[Senate Hearing 106-284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-284
ESTUARY AND COASTAL HABITAT CONSERVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 492, A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO
ASSIST IN THE RESTORATION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
S. 522, A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF BEACHES AND COASTAL RECREATION WATER
S. 835, A BILL TO ENCOURAGE THE RESTORATION OF ESTUARY HABITAT THROUGH
MORE EFFICIENT PROJECT FINANCING AND ENHANCED COORDINATION OF FEDERAL
AND NON-FEDERAL RESTORATION PROGRAMS
S. 878, 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 APPROPRIATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAM
S. 1119, A BILL TO AMEND THE ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1950, TO CONTINUE FUNDING
OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT
H.R. 999, AN ACT TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF COASTAL RECREATION WATERS
__________
JULY 22, 1999
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
59-371 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SIXTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 22, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 5
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 45
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 13
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 29
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 30
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 18
WITNESSES
Bahr, Len, Coastal Advisor to the Governor, State of Louisiana... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Responses to questions from Senator Chafee................... 99
Bilbray, Hon. Brian, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 9
Breaux, Hon. John B., U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana... 6
Danson, Ted, president, The American Oceans Campaign............. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Davis, Hon. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works, Department of the Army.................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Fox, Hon. J. Charles, Assistant Administrator for Water,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Responses to question from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 54
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 57
Hirshfield, Michael, senior vice president, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation..................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Responses to questions from Senator Chafee................... 97
Pagliughi, Hon. Martin L., Mayor, Borough of Avalon, NJ.......... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Responses to question from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 62
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 62
Ribb, Richard, director, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management, on behalf of the
Association of National Estuary Programs....................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland.. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Shead, Linda, executive director, Galveston Bay Foundation, on
behalf of Restore America's Estuaries.......................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Response to questions from Senator Chafee.................... 81
Torricelli, Hon. Robert G., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 8
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Article, Swimmers Warned About Polluted Beach.................... 75
Letter, Department of the Interior, Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife Parks............................................. 113
Statements:
Coastal States Organization, Inc............................. 110
Costa, Joseph E., executive director, Buzzards Bay Project
National Estuary Program................................... 88
Marlowe, Howard, president, American Coastal Coalition....... 109
Surfrider Foundation......................................... 78
Yozell, Sally, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 106
Table, Comparison of S. 522 and H.R. 999......................... 75
ESTUARY AND COASTAL HABITAT CONSERVATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Warner, Voinovich, Lautenberg,
Lieberman, and Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I want to welcome everyone here this
morning. Other Members will be coming along, I'm sure.
The purpose of the hearing is to learn more about six bills
that are before us relating to habitat restoration and coastal
water quality. The legislation before us is particularly
concerned with estuaries and other coastal resources.
What are estuaries? Estuaries, as you are going to hear a
lot about today, are bays, gulfs, inlets, and sounds where
fresh water meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean.
These estuaries and their adjacent wetland habitat are some of
the most biologically diverse and economically productive
systems in the entire world.
More than half of our migratory birds, neo-tropical
migratory birds in the United States, and a large number of
endangered species depend on estuaries for their survival.
And, of course, estuaries are very popular with tourists.
Some 180 million tourists visit our coasts every year.
The commercial fishing industry is dependent upon
estuaries, and that is a $40 billion industry. Of the
commercial fish and shellfish catch, 75 percent depend on
estuaries for their survival.
Of our Nation's population, 75 percent lives within a tidal
watershed, and population densities across the coastal areas
are four times the national average.
But these estuaries are under tremendous strain. Of the
30,000 square miles of assessed estuaries, 38 percent are
impaired. Over 55 million acres of coastal wetlands in the
United States has been destroyed since the Colonial time.
Oyster harvest in the Chesapeake Bay has declined from 133
million pounds in the 1880's, 100 years ago, to now one million
pounds. Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island has lost 70 percent of
its eel grass beds.
So we look forward to hearing the suggestions that will
come from the witnesses today, and I want to welcome our first
panel, which consists of three Senators, all of whom are
extremely interested in this subject and have given a lot of
thought to it, so we welcome each of you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
Statement of Hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator
from the State of Rhode Island
Good Morning. I would like to welcome everyone to the committee and
thank all of the witnesses for testifying this morning. The purpose of
today's hearing is to learn more about six bills before the committee
that relate to habitat restoration and coastal water quality.
While we have made great progress in cleaning our nation's waters,
there is still much work to be done. The goal of the Clean Water Act is
to ensure the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our
nations waters. Most of our progress relates to the chemical aspect of
water quality. We must broaden our efforts and focus on health of the
entire aquatic system.
We should be particularly concerned about our estuaries and other
coastal resources. Estuaries are bays, gulfs, inlets, and sounds where
freshwater meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean. Estuaries
and their adjacent wetland habitat are some of the most biologically
diverse and economically productive systems in the entire world. More
than half of the neo-tropical migratory birds in the United States and
a large number of endangered and threatened species depend on estuaries
for their survival.
Birds are by no means the only ones that rely on coastal
ecosystems. Each year, roughly 180 million tourists visit the coasts.
In addition to recreation, a number of Americans depend on estuaries
for their livelihoods. The commercial fishing industry contributes $40
billion annually to the national economy. 75 percent of the commercial
fish and shellfish catch depend on estuaries for their survival and
reproduction.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, unmanaged growth and
development are the principal causes of water quality degradation and
of fish and wildlife declines in coastal areas. Roughly 75 percent of
the country lives within a tidal watershed, and population densities
along coastal areas are 4 times the national average. Population growth
in coastal areas is three times that of non-coastal areas. Out of the
30,000 square miles of assessed estuaries, 38 percent are impaired.
From colonial times to the present, over 55 million acres of coastal
wetlands in the continental United States have been destroyed. The
oyster harvest in Chesapeake Bay has declined from 133 million pounds
in 1880 to today's annual catch of one million pounds. Narragansett
Bay, in my home State of Rhode Island, has lost 70 percent of its eel
grass beds. Unless action is taken to address our impacts on coastal
ecosystems, we will lose some of our most important natural resources.
Today's bills seek to address the threat to our coastal ecosystems.
S. 835, which I introduced in April of this year, sets an ambitious
goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat by the year
2010. The bill encourages partnerships between public and private
sectors and among all levels of government. My bill also reauthorizes
the National Estuary Program and allows Federal grants to support the
development and implementation of estuary conservation plans. S. 878,
introduced by Senator Torricelli, also focuses on the importance of
implementing conservation plans developed under the National Estuary
Program.
The 1990 Comprehensive Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act allocates a percentage of revenue from the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund to be used for wetlands projects. The funding
authorization for the program is set to expire in 1999. S. 1119,
introduced by Senator Breaux, would re-authorize the program through
2009.
S. 492, introduced by Senator Sarbanes, would re-authorize the
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program office. The
Chesapeake Bay Program office helps to coordinate State and Federal
efforts to restore the Bay. S. 492 would authorize the EPA to provide
technical assistance and grants to non-Federal entities helping to
restore and protect Chesapeake Bay.
We will also discuss two bills relating to beach monitoring and
notification of the public; H.R. 999 by Representative Bilbray and S.
522 by Senator Lautenberg. Both bills would require States to update
their water quality criteria and expand the role of the Federal
Government in beach monitoring and public notification programs. The
bills also would establish national standards for beach monitoring and
public notification and provide Federal funding to help States develop
and implement their programs.
Senator Chafee. All right, Senator Sarbanes, why don't we
start with you?
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Sarbanes. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
First of all, I am pleased to be back before the committee.
I welcome this opportunity to testify specifically in support
of S. 492, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, which I
introduced earlier this year, along with Senator Mikulski,
Senators Warner and Robb, and Senator Santorum.
At the very outset though, Mr. Chairman, I want to
certainly acknowledge your leadership in crafting legislation
to restore America's estuaries. I am pleased to cosponsor the
legislation that you have introduced, as well as the bill that
Senator Torricelli has put in with respect to the national
estuaries program.
I need hardly tell you that the Chesapeake Bay is the
largest estuary in the United States. It is the key to the
ecological and economic health of the mid-Atlantic region.
Members of Congress, of course, know the Bay well, and Henry
Mencken, H.D. Mencken, once referred to the Chesapeake Bay as
``the world's greatest protein factory.'' We haven't quite been
able to measure up to those past standards of production, but I
think it is an apt label.
Through the concerted effort of public and private
organizations, we have increasingly come to understand the
complexities of the Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I know you have a full panel, and I am going
to quickly summarize. I'd like my full statement to be included
in the record.
Senator Chafee. Definitely.
Senator Sarbanes. We put in place this Bay program. We were
able to get the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
some years back to come together in undertaking the watershed
recovery program. The Federal Government participated in that.
EPA is an active partner in that effort. And there are a number
of private organizations, many of them--the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, for one--from whom I think you will be hearing
later this morning on one of the other panels.
This cooperation has been essential in order to improve the
water quality in the Bay.
We've made some progress, but we are under tremendous
stress, as everyone recognizes. We had this phisteria outbreak,
although we've not had it this year, fortunately. You know, we
have fish kills and so forth. Some of the crab catch is down
this year. So we know there are continuing problems. And then
we have the natural impacts. The drought, of course--thank
goodness we had this big rain, but, you know, we need a lot
more of it.
In any event, we need to remain vigilant in the efforts to
restore the Bay. We think the Bay program has been a model and
we've always appreciated greatly the support of this committee
for our efforts. We have joined together in the past, of
course, in efforts not only on the Chesapeake but the
Narragansett, as well, Puget Sound out in the State of
Washington, and elsewhere.
I think the broader bill which you are introducing is a
very important contribution.
This legislation, in a sense, reauthorizes the Bay program
which has been in place now for a number of years. It makes a
couple of changes. It develops a better coordination mechanism
amongst the Federal agencies, which we think is important. It
provides for better agency disclosure and budget coordination,
so we get the information out and encourage greater citizen
participation. And also it authorizes the EPA to establish a
small watershed grants program. We've tried that on a
demonstration basis and it has worked exceedingly well. A lot
of small local organizations, local governments, have been
drawn in and have instituted their own projects. We draw in
matching moneys as a consequence, and we think this is a very
important initiative.
This bill has been very carefully crafted, with the advice
and counsel of many hard-working organizations in the Bay
region--the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the three
State governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, we think we are making advances, but we need
to continue the effort, obviously. Otherwise, we will simply
slip back. This is a fairly critical time, because the EPA
administrator, the Governors of the three States, and the mayor
of the District of Columbia are now renegotiating the
cooperative agreement, and we will certainly want to maintain
the Federal role, which has been essential as a catalyst. The
money side of it from the Federal level is important too--the
major money comes at the State level, and it is very
significant, indeed, but we need to maintain the Federal
Government as a catalyst and a coordinator, and I very much
hope the committee can approve this legislation and, indeed,
the other legislation that is pending before you.
Senator Chafee. Senator, I want to commend you and the
Senators from your adjoining States for what they've done.
They've all taken extremely seriously their working on this.
You know, the encouraging thing is that we can make a
difference. I know you followed closely the efforts we made in
connection with the striped bass, and it is remarkable how that
has come back from really dire circumstances.
Senator Sarbanes. Right.
Senator Chafee. And that came about because a whole series
of steps were taken, as you recall.
So I share your deep concern and want to praise you for
what you've done in coming forth with this legislation, and we
take it very, very seriously.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't make the point
that I simply picked up this leadership role from Senator
Mathias, who many years ago went on a boat tour of the
Chesapeake Bay, and off of that began the whole process of
trying this major effort to restore the Bay, and he exercised
tremendous leadership and, of course, continues, even to this
very day, to take a very keen interest in this effort.
Senator Chafee. Fine.
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, due to my terrible schedule, I
wondered if I could have 1 minute to make a very brief opening
statement.
Actually, I'd like to put my statement in the record.
Senator Chafee. Sure. You can have not only 1 minute; you
can have 2 minutes.
Senator Boxer. Well, that's very kind. That's why I'm going
to miss you so much.
First, I wanted to say how proud I am of our colleagues
here who are working so hard on these ocean protection issues
and how strongly I support them, as well as your bill on
estuaries.
I want to state to them that I will work as hard as I can
to make sure that this all happens.
I also wanted to welcome my friend, Ted Danson, a great
environmentalist and protector of the oceans, founder of the
American Oceans Campaign, who has been working with me and many
other colleagues for many, many years on ocean protection. He
will be on the third panel.
I'm just so happy that you are here, Ted. It is so
wonderful when you can get away from your business to help
preserve the environment.
I wanted to say that, as usual, I will be offering an
amendment to one of the bills to make sure that, when we
cleanup, we cleanup to protect the children, because sometimes
the Federal Government will cleanup to a lesser standard, and
the kids go unprotected. Every time I've done that, I've gotten
it through this committee. I will be pressing on that again.
And I just want to say again to my colleagues, thank you
for your caring and your concern and your leadership.
And to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on these
important coastal restoration and protection bills. I support all of
the bills on today's agenda and look forward to working with the
Committee to ensure their timely passage.
I would like to begin by welcoming our witnesses here today. In
particular, I would like to pay special tribute to my friend Ted
Danson. As many of you know, Ted Danson has been a leader in
environmental preservation for many years. During the 11 years since he
founded the organization, Ted has been a valuable advocate for
protection of our coasts and a valuable friend to me. I am pleased to
see him here promoting a cause he truly believes in.
I am a co-sponsor of three of the bills on the agenda today:
Senator Chafee's Estuary Bill, Senator Torricelli's Estuary Bill and
Senator Lautenberg's Beach Bill. All three of these bills will assist
California and the entire nation in protecting and preserving our
precious marine resources. I look forward to the discussion about these
bills.
With 1,100 miles of coastline in California, these bills are
critical to protecting our marine environment, maintaining a healthy
population and promoting a strong economy. Californians know that the
health of our economy is inextricably linked to the health of our
coastal and marine resources.
I commend you Mr. Chairman for your estuary bill. S. 835, the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999 establishes a
program to restore 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. This is
a laudable and much needed goal. I strongly support this effort.
I would also like to commend Senator Lautenberg for his beach bill.
This legislation is not only important for environmental restoration,
but also for protecting public health and safety.
