Second, we applaud S. 1321's authorization of $50 million for this
national program. In years past there were just a dozen NEPs receiving
around $12 million to develop CCMPs, about $1.0 million per NEP.
Unfortunately, today there are 17 NEPs implementing CCMPs with another
11 in the developmental stage while the total funding to the program
has not increased proportionally. The increased funding authorized by
S.1321 is necessary because there are now 28 National Estuary Programs,
and solid federal support is needed to fully advance the mission and
goals of each NEP. At the same time, however, S.1321 does not include a
provision that we think it should, namely, holding firm EPA's
administrative expenses. We want the funding increase to go toward
restoring the nation's estuaries - implementing the local programs.
We thank the Committee for providing us the opportunity to share
our views with you. The Association of National Estuary Programs stands
ready to assist the Committee as it works to pass this vital
legislation.
__________
Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
John Atkin, Stamford, Connecticut, Executive Director, Save the Sound,
Long Island Sound.
Will Baker, Annapolis, Maryland, Chairman of Restore America's
Estuaries, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Dery Bennett, Highlands, New Jersey, Executive Director, American
Littoral Society.
Peter Clark, St. Petersburg, Florida, Executive Director, Tampa
BayWatch.
Mark Davis, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Executive Director, Coalition to
Restore Coastal Louisiana.
Kathy Fletcher, Seattle, Washington, Vice Chair of Restore America's
Estuaries, Executive Director, People for Puget Sound.
Doug Foy, Boston, Massachusetts, Executive Director. Conservation Law
Foundation.
Todd Miller, Newport, North Carolina, Executive Director, North
Carolina Coastal Federation.
Barry Nelson, Oakland, California, Senior Fellow, Save the San
Francisco Bay Association.
Linda Shead, Webster, Texas, Executive Director, Galveston Bay
Foundation.
Curt Spalding, Providence, Rhode Island, Executive Director, Save the
Bay, Narragansett Bay.
On behalf of Restore America's Estuaries, we would like to thank
Senator Chafee and the committee for the opportunity to present written
testimony in support of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
Act, S. 1222. The members of Restore America's Estuaries welcome the
opportunity to express our organizations' strong support and
appreciation for Senator Chafee's leadership and vision in introducing
legislation that will help our communities preserve and restore
our.nation's ' coastal heritage.
Restore America's Estuaries is a coalition off 11 community-based
coastal environmental organizations with a combined membership of over
250,000. Our mission is to save and restore America's estuaries and
coastal heritage for our children, before it disappears.
Galvanized by their love of our coastal waters, citizens
established the R.A.E. organizations to mobilize their communities in
protecting these special places. The R.A.E. members have been working
for more than 30 years to protect this coastal heritage. Despite the
significant accomplishments of the past generation of environmental
efforts, we share a deep concern that many species of fish, birds. and
other animals are not recovering as we had expected. We are also
troubled by the fact that some coastal areas not previously affected by
water pollution, are now in serious decline'. These continued problems
are caused by the ongoing loss of habitat for fish, birds, shellfish
and plants along our shorelines. In order to bring abundant life back
to our bays, sounds, and lagoons, our communities must do more than
protect the remaining habitat. We must restore the valuable habitats
which have been destroyed.
That is what our organizations and their members have been doing
over the past three decades. From Seattle, Washington, to Galveston,
Texas, to Rockland, Maine, the R.A.E. members have identified and
targeted the habitat resources in their own estuaries that are
threatened and in need of restoration. Working with school children,
neighborhood organizations, and a variety of civic groups, we are
helping our communities restore this estuary habitat one acre at a
time.
Together, we have pledged to restore one million acres of estuary
habitat-by the year 2010. The need is great. in coastal states, 55
million acres of wetlands have been destroyed. We need to turn the tide
of this devastating trend and actually foster the rebirth of our
estuaries and their life nurturing habitats.
Although, each estuary is unique, they all suffer from significant
habitat loss. 92 percent of San Francisco Bay's original wetlands have
been destroyed. In Texas, Galveston Bay has lost 85 percent of its sea
grass meadows. Louisiana loses 25,000 acres of coastal salt marshes
every year, and the Chesapeake Bay's oyster harvests have plummeted
from 25 million pounds in 1959 to only a million pounds in 1989 while
90 percent of its seagrass has disappeared. As the pfisteria crisis has
demonstrated in North Carolina and the Chesapeake Ray, these losses
have dire consequences for our environment, our economy, and our way of
life.
When our estuaries suffer these loses of habitats our communities
risk the loss of a wondrous heritage and a prized way of life.
Estuaries from Long Island Sound to San Francisco Bay are a vital part
of what makes our communities special. They serve as the focal points
for our community life and traditions, hosting everything from harvest
festivals to busy ports.