Mr. Chairman, when people go to enjoy our beaches, they should go
home with a tan, not a tummy ache. Unfortunately, all along our
nation's coasts, beach waters are being contaminated by land-based
pollution. Bacteria, viruses, toxic chemicals, nitrogen, and other
contaminants that are dumped into beach waters by storm drains,
malfunctioning septic systems, and overburdened sewage treatment plants
and threatening the health of swimmers, surfers, and other beach goers.
At best, this contamination must stop. At the least, we must ensure
the health and safety of the American people by establishing uniform,
national standard that will be used to test beach waters for
contamination. And it's not enough to just have a standard in place.
There must be monitoring, and most importantly, public notification of
possible harm.
However, I would like to inform the Committee that I intend to
offer an amendment to this legislation that will ensure that this
national standard is set at a level that protects children and
sensitive sub-populations. Are children should be free to play in the
waves without getting sick.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the bills being discussed
today. I look forward to working with you and the rest of this
Committee to move these bills forward expeditiously.
Senator Chafee. All right. And we hope you can stay. I know
you've got a busy schedule.
Senator Boxer. I have to go to the floor is the problem.
Senator Chafee. OK. Fine.
All right. Senator Breaux.
Is Congressman Bilbray back there? Why don't you come on up
and take a seat up here?
Among other things, he is head of the Surfers Coalition, I
believe. Is that the name of it?
Mr. Bilbray. It's the Surfers Caucus.
Senator Chafee. Surfers Caucus, and he has made me an
honorary member, which is really stretching things a long way.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilbray. Senator, I've seen the surf at Scarborough
Beach in Rhode Island, and you are right, it is stretching it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. No one will accuse him of buttering me up,
anyway.
Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee and
Senator Boxer, for your comments.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to urge the reauthorization of the
Act that Congress--and you were involved, Mr. Chairman, and we
all were back in 1990--known as the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act. President Bush signed that bill
into law back in 1990, so it is almost 10 years since it has
become law.
I think that it has allowed all of the coastal areas in my
State, and in other coastal States, to take all the studies and
all of the planning that had accumulated over the years in
libraries about what to do about wetlands, take all those
studies and plans and take them off of the shelf and actually
implement them into projects aimed at restoring the coastal
lands.
I think all of us from coastal areas realize that when
coastal areas are lost they are gone forever. When we have a
hurricane and it blows down buildings, the buildings can be
rebuilt. When we have an earthquake and it destroys homes, the
homes can ultimately be rebuilt. But every day a little bit of
my State breaks off and floats away into the Gulf of Mexico and
it is never coming back.
Louisiana loses somewhere between 25 and 30 square miles
every year of coastal land because of erosion. To put it in
perspective, that's about a football field every 30 minutes. If
that continues, my coastal area will be somewhere around
Chicago, which is not something that I'll look forward to
seeing.
When we set up this coastal wetlands planning, protection
and restoration program, the idea was to take the Federal
gasoline tax on small gasoline engines which are not driven on
interstate highways and put the small engine gas tax into a
fund from every gallon of gas that is bought for a snow blower
or a lawn mower or a chain saw and put it into a trust fund and
give it to the coastal States in order for them to use that
money in order to take those plans off the shelf and out of the
library and actually implement them, and the success, I think,
has been incredible.
Since the Act has been established, we have restored or
enhanced over 460,000 acres of coastal wetlands. The Federal
Government has contributed about $397 million, and the States
and other partners have matched and contributed more than $327
million, for a total which exceeds $724 million earmarked for
these type of projects.
The Federal highway bill that we just passed has already
reauthorized a funding source. The only thing that is left and
is necessary is for this committee to reauthorize the
authorizing part of the legislation. The funding source has
already been reauthorized through the Federal highway program.
The final comment, Mr. Chairman, I would make is that in
Louisiana--a coastal wetlands task force has been set up by the
Act. One of the problems has been, as we all know, that every
agency wants to do the work itself. States want to do it, the
local governments want to do it, the Federal agencies want to
do it. In the past, we've seen an incredible amount of
interparliamentary bickering among all of the agencies about
who is going to do the work.
I can proudly say in Louisiana we established a task force
which brings together all of these groups, working together to
draft the plans, to have them approved by vote of the task
force. On that task force are the Corps of Engineers, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the USDA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and, of
course, the State of Louisiana, and they must work together.
They are directed to work together by the Act to come up with a
type of plan that they can use to reduce the wetland loss and
to actually restore the wetlands that have been lost.
The State has recently signed a program that guarantees its
matching share as a dedicated source of funding showing the
State's commitment. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly encourage
you and other Members to continue the good work that this bill
has accomplished by reauthorizing it again.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Well, that makes a lot of sense, and I am
confident we are going to do what you requested.
If you and Senator Sarbanes have other appointments, feel
free to--I know you've got a heavy schedule.
Senator Torricelli.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Torricelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and
thank you for having me back again this year. It is becoming a
regular opportunity to address a subject I know that is
important to you and me.
I've come to bring your attention to S. 878, the National
Estuary Conservation Act, that I have introduced and you were
good enough to cosponsor, along with other members of the
committee in previous years--Senator Moynihan, Gramm,
Lieberman, and Boxer. Indeed, I am happy to thank you because
last year you included important parts of this legislation in
your own comprehensive estuary bill which passed the Senate. My
hope is that you would continue in your support of this
initiative, and that the House this year will follow your lead.
Like my colleagues, I am here principally to draw attention
to some things we all recognize but need repeating--the role of
estuaries in our economy, our cultural, and our family lives in
this country.
Indeed, commercially, 75 percent of the commercial fish
catch in the United States depends on the health of these
relatively limited estuaries. Of the Nation's population,
however, 45 percent resides in the same estuary areas.
To give you an idea locally of how important we recognize
this to be, we have a $24 billion tourist economy relying on
the same estuaries for fishing, habitats, boating, and outdoor
recreation. Indeed, despite the growth of many other important
high-tech and service industries in New Jersey, this remains
our principal source of income in the State.
But, like many other States, the problem is relatively
easily defined. These same limited estuaries, as we speak, in
the months of July and August--Barnegat Bay, for example, our
best-known and largest of the New Jersey shore, doubles in
population when the summer months approach.
In the New York/New Jersey area, those same estuaries have
730 combined sewage overflow spills polluting into the harbor--
an old infrastructure, a doubling population, spilling
pollution into very sensitive and limited estuary areas.
The recognition of these facts persuaded the Congress in
1987 to create the national estuary program to begin important
planning for dealing with this environmental stress. This
program has provided some valuable grants to State and local
governments to develop plans to preserve their estuaries.
Twenty-eight such estuaries across the country were designated,
including three in New Jersey--Barnegat Bay, Delaware Estuary,
and the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
To give you an idea of the importance of these estuaries,
42 percent of the continental United States' shoreline is
within the watersheds of these 28 estuaries.
Unfortunately, once the plans were developed, State and
local agencies were left with their own resources to implement
the plan. That's the problem: good planning, good
participation, great ideas, and no resources to implement them.
It is just like John Breaux just pointed out--all the
greatest ideas for preserving these estuaries have been
developed, and they're all sitting on the shelf.
Currently, there are funding levels of $17 million for all
28 plans--barely allow enough to allow development, no less any
implementation.
To give you an idea of the scale, finally, of the problem
that that $17 million would have to address, New York and New
Jersey Harbor, alone, having completed its plan, calls for 300
different environmental initiatives, including preserving
habitat, a project which identifies source pollution, and
controlling the combined sewer overflows, which involve 730
different construction projects.
The needs, the demand for resources is, obviously,
enormous, and the legislation that I have introduced, which
would increase funding to $50 million, is barely, itself, a
contribution, but it would allow some implementation of some of
these plans.
The resources to implement all of these plans will never be
available in a single year, or even in several years. This is a
question of beginning.
At the moment, there is no implementation. I would hope,
building upon the suggestions I've made, the legislation that
I've offered and members of the committee have cosponsored,
when the chairman begins his own efforts he would include some
of these aspects into his bill to allow some dedicated funding
so that we can begin implementing at least some of these plans.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for having me, for your
support for this effort through the years. I'm very grateful.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
As I mentioned, I am deeply interested in these, and I
agree with you that there has to be better funding for it.
We're going to need your continuing enthusiasm as we go through
this.
It is one thing to get it through the Senate; it is another
thing to get it through the House. Your experience over there
can be helpful to us.
Senator Torricelli. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. If you wish to be
excused, go to it.
Congressman Bilbray, nice to see you again here, and glad
to hear your thoughts.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I really came here to listen to
the testimony before you, but I can't pass up the chance to
articulate the fact that we have the BEACH bill that has been
passed unanimously on the House side and now is up for
consideration on your side.
Let me just restate my experience with this whole issue,
Mr. Chairman.
I grew up in a city called Imperial Beach, which is the
most polluted surfing beach in America. Mexico pollutes it
periodically, and as a child I grew up a block from the surf.
It was just part of our lifestyle that every morning when you
went down with your surfboard to go surfing you didn't know if
you were going to be greeted by these bright red signs that
said, ``Contaminated, keep out.'' And the frustration of young
people and citizens that their beaches are closed periodically
is really terrible.
The trouble is, Mr. Chairman, the only thing worse than
having the red signs up when the beaches are polluted is not
having them up when they are polluted, not knowing when it is
safe and when it isn't.
As somebody who comes from the west coast and has now spent
some time on the east coast, when I take my family to the
Delaware area or Maryland, I do not know, as a parent, is it
safe for my son and daughter to go out into the surf at that
time. Is the water safe for contact?
The BEACH bill that we have proposed is actually an
outcome-based piece of legislation that not only will inform
all Americans who travel across State boundaries--which, let's
face it, that is one of the major reasons why this federation
we call the ``United States'' was formed, to encourage and
allow interstate commerce and interstate travel--the people
that do travel there today do not know if it is safe to enter
the waters of the United States.
With the BEACH bill, we will be able to create that and
will be able to do it in an interesting way. Those of us who
have worked on environmental issues with the Federal Government
recognize that too often Washington has tried to set standards
that do not reflect reality in mainstream America, and with
this proposal the health directors of the States and the locals
will work with EPA at developing a standard that is applicable
to the rest of the country.
I also want to point out that those of us who have worked
on these pollution problems have actually been lulled into
believing that our standards have always been good. The fact
is, the water contact standard that even we use in California
and in New Jersey and Florida is really based on one study that
was done in 1951 in Lake Eerie, one study with fresh water, and
based on a whole unique situation.
This bill, the BEACH bill that we got passed and hopefully
you'll pass, will finally get us to upgrade it and bring it to
the 1990's standards and hopefully we'll go into the new
millennium with a new standard working with local health
officials that will protect our children and our families for
the future and make sure that all of us, when we go to the
beach, can be assured that it is safe for us to enter that
water and that our children and our families will be able to
enjoy not just a day at the beach but also the days that
followed without getting sick.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the huge support that you've
given to the effort of these kind of projects. As somebody who
looks forward to continuing to be involved in water contact
sports, I appreciate the legacy that you have built for all
Americans.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Congressman.
You're right--I am interested in it, and it is wonderful to
have your enthusiasm and support in all these efforts, so I'm
optimistic we are going to be able to do some good things.
Thank you very much for coming over.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. All right. Now, the next panel will consist
of Mr. Charles Fox, assistant administrator for water at EPA;
and Hal Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for civil works,
Department of the Army.
Now, I am very conscious today, gentlemen, of the fact that
we have quite a long list of witnesses, and the way things seem
to work in testifying at congressional hearings is that the
last people sort of get short shrift, and we don't want that to
occur, so we'll start with Mr. Fox, and if you could limit your
testimony to 5 minutes, and you'll see the lights here and
eventually get to the red light, and then we'll go on to Mr.
Davis.
All right, Mr. Fox, go to it.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. CHARLES FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Fox. Mr. Chafee, thank you. With luck, I can do this in
under 5 minutes.
I do really appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
to offer kind words on behalf of the Administration for all of
the legislation being considered by this committee here today.
The previous speakers have talked about the ecological and
economical values of coastal waters, so I don't need to get
into that.
I do need to mention, though, that all of our coastal
waters, as you well know, are facing very significant
environmental problems, ranging from the loss of dissolved
oxygen to the loss of wetlands to increasing toxic
contamination of many waters around the country.
The Clean Water Action Plan announced by the President and
the Vice President includes 111 specific actions to improve
water quality, and I'm happy to say that the BEACH legislation
that has been proposed by Senator Lautenberg and is also
included in the House legislation, closely mirrors the Actions
announced by the President in the Clean Water Action Plan.
The BEACH legislation introduced by Senator Lautenberg
provides for a comprehensive program to improve beach
monitoring and assure that the public has good information
about the health risks. H.R. 999, passed by the House of
Representatives, includes comparable but somewhat different
provisions.
As indicated in my written testimony in more detail, both
bills have strong points and we would be happy to work with the
committee to develop the most acceptable bill possible as you
go through the process.
Turning to your bill, Mr. Chairman, as you know, you were
the founder and the creator of the National Estuary Program. It
has worked tremendously well around the country since 1987,
when it was created by amendments to the Clean Water Act. Today
we have 28 National Estuary Programs around the country. As you
know, they develop management conferences that include a number
of participants at State and local levels to develop a
comprehensive plan for protecting and restoring these
estuaries.
The legislation that you have introduced would create new
authority and authorize new funding for the Army Corps of
Engineers. EPA supports the new authority for estuarine habitat
restoration proposed in the bill. My written testimony includes
several suggestions for improvements to the bill, and we have
provided some technical comments to committee staff.
The bills introduced by Senator Torricelli and you, Mr.
Chairman, both would extend and increase authorizations for the
National Estuary Program. The Administration supports changes
to the Clean Water Act to allow National Estuary Program grants
for both program management, as well as program development.
We also included in our budget for this year, fiscal year
2000, some provisions for implementing National Estuary
Programs Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) that would allow Governors to set aside a certain
portion of their State revolving loan funds for CCMP
implementation. That proposal is pending right now before
Senator Bond's subcommittee on the appropriations side.
The Administration also supports legislation to protect
Chesapeake Bay that was introduced by Senator Sarbanes and
Senator Warner. I am a long-time advocate of Chesapeake Bay the
cleanup, and I noted the comeback of the striped bass in your
remarks. One thing I have noted is how we all have unique names
for these species. I was once up fishing with my brother in
Newport and learned that they don't call them ``rockfish'' in
Rhode Island, but they called them ``gummers,'' which I found
interesting, and I guess that refers to the fact that they
don't have a whole lot of teeth.
But the story of the comeback of striped bass I think is a
classic success story of people working together in the spirit
of the estuary programs.
The Administration also supports the legislation introduced
by Senator Breaux, which would reauthorize the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, an act that is known
here in Washington as CWPPRA. It is known in Louisiana, of
course, as simply ``the Breaux Act,'' and it is something that
has, I think, resulted in remarkable achievements in protecting
coastal wetlands in Louisiana.
In closing, I would like to make a special appeal to the
committee to consider the difficult challenges the Agency will
face in implementing some of these important programs proposed
in the legislation in light of the budget reductions that are
likely to be imposed on EPA in fiscal year 2000.
Under the budget allocations currently being considered by
Congress, EPA may be forced to implement far-reaching, general
reductions in spending. If this is to occur at the same time
that increased funding is requested for these critical bills,
the Agency might have to dramatically reduce current core
program efforts.
I urge this committee to consider the best overall
approach, and we look forward to working with you in that
regard.
Senator Chafee. Well, I share your concern about the caps
and I'm deeply worried about that situation, what it is going
to mean. Obviously, that is going to play into everything that
is going on around here in connection with tax reductions and
so forth, but I'm glad you talked about the funding for EPA.
It's something we've all got to bear in mind as we continue
this whole budget exercise.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have something you wish to say
at this time?
Senator Lautenberg. I'm sorry I got here a little bit
later.
Senator Chafee. Yes. I am trying--as I mentioned a little
before, just before you came in, we have quite a list of
witnesses, and I've recognized that the last witnesses always
get short shrift, so I'm trying to be fair to everyone to make
sure everybody is heard.
You go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would spare you
the opportunity to listen to my opening remarks. I ask
unanimous consent that we can put them in the record and----
Senator Chafee. That will be fine.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator From the State of
New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the coastal
waters bills, especially my Beaches Environmental Assessment Closure,
and Health (B.E.A.C.H.) Act of 1999.
I would like to welcome my good friend, Mayor Martin Paugliughi
from Avalon, New Jersey, to Washington and thank him for agreeing to
testify today on the importance of monitoring and notification programs
for coastal recreational waters.
I would also like to thank Senators Boxer, Lieberman, Feinstein,
Dodd, Kerry, Sarbanes and Torricelli for cosponsoring my B.E.A.C.H.
Act. I'd like to also welcome Ted Danson, from American Oceans
Campaign, and Chuck Fox, from EPA and thank both of them for supporting
my bill.
Finally, would like to acknowledge Representative Pallone from New
Jersey who has introduced the companion bill in the House.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, have introduced this bill in each
Congress since 1990.
As a Senator representing a State with coastal recreational waters,
I am very aware of the importance of monitoring beach waters for
pathogens and bacteria and notifying the public when contaminated
waters are not safe for recreational activities.
Coastal tourism generates billions of dollars every year for local
communities since beaches are the top vacation destinations in the
Nation. A recent survey found that tourists spend over $100 billion in
the coastal portions of twelve States studied. Tourists at beaches on
the Jersey shore generate more than $7 billion annually for the local
economy.
The United States and coastal states could potentially lose this
important source of revenue. According to a recent survey by Conde Nast
Traveler magazine, 25% of people surveyed said they actually changed
their travel plans because of environmental problems at their intended
destination.
If recreational waters aren't properly managed, the increasing use
of public beaches and coastal parks--for swimming, wading, and
surfing--will mean greater risks to public health and to the financial
stability of coastal communities.
This is an ongoing and serious public health problem. People often
can't tell that the water they're swimming in is safe or unsafe. As a
result, each year many people come down with illnesses--from
gastroenteritis to hepatitis--that are especially serious for children
and senior citizens.
In a recent report on beach-water quality, the Natural Resources
Defense Council reported more than 7,000 closings and advisories at
U.S. beaches in 1998 due to pollution problems.
And the number of beach closings and advisories may represent only
a small portion of the problem.
States are still taking inconsistent approaches in monitoring water
quality at public beaches and notifying the public of unhealthy
conditions. As a result, one state might close a beach because of a
high bacteria count while, just next door, another state might allow
beach-goers to enter the same polluted water.
In fact, only nine states have adequate policies for monitoring
water quality and notifying the public of problems.
Due in part to my urging, in 1997 the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) established its B.E.A.C.H. program to recommend
appropriate monitoring criteria and public notification of beach water
quality.
But EPA can't require states to adopt those recommendations. My
legislation would give EPA the authority to require states to develop
beach-water monitoring and public notification programs that uniformly
protect public health. It also would authorize $9 million in grants to
the states to carry out the requirements of this Act.
I realize there are other ways to improve water quality and warn
people about pollution-related health risks. I think the approach in my
BEACH bill is the most effective, but I am willing to work with my
colleagues to develop a consensus to this serious public health
problem.
Mr. Chairman, as other witnesses will tell you at this hearing, a
day at the beach shouldn't be followed by a day at the doctor. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation to ensure safe and
healthy beaches for all American citizens.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for holding this hearing.
Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to say that what we're
looking for is a basis for equalizing the way beach waters are
analyzed throughout the country and make it the same.
My State is, as is yours, Mr. Chairman, pretty tough on the
quality of water that we encourage people to jump into, and
that's the mission here--to preserve the health and well-being
of people and not have a day at the beach spent by a day at the
doctor.
So that's where we are going, and I know that Mr. Fox is
registering support for the Administration for the bill.
I've introduced this BEACH bill in every Congress since
1990, and I worked to help encourage EPA to develop its BEACH
program. While the BEACH program is a good start, EPA's ability
to require States to adopt water quality criteria monitoring
and notification programs remains limited.
Can you tell us--now, I missed your testimony, and I don't
want it to be repeated because it is in the record, but how
will the BEACH bill enable EPA to address those problems that
we know are prevalent in many American beaches in an expedient
manner?
Mr. Fox. Senator, your legislation I think will have very
significant and substantial benefits to the American people by
assuring: that we have a level regulatory playing field for all
States in the country; so that we have water quality standards
that are developed in a consistently protective fashion; and
that we have a comprehensive monitoring program so that the
public will have a good understanding of the quality of the
waters that they're swimming in. I think, overall, your
leadership on this issue has really helped shape the Agency's
beach program as a result.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank you. In order, Mr. Chairman, to
move things along, I will reserve the opportunity to submit
questions in writing.
I heard your comments about the striped bass, rockfish,
call it what you will, and Senator Chafee deserves an awful lot
of credit for the resurgence of that fish population. It is
terrific. I also spend a lot of time in those waters, and it is
a pleasure to see what the fishermen are taking in from New
Jersey on up through Massachusetts--lots of striped bass.
Senator Chafee. It is remarkable. Once in a while something
works, and the resurgence of the rockfish or the stripers or
whatever you want to call them is just truly remarkable. We,
obviously, see it up on our shoreline, as you do.
I guess it has been a--everybody can say it is a success.
Do you think that's safe to say, Mr. Fox?
Mr. Fox. I think unquestionably it is safe to say that it
is a success. I can tell you that in the Chesapeake Bay, where
I go fishing as often as I can, it is very different today than
it was even 5 or 10 years ago, and I think that this is a
credit to the work of this Congress and some of the national
controls on striped bass, as well as State legislatures around
the country.
Senator Chafee. I've always felt that if you give nature
half a chance it will come back, but you've got to give it that
half a chance.
Mr. Fox. Right.
Senator Chafee. All right. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, I am Michael
Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, and it is a real pleasure to be here today to present
the Army's views on S. 835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act of 1999.
I would also like to discuss the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act, and S. 1119, which would
extend the funding for implementation of environmental projects
under this act.
For over 200 years, the Nation has called upon its 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. The Corps has a powerful tool kit of authorities
and programs that can be brought to bear to help solve these
environmental problems.
Over the last decade, alone, the Corps has helped restore
hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat benefiting hundreds
of fish and wildlife species. Examples include 28,000 acres of
habitat restored on the upper Mississippi River, 35,000 acres
of flood plan and wetlands restoration under construction today
along the Kissimee River in Florida, and hundreds of acres of
coastal wetlands restored by beneficially using dredge
material, including an 1,100-acre project in the Chesapeake Bay
known as ``Poplar Island.''
As you know, Mr. Chairman, on July 1 the Army submitted to
Congress a comprehensive plan to restore the Everglades, the
world's largest ecosystem restoration project. This plan,
alone, will help restore over 2.4 million acres of wetlands in
the south Florida ecosystem.
Throughout the world, estuarine and coastal areas serve as
a focal point for human use and development. These same areas
also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective.
Estuaries help protect us from flooding, help maintain
water quality, and provide habitat and food for an abundance of
fish and wildlife species, many of them threatened or
endangered. These coastal environments generate billions of
dollars annually through such industries as tourism and sport
and commercial fisheries. There is an urgent need to protect
and restore these fragile ecosystems, recognizing the economic,
social, cultural, and environmental benefits they provide.
We applaud the cosponsors of S. 835 for their vision and
leadership in this area. If enacted, S. 835 would enhance the
Corps' ability to restore and protect estuarine habitat. In
this regard, the Army supports S. 835 and looks forward to
working with you in enacting such legislation.
The goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine
habitat by 2010 is consistent with the President's clean water
action goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands annually
beginning in the year 2005.
The proposed national framework and the national estuarine
habitat restoration strategies help partners identify and
integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping
plans, and identify processes to develop new plans where they
are needed.
We would recommend that the use of the existing
organization and structure of the Coastal America partnership
be considered fully. Coastal America has national and regional
teams already in place, and many of the members on these teams
would be the very same experts that we would need to consult
under S. 835.
We are pleased to note that important changes the Army
requested have been incorporated into S. 835. These same
changes were also made to companion legislation, H.R. 1775. We
do suggest a few additional minor modifications to S. 835. For
example, we urge the committee to revise the bill to make it
clear that non-Federal sponsors are responsible for providing
all lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredge material disposal
areas, and relocations, as is required for all other Army civil
works water resource projects.
We also believe the that Secretary of the Army, not the
Collaborative Council, should determine the acceptability and
value of in-kind contributions.
The Army Corps of Engineers has extensive policies and
regulations in place and vast experience in placing values on
in-kind services. We feel that it would be appropriate for the
Secretary to have this responsibility, since the Army
ultimately is accountable for appropriations and project
implementation.
In addition, we believe that you should consider including
the Great Lakes region, which is widely recognized as a coastal
region of the United States, with very similar problems and
opportunities of other coast areas.
The Army supports S. 835, and we look forward to working
with you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee to enact this bill.
Now I'd like to just briefly turn to S. 1119. The Army also
supports 1119, which provides continued funding for the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, or the
Breaux Act. The Breaux Act is an important part of the
implementation of the more-comprehensive, longer-term solution
to the national problem of coastal wetlands losses.
Approximately 40 percent of the coastal wetlands of the
lower 48 States are located in Louisiana. Over the past 50
years, Louisiana has lost an average of 40 square miles of
marsh per year. This represents about 80 percent of the
Nation's annual coastal wetlands lost for the same period.
Through the Breaux Act, substantial efforts are currently
underway to slow this loss of Louisiana's coastal wetlands. To
date, eight priority lists have been formulated and we have 81
active projects, 30 of which have been completed. When
implemented, these projects will reduce the loss of coastal
wetlands by 70,000 acres over the next 20 years.
In conclusion, the Corps has been increasingly involved in
recent years with efforts to protect and restore our estuaries.
My staff and I enjoyed working with you and your staff on S.
835 and the other legislation before your committee. We look
forward to continuing this relationship as work on these
important bills is completed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Chafee. How effective are these measures? In other
words, you talk about we are to restore in Louisiana ``X''
thousand acres of wetlands. I mean, I know what they do up my
direction is the eel grass they're planting that is acting as
something that can holds the marshes together. But I just don't
know what they do in Louisiana and how effective is it.
Mr. Davis. We've seen some tremendous successes in
Louisiana and other coastal areas throughout the United States
where we're using dredged material to elevate areas that have
subsided, for example, to recreate the natural topography and
the natural elevations that allow the natural vegetation to
return, literally thousands of acres in Louisiana.
One of the premier sites in this country is Oakland Harbor
in California, the Sonoma Bay wetlands, where we have taken
dredged material and created 330 acres there. So we have had
tremendous success with these programs.
Senator Chafee. Well, it is good to hear it because--and I
want to commend you for your testimony.
What do you say in this business of testing the quality of
the water and whether it is safe and all? What do you say about
you're getting into a one-size-fits-all problem here? How do
you gauge what is safe? It might be completely different for
something in San Diego than it would be for Narragansett Bay or
Barnegat Bay.
Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, at EPA we try and develop national
standards based on the best scientific information we have
about what levels of a contaminant would be protective of
public health, but in every case we allow a State to vary from
that national standard if they have information in their State
waters that would suggest that a different standard should
apply.
To me, what this BEACH legislation does is it suggests that
all States need to be serious about focusing on the development
of these standards so that they are protective of public
health, but if States wanted to vary from these to meet
specific needs, they should be allowed. Certainly in Hawaii,
for example, in the tropical water, the kinds of problems and
critters that they've got, microbial critters, are very
different from those in Narragansett Bay.
Senator Chafee. We're delighted that Senator Warner is
here. Senator Warner has long had a deep interest in the
quality of waters in the Chesapeake Bay.
Senator if you have some comments or an opening statement,
we'd be glad to hear it.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
say a few words.
In 1981--I was elected to the Senate in 1978, 21 years
ago--I started working on the Chesapeake Bay with a wonderful
senator, Senator Mack Mathias, and Senator Sarbanes joined us.
It appeared to be an impossible task, but we have made some
progress. When I say ``we,'' Congress put in place appropriate
legislation, then a lot of wonderful people sort of took over
and have been trustees to make it happen. So I want to just
read a few sentences here, if you don't mind.
Since 1981, the Chesapeake Bay restoration program has been
a voluntary Federal/State partnership. The Federal Government
and States provide funds for the States to select control
strategies to reduce the toxics. You know the basics of that.
All of our efforts have been designed to improve the water
quality and better manage the living resources.
Today, the structure of the Bay program is, I think,
seriously jeopardized by the pending conflict between
continuing the voluntary partnership efforts or leaving or
being overtaken by Federal regulatory controls.