Joining together land, saltwater, and freshwater ecosystems,
estuaries provide a vital link to a healthy environment. Forming a
critical buffer between our land and waters, estuary habitat filters
pollution from runoff and protects our homes from flooding. Estuaries
shelter a tremendous quantity and diversity of wildlife, providing
essential habitat for 75 percent of America's commercial fish and
shellfish species, 75 percent of the United States' migratory waterfowl
and 45 percent of our endangered and threatened species depend upon
estuary habitat for shelter' food, and breeding grounds. So, when these
habitats are destroyed, the impact is felt far beyond local estuaries
as it diminishes our wildlife, water quality and the health of our
land.
Estuaries do more than shelter our families and enrich our lives,
they are also a valuable economic resource. One acre of estuary habitat
produces more food than the richest Midwestern farmland.
Commercial and recreational fishing, boating and tourism provide
Americans with 28 million jobs. The fishing industry alone contributes
$111 billion to the nation's economy. Our coastal waters welcome 150
million tourists who, in just 6 states, contributed more than $105
billion to local economies during their 1994 visits.
In short, estuaries are national treasures. They nourish.our
environment, strengthen our economy, enhance our leisure time, and
protect our children's futures. We need to care for our estuaries and
invest today to preserve and restore them.
Our communities are already making this investment. They are hard
at work restoring small pieces of habitat in estuaries like Tampa Bay,
Puget-Sound, and the Chesapeake, but the resources for restoration lag
far behind the number of excellent restoration projects available.
Senator Chafee's
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act will provide
communities with the resources they need to invest in the health of our
estuaries and save our coastal heritage.
Effectively leveraging limited federal resources by matching them
with local funding, S. 1222 will restore one million acres of estuary
habitat over the next 13 years. This goal will be accomplished by
funding voluntary estuary restoration projects which are driven from
the community up. Using this coordinated community-based approach,
S.1222 gives our communities the tools they need to finish the work
they have begun and bring life back to our estuaries.
This legislation goes beyond providing communities with much needed
funding. It gives federal agencies the tools to break down the barriers
of bureaucracy and work together to build partnerships with local
communities. In a recent report, Restore America's Estuaries catalogued
71 different, often overlapping, federal programs which implement some
habitat restoration. By creating nets ways for agencies to coordinate
their efforts, S. 1222 encourages our governments to make better use of
scarce funding and work more effectively. This translates into as much
as $10 of on-the-ground restoration for every $1 in new federal
funding.
Despite all that's been done, our nation's estuaries remain in
crisis. The migration of millions of people to the shores of estuaries
has had its impact. Our coastal communities have only a limited rime to
take action and reverse this situation. If we do not markedly increase
our efforts to restore America's estuaries soon, more species of fish,
plants, and birds may become memories just like the Atlantic salmon
which once swam in Narragansett Bay, the sea otter which once thrived
in San Francisco Bay, and the bay scallops which were once harvested in
Long Island Sound. Without action now, jobs will be lost and the
quality of life will suffer.
When, last September, Senator Chafee introduced S. 1222, he
recognized that the need for habitat restoration is acute and our
coastal communities are poised to eagerly respond to this challenge.
Restore America's Estuaries applauds Senator Chafee for his leadership
on this critical issue. Twenty-six cosponsors, from both sides of the
aisle, have also demonstrated that they understand the needs of our
estuaries and the coastal communities that depend on them. If we truly
want to restore our nation's fisheries, preserve our coastal heritage,
and improve our economy, we must give the federal government the
opportunity to help with this task.
The coordinated community-based approach prescribed in S. 1222 will
also set a powerful example for solving the more complicated
environmental challenges of the next century. It will help refocus the
Army Corps on the restoration of natural systems, just as is intended
in the draft of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that is
currently under consideration. Because S. 1222 affects the Army Corps'
mission and purpose and because the health of America's estuaries can
not afford years of delay, we respectfully urge immediate consideration
of S. 1222 as part of this year's WRDA reauthorization.
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act presents a vision
of great promise. It gives our communities the opportunity to leave our
children bays and sounds that are healthier than when we found them. We
want to thank Senator Chafee for providing the vision for this bill and
setting such a high standard for the future stewardship of our nation's
coastal resources.
__________
Statement of David R. Mills, Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Sarasota County, FL
Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you and all the members of the
Committee for giving me the opportunity to offer testimony on the
status and future of the National Estuary Program in general and the
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program in particular.
Estuaries are very important in both environmental and economic
terms. They provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife. Seventy
five percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on estuaries
during at least some stage of their life. The fishing industry provides
$111 billion to the nation's economy annually and supports 1.5 million
jobs. Because of their beauty and intriguing biodiversity, estuaries
are also an asset to the nation's tourism industry.