We're concerned that the Bay agreement with the States is
threatened by EPA's intention to issue regulatory controls on
pollutants into the Bay. We've asked the--EPA intends to
consider this partnership. Give us a little background on this
and tell me what you want to do here.
If I don't like it, we'll legislate against it.
Mr. Fox. Senator Warner, the Chesapeake Bay, in many ways,
has become a model for so many of the bay and estuary cleanup
efforts----
Senator Warner. Across the Nation.
Mr. Fox [continuing]. Around the country. Being involved, I
think, in one of your first press conferences in 1982 with
Senator Mathias, I have been following it fairly closely since
that time.
Senator Warner. You were there?
Mr. Fox. Yes.
I would say that----
Senator Warner. Were you with the EPA then?
Mr. Fox. I was actually with an environmental organization
at the time.
Senator Warner. Good for you.
Mr. Fox. Looking at what the Chesapeake Bay has done, I
think one of the most shining examples is the commitment to
reduce nutrient pollution by 40 percent by the year 2000. It
was, in fact, a voluntary agreement reached by the political
leadership at the time that included a number of Members of
Congress, as well.
Senator Warner. We embraced Maryland, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, and reached up into Delaware.
Mr. Fox. And even up into New York State. Right.
Senator Warner. Yes.
Mr. Fox. And that 40 percent reduction goal represented at
the time an understanding of the elected officials as to what
would be a doable and cost-effective action that we could take
to achieve a water quality end point in the Chesapeake Bay.
Our understanding of that has improved over time, and
scientists today are evaluating, ``Well, is 40 percent enough?
Do we have to do more than 40 percent?''
What EPA's regulatory program is looking to do in the
Chesapeake and around the country is to make a connection
between a scientific-end point, what is adequate for healthy
water, and then what is the pollution reduction necessary to
achieve that scientific end point?
In the Chesapeake, like other waters around the country, we
are doing this process that we call ``load allocations.'' How
much pollution should be discharged? And we are, in fact, in
the process of developing new regulations that would set in
place the framework for this system to take place around the
country.
These regulations, it is my hope, will allow for cost-
effective pollution control and will result in pollution
trading that happens between point sources and nonpoint sources
so that we can figure out as a society what is the most
effective way to get to that end point.
These regulations will be proposed in draft form some time
in the next, probably, 3 weeks, and we will, obviously, go
through a very extensive public comment period. We have been
spending a good deal of time in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
in particular, trying to work with State officials so that we
can come to agreement as to how these regulations will be
implemented.
Senator Warner. It certainly is a commendable objective,
and I'm certain that all involved in this would agree that we
should re-examine the 40. If it's not the correct percentage,
then pursue, presumably, a higher one. But we would not want to
go back and reverse this really magnificent State/Federal
partnership, together with voluntary organizations.
So can you assure this committee that the regulatory
framework will not vitiate the legal framework established by
the States, together with the voluntary organizations?
Mr. Fox. I can assure you that there will be nothing in the
regulations that will in any way, shape, or form undo a lot of
the progress that has been made in the Chesapeake. Our goal is
nothing more than to build on this.
Something important to keep in mind is that I'm watching
around the country as more and more water bodies are taking on
these very difficult challenges. In Senator Lieberman's Long
Island Sound, they have agreed to nitrogen reductions that
surpass that of the Chesapeake Bay.
I was down in the Mississippi Delta, or the Delta of the
Mississippi, as I was corrected, realizing that there is an
oxygen problem at the mouth of the Mississippi that is about
the size of New Jersey where they don't have enough oxygen for
fish to survive. This will ultimately require nutrient
reductions in the Mississippi River.
So I am hoping that we can put in place a sensible
framework so that we can start addressing these problems
nationwide.
Senator Warner. All right. And I accept your proffer on
behalf of the distinguished administrator, but I assure you
that I am going to keep a watchful eye, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, and I will communicate with you
directly.
Let me just read this. Ann Loomis has been with me
throughout this program. She said----
Mr. Fox. I remember her in the early 1980's, too.
Senator Warner [continuing]. The Bay States will have no
need to confine the Bay agreement if EPA sets its own
standards. The trouble is I can't read her handwriting in most
instances. Have I got that right, Ann? How about that?
Mr. Fox. Senator, our goal is to work in unison with the
Bay States. We have had, I think, as of now, at least three or
four meetings specifically on this question of bringing our
regulatory program together with the voluntary program of the
States, and I'm very hopeful that we will be able to work
something out.
Senator Warner. I will watch it very carefully. I thank the
Chair. I thank you, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fox. Thank you.
Senator Warner. We look forward to working with you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I just want to focus on one thing that
was said by my good friend from Virginia, and that is that we
all have an interest in what goes on in a place like the
Chesapeake because, not much different than clean air--I mean,
it travels. It goes all over the place. And so we want to make
sure that our interests, other States, are also protected when
we are doing pollution cleanup or reductions, as may be.
Now, Senator Chafee asked an interesting question. He said,
``Might there be different standards for different areas?'' But
aren't we working with bacteria, to eliminate bacteria
pollution that, regardless of where it shows up, unless some of
our States start developing people with scales, it is obviously
going to affect human beings in similar fashion? Is that not
the case?
Mr. Fox. That is true. The tension becomes as to the kinds
of microorganisms you are testing for and the different test
methods that apply and how they grow in different waters.
What we've tried to do at EPA is to develop some uniform,
national testing procedures that would give us a strong sense
of confidence in a standard that would protect public health.
My comment to the chairman was simply that some States have
developed equally valid scientifically supportable variations
of this, depending on their local conditions.
One of the classic differences is in water temperature, and
trying to test for microorganisms in Florida is very different
than in Maine.
Senator Lautenberg. Right, but the measurement of the toxic
material, if I can call it that, is a toxic material, and it is
not good for people in New Jersey and it is not good for people
in Hawaii and it is not good for people in Rhode Island.
So if we're talking about approaches or how you determine
what the threats are, that's one thing. But if you're talking
about what the ultimate objective is, I don't see----
Mr. Fox. That's correct.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks,
Mr. Fox.
Senator Chafee. All right. Fine.
I want to thank both of you very much for coming here.
Obviously, we will be having more contact as we go along,
because it is--I think you are going to see action on all these
bills that we have before us.
Thank you.
Now, the next panel consists of Mr. Pagliughi--perhaps
you'd like to introduce the mayor, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. I would.
Senator Chafee. And Mr. Ted Danson, president of the
American Oceans Campaign; Ms. Linda Shead, executive director
of Galveston Bay Foundation; Richard Ribb, Narragansett Bay
estuary program; Michael Hirshfield, Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
and Len Bahr.
All right. We'll start with the mayor. Senator, if you'd
like to introduce him?
Senator Lautenberg. I just want to say that I welcome Mayor
Pagliughi here. We spend time together, not fighting over
disparate partisan issues, but rather on what we do to keep the
ocean clean and how we continue to attract people to use that
wonderful facility known as the ocean.
The mayor has several distinctions, not the least of which
is that they have the lowest tax rate in the county, which is
pretty impressive because the town continues to develop and
take care of its citizens in really good fashion.
Senator Chafee was Governor, and he knows that when you're
in a job, not like the ones we presently have, but where you
meet the people, you know immediately whether you're doing a
good job, and Mayor Pagliughi always gets good response.
I also, Mr. Chairman, would take a minute to welcome Ted
Danson. We appreciate your views and the fact that you are
president of the American Oceans Campaign. With the
considerable attention that you bring when you appear like this
and lend your weight to a project, it means something. We are
delighted to have you here with us. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Mayor, won't you proceed, please? You know the ground
rules. Stay within the 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN L. PAGLIUGHI, MAYOR, BOROUGH OF
AVALON, NJ
Mayor Pagliughi. Mr. Chairman, my name is Martin Pagliughi.
It's Irish, that name.
Senator Chafee. OK.
Mayor Pagliughi. I'm the mayor of Avalon, NJ, a barrier
island tourist community, and a board member of the American
Coastal Coalition, and I'm very pleased to be here today and
thank Chairman Chafee and ranking member of the committee,
Senator Baucus of the Public Works Committee, for the
invitation to testify here today.
I also express my sincere appreciation to Senator
Lautenberg for the opportunity to speak in support of his BEACH
Act, which proposes to establish uniform testing of marine
recreational waters and which will establish a nationwide
standard for notifying the public when these waters are
contaminated.
The Senator's bill provides for swift implementation of the
testing program, which is imperative. I'm very proud of the
fact that since 1985 New Jersey is the only State to have
mandatory beach protection program that includes bacteria
standards, a monitoring program, and mandatory beach closure
requirements when the bacteria standard is exceeded, but I am
also appalled that 14 years later we still do not have a
nationwide mandatory testing program for our recreational
waters, which is so critical, and it impacts, No. 1, public
health and, No. 2, the U.S. economy.
Does it make any sense to carefully monitor foods and drugs
in this country to protect public health, yet permit people to
swim in untested recreational waters? We know for a fact that
waters can appear clean but may harbor many life-threatening
pathogens.
You may recall that in 1987 and 1988 New Jersey experienced
beach closings due to trash and medical waste washing up on our
shore, losing almost $3 billion in tourism revenues.
Unfortunately, those tourists who left to go elsewhere had no
assurance of the quality of water where they went because
neighboring States had no similar testing programs.
To regain our previously loyal beachgoers, obviously we had
to fix a variety of pollution problems. This we have done.
Last week, the National Resource Defense Council announced
that beach closings in New Jersey were at a record low, but
without the cooperation of the coastal monitoring program that
would not have happened.
Here's how the program works in Avalon: the county health
department samples the water quality weekly at 10 recreational
sites from mid-May through mid-September, testing for fecal
coliform and enterocci bacteria. If the bacterial count of
these sites is above the permissible limit, the beach is closed
to swimmers. This means large signs are posted advising bathers
that they are not permitted to swim, and lifeguards remain on
duty to inform the public and keep them from entering the
water.
Obviously, beach closings are not a PR-plus for the tourist
community, but they are a must when you are protecting the
health and welfare of our visitors, which is first and
foremost.
Fortunately, in Avalon we have not had a beach closing in
years, but this is not by accident. Since 1991, Avalon has won
seven of the eight Quality New Jersey Shore Awards for steps it
has taken to prevent pollutants from entering recreational
waters.
With the threat of possible beach closings, we have taken
those steps necessary to assure that the water quality remains
excellent. During the last decade, Avalon has spent millions of
dollars to prevent nonpoint source pollution, which is the
primary cause of pathogens entering recreational waters. Major
expenditures have been made on equipment to clean beaches,
streets, catch basins, and on projects such as storm water
disposal system rehabilitation, repair and reallocation of
outfall lines, manhole cover repair, the installation of tide
flex valves on storm water outfalls, required capping of all
sewer vents, and TV inspection of all of our infrastructure.
Avalon has taken these projects with little outside help,
but Senator Lautenberg's legislation, which includes $9 million
in grants to the States, should help get the ball rolling.
By enacting this legislation, you will send a message to
the world that we in the United States care about the public
health of our tourists who visit our beaches.
I would remind you that the No. 1 tourist designation in
the United States is the beach, with coastal States receiving
about 85 percent of all tourist-related revenues, generating
billions of Federal tax dollars.
Foreign tourists who prefer the United States' beaches
create significant trade surpluses; therefore, it is incredible
to me that our Federal Government makes such a feeble effort to
support, promote, and improve our national beaches and
recreational waters. In the future we will pay for such a lax
attitude.
Meanwhile, other countries who wish to compete are hard at
work. From 1950 to 1993, the U.S. has subsidized only $15
million in shore restoration projects, versus Germany, who has
spent $90 million. Spain has spent $250 million, and Japan has
spent $1.4 billion.
If we are going to maintain an edge in the world tourism,
we must be able to give visitors assurances that we have the
world's best beaches and that United States' recreational
waters are monitored uniformly and consistently. They must know
that if there is a problem they will be advised and prohibited
from entering those waters that could be dangerous to their
health.
That's why the Federal Government must immediately begin to
address the quality of its beaches and recreational waters. We
are meeting that challenge in New Jersey, and I am here today
in support of Senator Lautenberg's BEACH Act, which would make
the water quality testing mandatory nationwide.
It is time this Nation begins to protect and enhance one of
the most economically vital assets we have--its beaches and
recreational waters.
Again, my sincere thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to speak here today. I also thank Senator Lautenberg for the
invitation. The borough of Avalon supports his beach bill 100
percent.
Senator Chafee. That's very interesting, what you've done
in Avalon and the expenditures you've made, and you've listed
them there in your speech, in your remarks. It is impressive
what you've done.
Mr. Danson, president, American Oceans Campaign.
Mr. Danson.
STATEMENT OF TED DANSON, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN OCEANS
CAMPAIGN
Mr. Danson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good
morning. My name is Ted Danson. I am the president and co-
founder of the American Oceans Campaign.
American Oceans Campaign is a national, nonprofit
organization based in Santa Monica, CA, and is dedicated to
protecting and enhancing our Nation's oceans and coastal
resources.
On behalf of AOC and the many other organizations that
endorse the BEACH bills, I wish to express my thanks to
Senators Chafee and Baucus and the other members of this
committee for inviting me to testify today on the BEACH bills.
I also commend Senator Frank Lautenberg and the other
cosponsors of S. 522 for their determined leadership in
addressing the problems of inconsistent testing and public
notification of unhealthy beach waters.
Since the early 1990's, American Oceans Campaign has
focused significant attention on the health of recreational
beach waters. Health risks associated with the presence of
human and animal wastes in our beach waters are persistent due
to leaking septic systems, inadequate sewage treatment, storm
water pollution, and agricultural runoff. Unfortunately,
families often do not know when it is unsafe to hit the surf.
This year, AOC, the Surfrider Foundation, the Center for
Marine Conservation, the Clean Water Network, and many other
organizations were strong advocates for the passage of H.R.
999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and Health
Act of 1999, the BEACH bill.
On Earth Day, House of Representatives unanimously passed
this bill. We are now all diligently working to promote swift
passage of the BEACH bill in the Senate.
This summer, thousands of adults and children will swim,
snorkel, surf, or wade in the beach waters that, unbeknownst to
them, are contaminated by disease-causing microorganisms. These
pathogens may cause a variety of illnesses, including
gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and eye, nose, and throat
infections. Bouts with these ailments can quickly ruin a family
vacation or a weekend getaway and can cause a person to miss
work or school.
To protect themselves from harmful pathogens, swimmers must
rely on beach water quality tests, often conducted by local
public health agencies. Unfortunately, the testing standards
vary significantly, and often vary within a State. Several
States do not regularly monitor their beach waters for pathogen
contamination, and only a minority of States and local
communities consistently notify the public about poor beach
water conditions. Last year, more than 7,000 beaches were
closed due to polluted beach waters. More troublesome is that
countless other beaches were not even posted when swimming
could cause illness.
For example, the ``Miami Herald'' reported last Friday that
the waters off Fort Zachary Taylor Beach on Key West had three
times more than the acceptable amount of disease-causing
pollution, yet the county health department decided not to post
a warning.
To improve the flow of information about polluted
recreational waters and to provide uniform protections for
beachgoers, American Oceans Campaign, along with other
conservation organizations, strongly supports a national BEACH
bill. A BEACH bill will ensure that States have adequate beach
testing programs to protect citizens from health risks, while
allowing States flexibility in determining beach closures or in
implementing stricter standards.
American Oceans Campaign would like to once again thank
Senator Lautenberg and Representatives Bilbray, Pallone, and
Boehlert for their tireless leadership on this issue.
A BEACH bill will allow us to protect ourselves and our
children from disease-causing pathogens by setting national
beach water quality criteria, establishing nationwide
monitoring programs, and ensuring prompt public notification of
contamination.
The language of Senator Lautenberg's bill, S. 522, is based
on prior BEACH bills introduced by the New Jersey delegation
over the past decade. It requires States to adopt beach water
quality standards that are consistent with current EPA
criteria. Under S. 522, should a State not adopt the current
standards, EPA criteria will be deemed promulgated and becomes
the State's water quality standard.
The bill also calls for EPA to promulgate regulations
addressing beach water monitoring and public notification.
By comparison, the House bill, H.R. 999, requires States to
adopt standards that are as protective of human health as the
EPA beach water quality criteria. If a State fails to adopt
such standards, EPA must promulgate regulations establishing
the beach water quality standards for that State.
The House bill also differs in that it requires EPA to
establish performance criteria for beach water monitoring and
notification.
Though performance criteria aren't legal requirements,
States, tribes, or localities must design programs that meet
the criteria in order to receive Federal grants for their beach
water testing programs. For example, if a locality does not
propose an appropriate plan, it will not get any money to run
the BEACH program. In that case, EPA must eventually conduct
the monitoring and notification activities for that area.
Mr. Chairman, both BEACH bills promote a nationwide
commitment to ensure beachgoers receive the basic information
needed to protect themselves and their families from harmful
pathogens.
The BEACH bills also alert communities about concentrations
of coastal pollution. Although neither version of the bill
contains provisions to act against polluters, the monitoring
and notification process will empower local governments and
States to be better stewards of beaches.
I urge this committee to support passage of the BEACH bill
in the Senate, because a day at the beach should not end up
with a trip to the doctor.
I'd just like to add that 10 or 11 years ago I, myself,
took my children to Santa Monica Beach, Will Rogers State
Beach, and bumped into one of those signs, you know, ``Water is
polluted, no swimming.'' It changed my life forever. It turned
me into an activist, for which I am forever grateful. So not
only do you protect public health, but you offer the public an
opportunity to become part of the solution. You will inform
them and give them the right to get involved, which I think is
one of the most exciting parts about these bills.
I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this
opportunity.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Danson.
Senator Chafee. I think the approach of that legislation,
holding out the carrot--in other words, if the State will agree
to this monitoring, then they will get a subsidy for it. If
they don't want to do it, obviously you're running into a
State's rights problem here. Is Washington trying to tell
people how to do things? If they don't want to do it, then, of
course, they don't get the money, as I understand the
legislation.
Mr. Danson. For the House bill, yes.
Senator Chafee. That's the House bill, is it?
Mr. Danson. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Well, it seems to me to make sense.
All right. Fine. Thank you very much.
Now Ms. Linda Shead from the Galveston Bay Foundation.
Ms. Shead, we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF LINDA SHEAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GALVESTON BAY
FOUNDATION, ON BEHALF OF RESTORE AMERICA'S ESTUARIES
Ms. Shead. Thank you. Good morning.
On behalf of the Galveston Bay Foundation and Restore
America's Estuaries, thank you, Senator Chafee and other
members of the committee, for the opportunity to present strong
testimony on behalf of Senate bill 835, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act. I am privileged to be here before
you today.
My name is Linda Shead, and I am executive director of the
Galveston Bay Foundation, a nonprofit organization in Galveston
Bay, TX, and our mission is to preserve and enhance the Bay for
its multiple resources.
I am also a member of the board of Restore America's
Estuaries, which is an alliance of 11 regional groups, each of
which devotes a substantial part of its efforts toward
protection and restoration of our Nation's estuaries, and it is
to represent these vital national estuarine resources where the
rivers meet the sea that Galveston Bay Foundation and Restore
America's Estuaries are here before you today.
The geographical sweep of the Restore America's Estuaries
alliance is revealed most clearly in the testimony, the written
testimony that you have--11 groups in 16 States around the
Nation's coastline in the estuaries that receive the waters
that drain the vast majority of the Nation's land surface.
The alliance represents a combined membership of 250
members.
The vital importance of the Nation's coastal estuary
resources is well documented and has been mentioned in various
testimony and in Senator Chafee's opening remarks here today.
In Galveston Bay, for example, three-quarters of North
America's bird species can be seen around the Bay at some time
during the year.
Without the habitats, estuaries would be virtually dead and
the vibrancy that provides so many of our coastal communities
would be ended.
Estuarine habitat is the lifeblood, as mentioned earlier,
of 75 percent of all commercial fish species, and the 28
million people that depend on these fish species for their
livelihood and for economic impact.
The losses are also well documented. In the estuary I know
best, Galveston Bay, we've lost 30,000 acres of wetland habitat
in the last 40 years. We only have 700 acres of sea grasses
remaining.
In Louisiana, as you've heard earlier, the losses are
measured in square miles per year.
In Narragansett Bay, 70 percent of the eel grass beds lost,
50 percent of the marshes.
In the Hudson Raritan Estuary, 80 percent of the wetlands
lost.
Long Island Sound, 40 percent of the wetlands lost.
San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of the original marsh lands
gone.
In the fisheries we have the example of Chesapeake Bay,
mentioned earlier, from 1959 to 1989 going from 25 million
pounds to 1 million pounds of oysters.
These are astounding statistics. They demand action.
Fortunately, we still have time to act, but we need to start
now to turn the tide on this devastating trend and actually
foster the rebirth of our estuaries and their critical
wetlands.
We believe S. 835 is an essential part of any coordinated
and effective plan of action to do this. Where S. 835 can play
a particularly important role is in helping provide leadership
and resources to allow the Nation's coastal regions to seize
restoration opportunities, which must be acted on if the
biological productivity of the Nation's coastline is to begin
to recover.
We need the Federal participation and the enhanced funding
in a partnership that includes individual citizens, nonprofit
organizations, private businesses, local and State governments.
I won't spend a lot of your time going over the legislation,
but there are some key words I'd like to highlight for you. One
is that we do get new Federal resources, but they leverage
local and State resources.
The projects are driven from the community up. They are
based on watershed-based planning. They build on existing
plans, like the national estuary program, but they get to work
restoring our estuaries. They help build a new level of
streamlining and coordination, including bringing the Corps
into the process.
We believe that S. 835 will be an important part of helping
to lock in and advance the real and important change in the
stated goals of the Corps of Engineers to work on coastal
restoration.
The bill takes the Corps at its word and then builds a
strong collaborative process. Restore America's Estuaries
members are committed to helping you move forward with S. 835
in a bipartisan effort, with strong, diverse stakeholder
support, and get it enacted into law this year.
The bill is a vital component of our efforts to bring back
healthy conditions, not only in Galveston Bay but in
Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound and Puget Sound and all
around the Nation.
Galveston Bay is my home. It's the watershed where I live.
It's where I work. It's where I recreate. I want our quality of
life and our economy and our children's future protected. S.
835 can help us accomplish this vital task and help ensure a
secure and bountiful future.
On behalf of Restore America's Estuaries, thank you very
much for the opportunity to be here, and thank you, Senator
Chafee and all the members of the committee, for your vision
and leadership in bringing this bill forward. It is important
to get this very good bill into a very good law this year.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Shead.
Do you believe you can take steps to stem this terrific
loss that I think you--Galveston Bay lost 30,000 acres of marsh
habitat in the last 40 years. Only 700 acres of sea grasses
remain. What do you do? How do you bring it back?
Ms. Shead. Well, there are several things that are going on
right now in Galveston Bay. Most of our losses are a result of
subsidence from groundwater withdrawals for municipal and
industrial drinking water. We've halted those groundwater
withdrawals around the bay and subsidence has halted. But,
unfortunately, that subsidence has set in motion a process
drowning the marshes and setting up increased erosion on our
shorelines, and so now we have to go back in and protect those
shorelines and restore those elevations.
Senator Chafee. How do you do that?
Ms. Shead. We're doing that in several ways. Sometimes we
are trying some projects this year that are being piloted using
geotubes in some areas to protect--that's a big, mud-filled
sock out on the shoreline--to help slow down the wave energy.
We're trying some techniques that have been used in Louisiana--
terracing, where you build a series of levees in an open,
square pattern that then can slow down the wave energy and help
restore the marshes.
So if we can have the resources, once these methods are
tested and shown to be effective in our bay system, then we can
hope to keep doing that around the bay shorelines.
Senator Chafee. Do you perhaps use the sea grasses to help,
too?
Ms. Shead. Yes, we do use sea grasses. For a long time,
Galveston Bay has not had the water quality that would allow
the sea grasses to come back. We've had so much stirring up of
the bay bottom and so much sediment washing down that the water
wasn't clear enough to support sea grasses, but we are in a
project with National Marine Fisheries Service this year to
start doing some sea grass restoration in Galveston Bay.
Senator Chafee. Well, I hope you have success.
We're delighted Senator Lieberman is here.
Senator if you want to make a few comments right now, this
would be a good time, or we can wait until a little later. It
is up to you.
Senator Lieberman. It's your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Why don't you go ahead and make your
comments?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. That's very kind of you, and I will,
therefore, begin by thanking you both for holding today's
hearing on coastal habitat restoration and water quality, also
on the leadership that you've shown over the years and again in
this session on this very, very important matter. I am proud to
be a cosponsor and a very strong supporter of your bill, the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.
Many of us feel very strongly and share your view that our
estuaries are true national treasures, for without healthy and
productive estuaries like Narragansett Bay and Long Island
Sound, the quality of life in our States would be greatly
diminished.
The success of the national estuary program is, I think,
amply demonstrated by the enormous improvement in the quality
of Long Island Sound, which, of course, is critically important
to our State.
In 1985, Congress directed New York and Connecticut to
establish a Long Island Sound study in order to assess the
water quality of the Sound. Two years later, the study became
one of six original estuaries designated under the Clean Water
Act's national estuary program. Citizen advisory and management
committees were established to coordinate the study and ensure
local input.
By 1994, the comprehensive conservation management for the
Sound was complete and approved in an agreement by EPA and the
Governors of New York and Connecticut to implement the plan.
So we have seen a Federal and State government partnership
which has shown dramatic effect. I mean, it reminds me of what
I think Greg Esterbrook wrote in his book, which is that
environmental protection is probably the singlemost successful
government program, he said then in the post-war period, the
post Second World War, I think leaving Social Security to be
noted for the pre-war period.
But in the Sound this program has restored fish
populations, is restoring them, that have been impacted,
improving and restoring degraded wetlands, and beginning to
address the toxic mercury pollution that has led to health
advisories.
This has all been the result of Federal, State, and private
funds which I think have been extraordinarily well-spent, and
set us now ready to go to the next phase of the national
estuary program by leveraging cost-shared Federal funding for
the implementation of these conservation plans.
So, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for your leadership
here. There are several ways in which I hope Congress will pay
appropriate tribute to you for your years of remarkable and
constructive service, and I hope one of them is that we pass
this legislation, and I look forward to working with you and
other members of the committee of both parties toward that end.
Thanks very much for your courtesy.
Senator Chafee. Thanks very much, Senator. There are some
good bills before us, and I'm confident that we can work as a
committee and come up with some amalgamation of these various
proposals and get something done, and I think there is a chance
to do something really constructive.
Senator Voinovich, I apologize for not calling on you
earlier. If you have a few comments, now is the time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, some may be surprised that I am familiar with
estuaries and some of the problems that some of the witnesses
have been talking about, but one of the things that I am very
proud of in my career is the battle to save Lake Erie. We had
the War of 1812, and we won that battle with the English, and
the question was whether we could save Lake Erie again.
I think that one of the real wonderful things that has
happened in this country is we brought it back from the days
when it said it was going to be a dying lake.
In terms of estuaries on Lake Erie, we do--Old Woman's
Creek. We know how important that is in terms of our water
quality and wildlife habitat, and it is a--it's not as
extensive as some of the ones, Mr. Chairman, that have been
talked about here, but it is significant.
I'd like to mention that many of our States are doing a
good job in terms of paying attention to their beaches and to
erosion and trying to do what they can with their resources to
be responsible.
One of the things that some of you might be interested in
is that a major project that we undertook for Lake Erie was the
Lake Erie quality index, where we went through and established
indicators as to where we are with water quality, pollution
sources, habitat, coastal recreation, boating, and so on down
the line, with the idea that we could go back and we could
monitor our performance in terms of where we are with these
respective indexes.
So often what happens is we just keep talking, but we don't
have a baseline or a benchmark to reach toward, and it seems to
me, Mr. Chairman, that any legislation that we're talking about
contemplating doing ought to be involved with some connection
with the States, whether it is a carrot type of thing, but some
coordinated type of activity, recognizing that our States
really do have the major role in taking care of this problem,
and perhaps in some States, where maybe they aren't paying
attention, the fact that we do offer a carrot may cause them to
step forward and to start taking some steps that they ought to
be taking in their respective States.