Ironically, some of the things that make estuaries so precious are
the very reasons they have become threatened. Due to their natural
beauty and hence their popularity, the overall capacity of our nation's
estuaries as healthy and productive ecosystems is declining. Increased
land development and activity associated with increased population in
these areas has, in turn, caused increased stormwater runoff and other
discharges that contribute to siltation, increased nutrients and other
contamination.
In 1987, Congress recognized the threats to these important coastal
areas and included the National Estuary Program in amendments to the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the program is to facilitate state and
local governments' preparation of comprehensive conservation and
estuaries covered management plans, or CCMPs, for under the program. To
date, 28 estuaries have been designated. Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act authorized the EPA to make grants to states to develop their plans.
However, the law does not provide for resources to facilitate
implementation of the plans and 17 of these 28 plans are already
complete.
One of the plans that has been completed is for Sarasota Bay in
Sarasota County, Florida, the county I serve. While each of the
estuaries in the National Estuary Program is unique in terms of their
physical attributes and their diverse inhabitants, they are equally
unique in the varying threats that are posed to them. A common estuary
pollutant in Sarasota Bay is nitrogen, an overabundance of which causes
increased growth of algae. The algae reduces light penetration to the
other organisms in the water and, through chemical and biological
processes, depletes the water of oxygen. It has been determined that
the amount of nitrogen in Sarasota Bay has tripled since intensive
development began. The source of the increased levels of nitrogen in
the Bay has been both small and large wastewater treatment plants,
groundwater contaminated by septic systems and fertilizers used in lawn
care and agriculture. Without remedial action, the EPA claims that the
nitrogen level would increase 16 percent in the next 20 years when the
area is fully developed according to existing plans. However, by
implementing the restoration plan for Sarasota Bay, these levels of
nitrogen can be 23 percent lower than they are today.
In addition to the introduction of nitrogen into estuaries,
surrounding development has also introduced an array of viruses,
bacteria and parasites that can pose a threat to swimmers, surfers,
divers and seafood consumers. Sources of these microbial contaminants
include leaky septic tanks, boat and marina waste, recreational
vehicles and campers, animal droppings, combined sewer overflows and
urban and agricultural runoff. Fish and filter feeding organisms such
as shellfish can concentrate these pathogens in their tissues and can
cause illness to people who consume them. As a result, shellfishing
areas and bathing beaches are often closed. Several estuaries are
experiencing contamination problems that require extensive research
into their origins and effects, such as the toxic microbe Pfiesteria
piscicida, which has broken out in rivers that drain into estuaries in
Maryland and Virginia.
Phillippi Creek, which feeds into Sarasota Bay, is posted with
warning signs of the potential health risks associated with exposure to
its waters. Scientific studies done on Phillippi Creek have shown the
presence of fecal coliform and human viruses. There are 7,500 septic
tanks along Phillippi Creek that will have to be replaced with a
central wastewater treatment system in accord with the proposed plan at
a cost of some $100 million.
The plan that has been developed for the Sarasota Bay Estuary is an
integral one that seeks to stem environmental impacts and enhance
natural systems. Most past environmental regulatory efforts in Florida
have concentrated on the larger, regional wastewater treatment plants.
While these programs have been successful in reducing nitrogen loads
from those facilities, the 45,000 septic tanks and the 55 small
wastewater treatment plants in the Sarasota County area contribute
nearly twice as much pollutant as the regional facilities, despite
handling less than half of the volume. Since the focus has not
historically been on septic tanks and smaller facilities, that is where
the biggest problem lies, especially for Sarasota Bay. The Sarasota Bay
NEP's overall recommendation for this problem is the aforementioned
replacement of a significant number of these tanks with a central
wastewater treatment system along Phillippi Creek as well as other
small treatment plants.
Additionally, the Sarasota Bay CCMP calls for revised regulation of
septic tanks and small wastewater treatment plants, programs to reduce
the use of fertilizers and pesticides in the area, using artificial
reefs as fisheries to replenish marine populations and restoring the
intertidal wetlands. Effectively managed recreational use of the Bay is
also recommended, as it will foster a sense of stewardship for the
estuary with both tourists and residents alike.
S. 1321 will take the next step by giving EPA the authority to make
grants for plan implementation and authorizing annual appropriations of
$50 million. There is also language in this bill that emphasizes and
insures that the program remain a partnership with a matching
requirement so that the funds will be available to upgrade sewage
treatment plants, fix combined sewer overflows, control urban
stormwater discharges and reduce polluted runoff into estuarine areas.
We in Sarasota are committed to this partnership. Last November, a 1
percent sales tax levy was passed to generate funds and we already have
preliminary engineering work underway for this project. In other words,
we come to Washington ready, willing and able to shoulder our share of
the partnership envisioned by s. 1321.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your assistance
and that of all the members of this Committee to ensure the
preservation of our nation's estuarine areas not only as a natural
wonder, but also as an environmental and economic asset to the regions
in which they exist. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit our
views on this important issue.
-