So I am pleased to be here today and to hear some of this
testimony, and hopefully we can do something constructive in
this area to improve this situation across the country.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. That's very
interesting, the system you set up for monitoring the States
and the grading system that you had worked out, which sounds
very interesting. I think it is good, because then you can see
how you are doing. Thank you.
I would hope you would remember that the victor at the
Battle of Lake Erie was Oliver Hazard Perry from Rhode Island.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. All right. Mr. Ribb, director, Narragansett
Bay Estuary Program from the Department of Environmental
Management in Rhode Island, on behalf of the Association of
National Estuary Programs.
Mr. Ribb, go to it.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RIBB, DIRECTOR, NARRAGANSETT BAY ESTUARY
PROGRAM, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS
Mr. Ribb. Good morning, Senator Chafee and members of the
committee.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here
this morning.
I'm here to present testimony on behalf of the Association
of National Estuary Programs. This association includes
representatives of industry, agriculture, tourism, community
and citizen groups who volunteer their time and effort to
implement the management plans that have been created through
the National Estuary Program. We appreciate the opportunity to
provide information to the committee.
I also would like to give a little perspective on the local
National Estuary Program does, such as we do in Narragansett
Bay and on what the bills here that are being discussed here
today mean to these community-based programs.
You've heard from previous witnesses about the challenges
we face in the estuaries, and we believe the National Estuary
Programs have proven to be a successful approach for addressing
many of these problems.
The collaborative, science-based estuary plans where all
interested parties work together to create local solutions for
local problems have been developed over the last dozen years.
Senator Chafee, of course, was a leader in getting this program
going.
We have had a lot of support from citizens in our
watersheds, and we hope to continue work that is valuable to
local communities.
In regards to the association's position on the bills
discussed today, we'd like to focus on two bills--Senator
Chafee's bill, S. 835, and Senator Torricelli's bill, S. 878.
We applaud the collaborative approach and the commitment of
Federal funding that S. 835 will bring. This commitment will be
very useful to the programs on the ground effecting habitat
restoration. And Senator Torricelli's bill is a straightforward
reauthorization of the National Estuary Program. Both of these
increase funding for the program.
The Association of National Estuary Programs strongly
supports Senator Chafee's bill. We feel it would be a critical
resource in meeting local restoration needs from across the 28
estuaries and the Nation. The bill sets goals and creates a
national strategy for habitat restoration and a significant
Federal commitment of funding. We feel this would be very
effective in making the Federal Government a real partner with
the States and local communities in effective habitat
restoration.
We have three specific comments on the bill. First, we
endorse the use of section 320 Clean Water Act funds for both
plan development and implementation. We support a mechanism to
increase regional and local input in the development of the
national strategy and in setting criteria for the grant
program. And we also support expanding the definition of
Federal estuary management plans in the language of the bill to
include the CCMPs or comprehensive management plans created
through the National Estuary Program.
In terms of Senate bill 878, the Association endorses the
funding level that is described in that bill, and we believe
that that level of funding would be a good investment, and I'll
tell you why from the national estuary perspective that we feel
it would be a good investment.
The estuary program has had successful results, as you
heard from Senator Lieberman, Senator Torricelli, and Mr. Fox.
It is an excellent model for estuary management. It has been a
laboratory and a testing ground for many of the watershed
management techniques that are now being used across the
country.
It is a process that allows for meaningful public
participation, and with that comes much more commitment from
the local communities and local people.
Some of the successes, briefly. Tampa Bay has had 3,000
acres of sea grass restored or expanded, 400 acres of wetlands
restored. Massachusetts Bay has had 600 acres of shellfish
reopened. Indian River Lagoon in Florida, 40,000 acres of marsh
and mangrove wetlands reconnected.
We have been restoring habitat for oysters, clams, salmon,
trout, heron, lobsters. It is a pretty extensive list.
We have also been preparing in our estuaries in hope that
this estuary habitat bill will pass, because it would give us
the resources to work with to make significant progress.
Included in our testimony is a chart which shows the
leveraging ability of the National Estuary Program. In essence,
what happens is that for every Federal dollar that we get from
the Clean Water Act, section 320, we have been able to get two
dollars of other funding, either State, local, private sector,
or other sources, and we think that speaks for the
effectiveness of the program, to direct those State and local
and Federal resources together to address priority problems in
the Nation's estuaries.
We would ask that you look at NEP reauthorization and the
estuary habitat bill as strongly linked. We feel that the
funding included in the bill is the fuel for the work that we
are doing in the estuaries, and that the NEPs are the vehicles
in those nationally significant estuaries for effective habitat
restoration.
With that kind of stable funding, we can also address the
emerging issues that our Governors and citizens are asking us
to address--invasive species, sea level rise, and other
factors, like water quality, that impact the effectiveness of
estuary habitat restoration.
So these bills are definitely critical to the health of the
Nation's estuaries--we support them very strongly and if the
Association of National Estuary Programs can assist in any
manner, please call on us.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much.
It is encouraging that so much is being done on the local
scene working together, as you pointed out, with not only the
organization you have, but the organization that was described
by Ms. Shead.
Next witness is Mr. Michael Hirshfield from the Chesapeake
Bay.
Mr. Hirshfield.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HIRSHFIELD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
Mr. Hirshfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf
of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in strong support of S. 492,
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999.
We would especially like to thank Senator Sarbanes and
Senator Warner, as well as their colleagues in the Chesapeake
Bay region, for their consistent and longstanding support for
the Bay exemplified by the Bay Restoration Act.
My name is Michael Hirshfield. I am the senior vice
president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which has its
headquarters nearby in Annapolis, Maryland. CBF is a member-
supported, nonprofit environmental education and advocacy
organization with over 80,000 members throughout the Bay
watershed and nationwide. Our mission is simple--it is to save
the Bay, to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
Mr. Chairman, I have good news and bad news concerning the
health of the Chesapeake Bay.
About a year ago, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released
its first annual State of the Bay Report. If the Bay of 300
years ago was considered 100 percent, we calculated that the
Bay of 1998 was only 27 percent--bad news, indeed, in
Chesapeake Bay--only a small fraction of what it once was and
what it could be.
But there is good news. We also concluded that, on balance,
the Bay is in somewhat better shape than it was 15 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, for the Bay to be even slightly better off than
it was 15 years ago in the face of the pressures of population
growth during that period is nothing short of remarkable, and
it owes that improvement in no small measure to the hard work
of the dedicated individuals from both the public and private
sector led by the Chesapeake Bay program.
Chesapeake Bay program has been described as a national and
international model of a cooperative ecosystem restoration
program. The relatively modest amount of Federal dollars
devoted directly to the Chesapeake Bay program through the EPA
are leveraged many times over by other Federal, State, local,
and private dollars.
We at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have been critical of
the Bay program in the past, and I'm quite confident we'll be
critical of it in the future. I'm sure you'd be surprised and
disappointed if we weren't.
We are impatient, but we are also very respectful of the
Bay program, and it is because of that respect that we are
critical. We expect nothing less than the best from it.
The Bay program has done a lot for the Bay since the
1980's. At the present time, it is in the process of
challenging itself once more to develop goals and objectives
for the next decade and beyond. We will be urging the Bay
program to set lofty goals, and we will be working hard to help
achieve them, but to do the work of saving the Bay we need a
solid framework for the Bay program.
S. 492, the CBRA of 1999, provides such a framework. It
reauthorizes the Bay program and provides it with the
institutional resources necessary to carry out such an enormous
task.
We are pleased to see that it includes mechanisms to ensure
good public accounting of its actions and expenditures. We
believe that such public accounting mechanisms are essential to
ensure public confidence in government leaders.
We are also excited to see the new section on small
watershed grants that will enable local government and
community groups, including our own, to actively engage in
active restoration.
CBF is only one of the many organizations spending time and
resources on Bay restoration under the umbrella of the Bay
program. On behalf of all those organizations and groups who
are not here today, I urge you to move rapidly to approve S.
492 so that the effort to save the Bay can continue with
renewed energy and momentum on into the next century.
I would also like to take a moment to comment on some of
the other legislation before you today. In particular, the Bay
Foundation would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
introducing and working for passage of S. 835, the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.
Let me simply add my voice to my colleague and urge the
committee to move swiftly to pass it.
Finally, I would like to join my other colleagues on this
panel in urging you to support passage of a BEACH bill in this
Congress, as well as legislation that would restore coastal
Louisiana and strengthen the implementation of plans developed
by estuaries as part of the National Estuary Program.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. I want to commend you
and your organization. I think it is wonderful what you've
achieved, and certainly, if I read correctly here, you have
some 80,000 members.
Mr. Hirshfield. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. These are legitimate, dues-paying
contributors?
Mr. Hirshfield. Absolutely.
Senator Chafee. Good. All right.
The final witness--and I might say I think we've set some
kind of a record here, and we're coming up to you, Mr. Bahr,
not at 10 minutes of one, when everybody is hungry and
desperate to get out of here, but with a leisurely 5 minutes
of--about 11:05. So the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF LEN BAHR, COASTAL ADVISOR TO THE GOVERNOR, STATE
OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Bahr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Governor Mike Foster and the State of
Louisiana, I am very grateful to the committee and to you for
giving us a chance to appear today and to share some thoughts
on vital matters that you've already heard a lot about this
morning.
By the way, I'd like to put in a plug for Mr. Hirshfield.
He put in a plug for Louisiana. I grew up in the Chesapeake Bay
and worked there for 3 years, so I'm equally supportive of
efforts to restore that estuary.
My name is Len Bahr. I'm executive assistant to the
Governor, and Governor Foster couldn't be here today and asked
me to appear in his stead.
Of course, the primary matter that I want to address today
to you and the committee is a national crisis, an important
piece of legislation, the reauthorization of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, or, as
Senator Breaux has already told you, we refer to it in
Louisiana as the ``Breaux Act.''
Now, the importance of this act and its reauthorization is
only recognized if you understand the problem that it was
intended to address--that is, the calamitous loss of wetlands
and barrier shorelines, coastal wetlands and barrier shorelines
that are absolutely critical to our national interest.
The Act, as it was written in 1990, recognized two
indisputable facts--first, that the lands were essential to our
ecological, cultural, and economic well-being; and, second,
that regulatory and education programs, alone, are not
sufficient to ensure sustainability of these vital lands.
In other words, it was recognized that an active campaign
to restore coasts around the country was absolutely essential,
and we, of course, agree. Louisiana you've already heard has
incredible losses that are--you heard the statistics. I would
like to point out, to refer to your attention a map that I
think was handed out to members of the committee that shows the
coast of Louisiana in 1895 and then contrasted with 1990, and,
as you will see, it is a shadow of its former self. It is a
very compelling picture that is worth an awful lot of words.
Before the Breaux Act was passed in 1990, we were
literally--the coastal part of Louisiana was in a state of
collapse, and there wasn't any real prospect of saving it, so a
legacy of decades of leveeing, dredging, and draining--all
large projects, many of them incident to Federal policies and
programs, by the way--this was a coast in which the hydrology
had been so altered that land was disappearing over 40 square
miles a year.
In 1989, the State, prior to passage of the Breaux Act,
took its own unprecedented step. It created a multi-agency
coastal wetlands restoration authority within the Governor's
office. I am the chairman of that task force. And it created a
dedicated trust fund from oil and gas severance taxes that
support the work of this effort, but we couldn't do it alone.
The complexity and enormity of the challenge really demanded a
national effort and State and Federal effort if the tide of
land loss was to be stemmed.
Now, with the Breaux Act the complexion improved
dramatically. I can't emphasize that enough. This act forged a
working partnership not only between the State and Federal
Government, but also among Federal agencies that have, as we
all know, have had a long history of working at cross purposes
sometimes.
In the 9-year history of this Act, it has been responsible
for--and I know this. I have been involved since it began--it
has been responsible for unprecedented partnering and
comprehensive planning.
Most recently I'll call your attention also to a passage of
the coast 2050 plan, which I think you were all given copies of
the executive summary. It's very dramatic.
So this Act has led to development and implementation of a
generation of restoration and protection projects, but also a
lot more than that. I want to point out a few salient facts of
the history since this Act began.
During the first 8 years--and we are now in the ninth year
of the Breaux Act--the Federal/State task force that I sit on
for the Governor has approved about 85 projects, about 60
percent of which have been completed or are under construction.
The remainder of the projects are in various stages of planning
and design.
That's great. I mean, we are very proud of these and we
couldn't have done it on our own. But these projects are
expected to result in a 15 percent reduction in projected land
loss over the next 20 years. That's very good progress. It is
still far from where we have to be ultimately.
Second thing, the Breaux Act created a working partnership
between and among five Federal agencies, the State of
Louisiana, and local governments, landowners, business, and
interest groups.
the Act garnered an extraordinary level of public support,
and this Coast 2050 planning is a good example of that. We met
endlessly with local interests and local governments and got a
consensus that I've never seen happen before.
The Breaux Act spurred the development and dissemination of
scientific and technical information about the nature of the
problem and its solution, and I think this--what we've learned
in coastal Louisiana is definitely relevant to other coastal
areas around the world, particularly other delta systems that
are threatened like ours is.
The Breaux Act is responsible for the development, of
course, of this plan, which is a blueprint for recreating a
sustainable coast in 50 years, and I've already talked about
the consensus it achieved.
The Breaux Act spawned a recently completed major
feasibility study of restoring a system of barrier shorelines
along the most-threatened part of our coast. Our barrier
islands and shorelines are particularly threatened.
The Breaux Act plans and partnership have been the basis
for the State of Louisiana's recent commitment of significant
additional funds. We are trying to do our share, to the extent
that we can, to ensure the State's ability to be a true and
effective partner with the Federal Government.
Now, this partnership has produced benefits that go way
beyond just developing restoration projects. I want to
emphasize that. We're not just about projects. The program has
increased the effectiveness of all agency regulatory and
resource management programs by focusing agencies on a common
set of goals and objectives for the coastal area.
And, last, our initial small-scale river diversion projects
are proving to be especially effective.
Mr. Chairman, you asked some of the other witnesses what
they can really do, and the river is the key in our case. We've
got to reconnect the river through diversions and other things
to the delta that it was cutoff from, which would set this
whole process in place.
The history of success that I've described warrants
extension, and the true measure of the Act I think is much more
than a list of milestones. It is best measured in the
foundation that it has created, and it has provided a true
sense of collective responsibility for the stewardship of a
vital national treasure, and it is the foundation upon which
all future work will build. It has worked well, but it has much
more to do.
The State and Governor Foster strongly urge you to allow
this effort to continue.
In addition to the reauthorization of this Act, I want to
also, Mr. Chairman, support strongly the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act that you are the sponsor of. I
think this is very complementary to the Breaux Act. It would
authorize a program that would complement Breaux and the
National Estuary Program that has been described already. It
would authorize a non-regulatory, competitive grant program, it
would broaden the partnering circle to include local
governments, landowners, and interest groups, and focus on
estuarine habitats of all types, not just marshes, but the
marshes and swamps, submerged grass beds, reefs, and others.
It is very well-conceived, it is implementable, and it is
cost-effective and very much needed.
Again, I thank you for allowing us to share our experience,
and we will be glad to offer you any assistance we can.
Senator Chafee. Well, that's certainly high praise for the
Breaux Act, and justifiably so, apparently. You are close to
it, and it makes sense. I see every reason in the world that we
would reauthorize it.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
Senator Chafee. OK.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the witnesses. I appreciate the testimony, some
of which I have had an opportunity to read.
Mr. Danson, it is great to welcome you back, to see you
again. Thank you for the time that you give to the American
Oceans Campaign. I notice that you are here on behalf of, among
other groups, Save the Sound, which I appreciate very much.
I just had one question, which is taken from your
testimony, Mr. Danson. I'd welcome a response from others, as
well.
You mentioned your concern about inconsistent public
notification when beach waters are contaminated, and I share
that concern, as does the general public, I'm sure. In
Connecticut, the State, Save the Sound, other environmental
groups recently developed an environmental monitoring project
for Long Island Sound in which they collect water information,
water quality information, from buoys that are set up in the
Sound, and they allow people to access real-time data through
the internet. It's a fascinating program, and it raises a
question about whether there may be an opportunity to develop
similar collaborative environmental monitoring projects to
collect and post beach safety information.
The question that I really wanted to focus on was--well, I
welcome your response to that, but the question of whether EPA
should issue standardized regulation for monitoring waters to
ensure that they meet health and safety criteria. In other
words, what should an ideal BEACH bill do here? Should we leave
it up to the discretion of the States? Should we be a little
bit more involved and at least set some clear performance
criteria which the States have to follow?
Mr. Danson. My understanding is that you get to the same
place with both bills, roughly, in the same timeframe, which is
extraordinarily long--6 years. But, nevertheless, they both get
there at the same time.
My opinion is that it needs--the Senate needs to pass a
bill as quickly as possible, because this seems to be the time,
when the iron is hot and there's a lot of people and excitement
behind this. The public wants it. The press is interested, the
President has issued something where the Federal beaches will
be monitored, so there is a lot of momentum. I would hate to
see politics get in the way of something being passed now.
There is a lot of energy.
That's the only thing I have to say. It seems to me that
both bills get eventually to the same place.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks. I agree.
Mayor, I gather that you've had some experience with the
program of beach notification. I wonder if you have anything to
say in response to my question.
Mayor Pagliughi. I agree with Mr. Danson. I think that,
unfortunately, a lot of elected officials need to be pried a
little bit. They're not----
Senator Lieberman. Yes.
Mayor Pagliughi. And local elected officials. They're not
going to move until someone forces them to move.
We had an unfortunate situation in New Jersey back in 1987
where there was medical waste washing up on the beach, various
pollution in the water. We wondered what the reaction of the
people would be if they closed some these beaches under the
bill. We had some drastic reaction. We had one local mayor dump
chlorine tablets into the ocean to try to solve the problem,
and that brought a hefty fine from the local DEP. But, I mean,
you can go right down the line.
But the biggest concern was some of the businesses along
New Jersey, but I think in 1987, when the beach closings
happened, the following year, in 1988, they lost about $3
billion in New Jersey in taxable revenue, so I think it woke
them up real quick.
I think the biggest thing today and why this has to be
enacted swiftly and quickly--and I think 6 years is entirely
too long--is we happen to be on the information network today,
and under the EPA website we can pull up--for example, I
happened to pull up the Borough of Avalon, and I can go right
down through each streets that test it each week and give the
bacteria results on how clean the water is.
I just think that people are a little bit more educated
today before they go on vacations, especially with children. We
are all elected officials and we take an oath of office to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and I think
this BEACH bill has to be enacted quickly.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Senator Lieberman. It sure does. Thank you. I appreciate
it.
Does anybody else want to add to that?
[No response.]
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much.
You know, it seems to me, as you told that story, that the
beaches have become a metaphor for the entire environmental
protection experience and movement, because there was a sense
over a lot of years that the environment was unlimited, it
would absorb whatever we threw into it, and so people were
throwing a lot of awful stuff into the water, people and
businesses, etc., etc.
When it suddenly started to literally wash up on the
beach--and I know that was only a margin, a small part of what
was out there, because it tended to be the visible part--then
people got truly agitated because they saw the intersection of
the disposal that they were a part of, a lot of junk into the
water, and their desire to go to the beach, their quality of
life. I think it really turned things in the movement around,
and I think it makes it all the more important that at this
point we take the advice that you've both given, which is to
act on this bill as quickly as possible.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Senator Chafee. Each of you have described the energy you
put into it, and whether it is Galveston or Louisiana or
whatever it might be. I guess my question is: can we win this
battle? Dr. Bahr, you know, we go into all this effort, and
you're going to reduce it by 15 percent over the next 20 years.
You've got a long way to go.
Mr. Bahr. We have a long way to go, sir.
Senator Chafee. I'm not sure. What's the most effective way
of handling this? You mentioned, if I understood it correctly,
that one of the primary contributors, I suppose, has been the
fact you've channelized the river and now you don't have that
water going into wherever it might be.
Mr. Bahr. Right.
Senator Chafee. Do I have it right?
Mr. Bahr. You have it right. Basically, 100 years ago we
started changing the plumbing, and, as you know, the whole
southern part of Louisiana is part of a huge delta complex that
the river built. And once we accidentally--inadvertently, we
started isolating the river from the delta. When we did that,
we set a whole bunch of things in place in the progress, and
one of them was to keep all that rich nutrient-and sediment-
laden water going right past the State, past the delta, out
into the Gulf of Mexico, where it causes other problems like
the anoxia that someone mentioned earlier, the Dead Zone that a
lot of people are interested in now in the Gulf of Mexico.
We have the capacity to solve a number of problems--not
solve them all, but to head them in the right direction by the
same procedure--that is by, as artfully as we can--it's going
to take some very good engineering to reconnect the river to
the delta system.
What has happened in the 100 years since the river was
leveed and isolated, a lot of people have moved onto the levee
system and in between the river and the marshes that we need to
nourish, so it is going to take some good engineering.
I am confident that we can do that. We're smart enough to
do that.
Another idea that has been proposed to speed up the process
is to actually use pipelines to mine sediments from the river
and to pipe the sediment out to jump start the process, to
build deltas much faster than nature does. That's expensive,
but it is feasible.
Of course, with barrier island restoration, it is a fairly
straightforward thing to do. That's pumping sand, basically,
from offshore.
There are just a number of things like this. We need at the
same time, of course, to provide comprehensive hurricane
protection for the people who live there, and I'm very
encouraged to see that the Federal Emergency Management
Administration is now--I met with Mr. James Lee Witt recently.
He is very interested in investing, as restoration is an
investment that also avoids the catastrophic disaster relief
that is going to happen.
The interesting thing is that it is a challenging problem,
but if we don't do it we are going to guarantee that there is
going to be a lot more Federal money spent for disaster relief,
and that's not the best way to spend public dollars, in my
opinion.
So I think an investment--a prudent investment based on
good science that uses our growing knowledge--our knowledge is
much better now than when the Breaux Act started 9 years ago.
We know much more. We don't know everything. We still have to
do some advanced study in engineering. But we have a--coast
2050 lays out a pretty good idea of what we need to do.
It is going to cost some money. The number in here says $14
billion. But when you compare the cost of the Denver Airport or
a couple of B-1 bombers, I mean, we are talking about an
investment that can prevent $100 billion of loss.
So I think it is clear what we have to do. And not taking
any action is making a decision that the Nation can't afford, I
don't think.
Senator Chafee. Well, Doctor, you've got a big job ahead of
you, and I want to commend you and those who work with us, and
certainly, as I said, that's high praise for the Breaux Act, so
we'll bear all that in mind as we wrestle with these matters.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Dr. Bahr, this is impressive that
you've started to turn it around after the Breaux Act.
Approximately what percentage of the cost of this has been
paid for by your State and how much of it has been paid for by
the Federal Government?
Mr. Bahr. The way the Breaux Act is set up at present,
originally it was 25/75--that is, 75 Federal, 25 State. The
State put together a comprehensive conservation plan that
pretty much eliminated losses due to permitted development in
the coast. Our problem is not the fact that we are giving
wetland permits for development. That's not the case. The fact
is that this is not a regulatory problem. It is a problem we
have to ambitiously restore coasts that have been lost by other
projects.
The State is putting up--at present, because we passed this
conservation plan, our cost share was reduced to 15 percent;
however, that is somewhat misleading, because we are spending a
lot of other--we are building restoring levees and roads that
have been destroyed by the loss of wetlands and hurricane
damage and other things, so our State costs are very great.
I don't know the exact percentage, but I think it is
probably closer to--I think the State is probably spending
something like 40 percent of the total cost of this whole
restoration effort.
I want to emphasize that this is a comprehensive thing. It
goes beyond recreating marshes. It is rebuilding infrastructure
that has been damaged. As the marshes have gone away,
everything becomes more vulnerable.
Senator Voinovich. It started out as a 75/25 project and
you imposed taxes on the oil people and----
Mr. Bahr. Yes, we've put up our own oil and gas severance
taxes and fees to the State for production within the State of
Louisiana. Unfortunately, the oil production in the State has
moved from State waters to the Gulf of Mexico to deep water
offshore. As you know, there is some legislation pending in
this Congress that I'm very interested in that would perhaps
share some of the revenues from the offshore production to help
us in this struggle against this.
Senator Voinovich. I'd be really interested in your
providing me with an update of just where the percentages are
and where the revenue sources are coming from, because a lot of
these areas is a question of how much of this responsibility is
the Federal Government's and how much is the States', and it
would seem to me that many of the States have an obligation to
step forward.
In a period where State revenues are far better than the
Federal Government's--we have a $5.5 trillion deficit, and
maybe we'll have a non-budget surplus next year, and there are
so many demands that are coming in that they want the Federal
Government to get involved here and there. We've got people who
want reducing their taxes. We've got other programs that are
coming up. There's a big picture that we need to look at today
in terms of what are the respective responsibilities of the
level of governments.
Mr. Bahr. Right.
Senator Voinovich. I think this has got to be a
partnership. So I'd be real interested in that, any thoughts on
what you think is fair.
Mr. Bahr. As a matter of fact, in this past--our
legislative session just ended, and we passed a so-called ``2
percent'' bill that commits a greater percentage, a fixed
percentage of this total severance taxes that the State
receives from oil and gas to coastal restoration specifically,
and that is money. It's a zero sum game, as you know. That's
money from the general fund. It goes to restoration.
The State is stepping up. Again, as I said earlier, we
started a State only program before the Breaux Act passed, and
we are struggling with this.
But I would be glad to provide you with that information,
sir.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Danson, I would be interested in
knowing, have you lobbied your Governor, past Governors and new
Governor, and legislature to get involved in this effort?
Mr. Danson. I believe we passed a BEACH bill. It is being
implemented right now. California does have exactly what we're
talking about.
Senator Voinovich. So that, in effect, you have set
standards in terms of where your beaches should be, and you
have a formal monitoring program, so the State has taken over
responsibility of that?
Mr. Danson. Yes. I think it is in process of being
implemented, but that bill has been passed.
Senator Voinovich. I am pleased to hear that, because I
think probably you come from a State where people are as
environmentally conscious and aware as any place in the
country, and I'd be really disappointed if the State wasn't
playing a role in getting the job, because I think that has
been part of the problem, Mr. Chairman, in some of these places
if there is a big--who does the monitoring of the water
quality? Is it the State or is it the local health department?
And it is somewhere between and it falls through and it doesn't
get done. So to have a statewide program where the State picks
up the cost of doing it sets the standard. It seems to me an
appropriate way to go.
The question I have, though, is: if the State has stepped
to the table and is doing this, is it required that we have the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency come out and set the
national standards?
Reaction?
Mr. Danson. I believe so, absolutely, because EPA already
has criteria, and a third, I think, roughly of the beaches are
tested and posted, so that's not working. I do think you need
to encourage the States that have a standard that is met, so
that you can go to California and feel good but you may not be
able to go to Florida and feel assured that your children are
swimming in healthy water. So you do need, I think, top-down
criteria.
Senator Voinovich. Do you know what the standard is in
California? I guess maybe the question is: if we were going to
set a national standard today, would California be above or
below it?
Mr. Danson. Yes, good news.
Senator Voinovich. OK. Would there be any other comment on
that?
Mayor Pagliughi. Yes, Senator. I'd like to just mention
that I am a republican and I don't like big government, big
brother looking down over my borough and telling me what to do,
but I think in a situation like this, this is very important.
As I mentioned before, in the State of New Jersey, back in
1987, we had a lot of beach closing, and it cost an enormous
amount of revenue for taxes in the State of New Jersey.
We had a local official that got up at a hearing and said,
``We don't need this beach testing any more. Look what they
did. They closed down our beach. My town has a very active
storm water cleaning program.''
Well, about 3 days later I drove through that elected
official's town and I saw a tomato plant about that high
growing out of a catch basin. Now, I'm not a farmer, Senator,
but I know that that catch basin in that storm water cleaning
was never done.
It is unfortunate that some local elected officials are not
proactive, they are reactive, and I think an issue as important
as this, it does have to come down as a directive and make it
uniform nationwide, because States that do the testing and who
are proactive, like California, New Jersey, a lot of the people
feel that those tourists are going elsewhere.
Now, my island, for example, is--my borough is
approximately five miles long by a quarter of a mile wide. I've
got about 2,500 year-round residents, but for the 3 months in
the summer it grows to 45,000 people. I think that is a pretty
good draw, because those people know that that coastal water is
clean.
Like I said before, the information age today, people are
looking this stuff up and they're looking at where they are
going to go.
Senator Voinovich. Let me say this to you: has your State
set standards?
Mayor Pagliughi. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. OK. And who pays for the monitoring of
it?
Mayor Pagliughi. The State DEP directs the local county
health departments to do the monitoring. The county pays for
the monitoring to be done. The State also went one step further
that if the bacteria limit exceeds 200 parts per million they
close the beach for 24 hours or 48 hours or whenever a
secondary test can be done.
Senator Voinovich. OK. So the fact is that, again, there's
an example. Your State has stepped up to the table and has
taken some responsibility.
Mayor Pagliughi. That's correct, sir.
Senator Voinovich. OK. And you are here today saying that
you'd like the Federal Government to unify it, because you feel
there are other communities that are not doing it, they are
not--why don't you explain that to me? You have other
communities that are----
Mayor Pagliughi. Like I said before, Senator----
Senator Voinovich. Why?
Mayor Pagliughi [continuing]. I don't think a lot of
elected officials are going to step up to the plate unless they
are told what to do.
Senator Voinovich. But in New Jersey they're doing it?
Mayor Pagliughi. They're doing it. They have no choice but
to do it.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mayor Pagliughi. The outcry was, when they first did it and
closed beaches, like I said, the outcry 1 year, for example,
the businesses went up in arms. The local chambers of commerce
were wild. But when they saw the following year that the State
lost $3 billion in revenues, it woke them up pretty quickly.
On the other hand, it is a public health, safety, and
welfare issue.
Senator Voinovich. Right. But the question I'm asking is:
is somebody else in another State not doing their job and it is
impeding on you, or is the problem other States are not setting
standards and enforcing it and customers that ought to be
coming to your State are going to other States?
Mayor Pagliughi. That's probably true. If there is no water
testing, it appears to be clean, they go there. It is really
putting everybody on an equal playing field.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I think one of the things that
communities ought to do is I believe in the old-fashioned free
enterprise competitive marketplace, and I would advertise,
``Clean beaches. We have set high standards. We do have clean
beaches, as compared to other places,'' particularly today with
the information that is available. It is another approach to
this.
Ted.
Mr. Danson. I also feel that this monitoring and posting
for public health is the tip of the iceberg. I think that
eventually you hope that people will locate the problem and do
something about it.
So if you are taking care of your State waters, that's
nice, but, you know, currents--polluted water travels, and if
the State next to you doesn't and isn't marching to the same
standards, then you are paying the price.
So it does seem that, in all fairness, all States should be
operating under the same standards.
Senator Voinovich. And I think that gets back, again,
what's the problem. I mean, we're getting into the issue of
polluted beaches. It is communities that haven't done a good
job with waste water treatment, it's communities that haven't
done the job in terms of industrial pollution that may be going
into the streams. It may be communities where agriculture--
where you're getting stuff going into the streams that is
polluting the water. So this is just the result of a lack of
enforcement in a whole lot of areas.
I recall, when we were talking about Lake Erie, that we had
primary treatment. Today we have tertiary treatment of all
waste water and there is an enormous effort that has been by
the industries in terms of their pollution controls, and
farmers are now doing no-till farming and a lot of other
things.
I think that I guess it is like every other problem. We can
deal with this problem and we can post it and we can do
everything, but if we don't do these other things we are still
going to have the problem.
You talked about hitting the beaches. I was told by a
doctor, ``Don't let your kids go in the water unless they get
their shots, because they are bound to get something if they
swim in Lake Erie.'' And today that is not the case.
So I really appreciate your being here today. I've enjoyed
your testimony and we'll try to help.
Senator Chafee. I second that and want to thank everybody
in the panel. Some of you have come considerable distances, and
we appreciate that, and you've been a big help to us, and even
those who weren't present here will be able to read about this
and learn from their staff, so thank you all.
That concludes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on the subject of estuaries and coastal
protection. With 1,800 miles of coastline and 1,200 miles of beaches in
Florida, these are very important issues in my State.
As you know, estuaries are areas where fresh and salt water mix.
They serve as nurseries where baby fish, crabs, and other animals can
grow, and provide resting and feeding areas for migrating birds. They
also support recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and
birdwatching. In addition, estuaries are often located close to ports
that are important for commercial shipping. We need to protect our
estuaries so that they can continue to support these diverse
activities.
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 established the National
Estuary Program to identify important estuaries and promote planning,
restoration and protection activities. There are now 28 estuaries
across the country participating in this program, four of them in
Florida. The Environmental Protection Agency works together with other
Federal, State, and local government agencies as well as industry and
local citizens to identify and address an estuary's environmental
problems.
I am a long time supporter of the National Estuary Program, and the
cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies that it
encourages. Over its 10 year life, the program has had many successes
in reducing nutrient loadings, protecting habitats, and controlling
stormwater runoff into coastal waters. Florida currently has more
estuaries participating in the program than any other State.
I am a co-sponsor of Senator Chafee's S. 835, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act, and Senator Torricelli's S. 878, to
reauthorize the National Estuary Program for an additional 5 years. I
support coordination of the various existing Federal, State, and local
estuary protection initiatives. I also support funding for
implementation of the National Estuary Program Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans. Development of the plans is an
important step, but they are of little value without funding for
implementation.
Clean beaches are very important to the people of Florida and the
48 million visitors who come to our State each year. Our residents and
visitors want to know that they can enjoy swimming, snorkeling,
surfing, and other water contact recreation without fear of disease.
However, we have some concerns about the beach bills in their current
form. Beaches and coastal waters in Florida are different from those in
Maine or California, and our States need to be allowed the flexibility
to implement beach protection programs that will be the most
appropriate for each State. I look forward to hearing what our
witnesses have to say today and to working with my colleagues on the
committee to resolve these issues.
__________
Statement of Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify in support of S. 492, the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act, which I introduced earlier this year along with my
colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb, and Santorum.
At the very outset I want to commend Chairman Chafee and Senator
Torricelli for their leadership in crafting legislation to restore
America's estuaries. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of both S. 835,
Chairman Chafee's Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, and S.
878, Senator Torricelli's bill, which would authorize grants to
implement conservation management plans developed under the National
Estuaries Program. Both measures would help rehabilitate estuary
habitat by improving the financial mechanisms by which the Federal
Government participates in restoration projects.
As you know, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the
United States and the key to the ecological and economic health of the
mid-Atlantic region. The Bay, in fact, is one of the world's great
natural resources. We tend to take it for granted because it is right
here at hand, so to speak, and I know many Members of this body have
enjoyed the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay provides thousands of jobs for the
people in this region and is an important component in the national
economy. The Bay is a major commercial waterway and shipping center for
the region and for much of the eastern United States. It supports a
world-class fishery that produces a significant portion of the
country's fin fish and shellfish catch. The Bay and its watershed also
maintain an enormous tourism and recreation industry.
The Chesapeake Bay is a complex system that covers more than 64,000
square miles and parts of six States. The Bay's relationship to the
people, industries, and communities in those six States and beyond is
also complex and multifaceted.
I could continue talking about these aspects of the Bay, but my
fellow Senators are aware of the Bay's importance and have consistently
regarded the protection and enhancement of the quality of the
Chesapeake Bay as an important national objective.
Through the concerted efforts of public and private organizations,
we have learned to understand the complexities of the Bay and we have
learned what it takes to maintain the system that sustains us. The
Chesapeake Bay Program is an extraordinary example of how local, State,
regional, and Federal agencies can work with citizens and private
organizations to manage complicated, vital, natural resources. Indeed,
the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a model across the country and
around the world.
When the Bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in
water quality and living resources in the 1970's, the people in my
State suffered. We lost thousands of jobs. We lost much of the
wilderness that defined the watershed. We began to appreciate for the
first time the profound impact that human activity could have on the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. We began to recognize that untreated sewage,
deforestation, toxic chemicals, agricultural runoff, and increased
development were causing a degradation of water quality, the loss of
wildlife, and elimination of vital habitat. We also began to recognize
that these negative impacts were only part of a cycle that could
eventually impact other economic and human health interests.
Fortunately, over the last two decades we have come to understand
that humans can also have a positive effect on the environment. We have
learned that we can, if we are committed, help repair natural systems
so that they continue to provide economic opportunities and enhance the
quality of life for future generations.
We now treat sewage before it enters our waters. We banned toxic
chemicals that were killing wildlife. We have initiated programs to
reduce nonpoint source pollution, and we have taken aggressive steps to
restore depleted fisheries.
The States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania deserve much of
the credit for undertaking many of the Actions that have put the Bay
and its watershed on the road to recovery. All three States have had
major cleanup programs. They have made significant commitments in terms
of resources. It is an important priority item on the agendas of the
Bay States. Governors have been strongly committed, as have State
legislatures and the public. There are a number of private
organizations--the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example--which do
extraordinary good work in this area.
But there has been invaluable involvement by the Federal Government
as well. The cooperation and attention of Federal agencies has been
essential. Without the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal ban on DDT,
and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of Chesapeake Bay restoration and
cleanup activities, we would not have been able to bring about the
concerted effort, the real partnership, that is succeeding in improving
the water quality of the Bay and is succeeding in bringing back many of
the fish and wildlife species.
The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot afford to be
complacent. There are still tremendous challenges facing Bay.
As you may recall, 2 years ago we faced a major outbreak of toxic
Pfiesteria which had impacts, not only on the fish population, but on
human health as well. The suspected cause of the 1997 bloom was the
excessive release of nutrients to the Bay.
While we've been fortunate not to have suffered toxic Pfiesteria
outbreaks last summer or so far this summer, we have had other
problems.
Earlier this month, an estimated 200,000 dead fish were found in
the Magothy and Patapsco rivers, both tributaries to the Chesapeake
Bay. That was the largest fish kill in Maryland in a decade. The cause
was low dissolved oxygen.
The Blue Crab catch is down this season. In Maryland, this year's
early season catch was down 23 percent from the same time last year.
And then there is the drought. Now in its third year, the drought
we are experiencing has exacerbated problems in the Bay. If the drought
continues, it could prove catastrophic, in part, because the Bay's
natural resiliency has been compromised. We can't stop droughts, but we
can stop undermining the natural processes that the Bay's ecology
relies upon to recover from periods of natural stress.
We need to remain vigilant in continuing to address the needs of
the Bay restoration effort. The hard work, investment, and commitment,
at all levels, which has brought gains over the last three decades,
must not be allowed to lapse or falter.
This legislation reauthorizes the Bay program and builds upon the
Federal Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to which I made
reference. The bill also establishes simple agency disclosure and
budget coordination mechanisms to help ensure that information about
Federal Bay-related grants and projects are readily available to the
scientific community and the public.
As I mentioned before, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a model of
efficient and effective coordination. Still, there is always room for
improvement as experience informs and enlightens our judgments. While
coordination between the various levels of government has been
exemplary, coordination among Federal agencies can be strengthened.
This legislation begins to develop a better coordination mechanism to
help ensure that all Federal agency programs are accounted for.
In addition, this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency
to establish a Small Watershed Grants Program for the Chesapeake Bay
region. These grants will help organizations and local governments
launch a variety of locally designed and locally implemented projects
to restore relatively small pieces of the larger Chesapeake Bay
watershed. By empowering local agencies and community groups to
identify and solve local problems, this grant program will promote
stewardship across the region and improve the whole by strengthening
the parts.
This bill was carefully crafted with the advice, counsel, and
assistance of many hard working organizations in the Chesapeake Bay
region, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and various offices
within the State governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
I would like to close by pointing out that the need for Federal
assistance is great. State and local governments and community
organizations are ready and willing to help preserve the Chesapeake
Bay.
This is a critical time for the Bay community. Many of the goals of
the multi-jurisdictional Chesapeake Bay Program were originally indexed
to the year 2000. Now, the community is setting new goals. The
Governors of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and
the Administrator of the EPA are renegotiating their cooperative
agreement. In this time of change one thing is absolutely certain--the
entire Bay community expects the Federal Government to continue its
unwavering support for restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Our State and
local partners are prepared to go the distance and they expect that we
are willing to do the same.
I hope that the Committee can swiftly approve S. 492.
__________
Statement of J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning; I am Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water at
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate the opportunity
to be here and to talk with you about some of the things we are doing
to protect the Nation's estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans. I will
also comment on pending legislation to protect and restore these
important natural resources.
i. coastal waters--value, condition, and response programs
Coastal waters are a rich natural heritage for all Americans.
Protecting and restoring the quality of these waters has tremendous
environmental and economic benefits. EPA, along with many other
Federal, State and local agencies and organizations, is working hard to
implement effective programs to protect coastal water quality and
natural resources.
Coastal Resource Values
Estuaries, near-coastal waters, and oceans provide some of the most
diverse and biologically productive habitat in the country and are
critical to a wide variety of marine life--from manatees, to migratory
wildlife, to salmon. Coastal waters provide essential habitat during
critical portions of the life cycles of roughly two-thirds of the fish
and shellfish caught commercially in U.S. waters.
Coastal waters are also important economically. They support 28.3
million jobs and generate billions of dollars 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. A large part of this income is derived from coastal
waters.
Condition of Coastal Waters
Because so many people are drawn to, or depend on, coastal waters,
restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the health of these waters is of
great importance. Unfortunately, coastal waters suffer from serious
pollution problems. Recent studies document a wide range of pollution
in coastal waters including low dissolved oxygen levels, contamination
of shellfish, contamination of water and sediment with metals and
organic contaminants, and beach closings.
Water quality monitoring reports by State agencies under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) indicate that, of the 72 percent of estuary miles
assessed (i.e., almost 30,000 square miles) 38 percent are impaired.
Pollutants causing these impairments are nutrients, bacteria, toxic
pollutants, and oxygen depleting substances. The leading sources of
pollutants causing impairments of estuary waters are industrial
discharges, urban runoff, and sewage discharges.
States assessed only 16 percent of ocean shoreline miles (or 6
percent if Alaska shoreline is counted) and found 13 percent of these
waters impaired. Bacteria and nutrients are the pollutants of most
concern here, and urban runoff and sewage are by far the leading causes
of impairment.
A recent national assessment of conditions in 28 estuaries
addressed in the National Estuary Program (NEP) concluded that the most
common problems 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.
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are another serious threat to coastal
waters. The death and decay of algal blooms can lead to hypoxia, or
total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the water, resulting in
widespread mortality of fish, shellfish, and invertebrates, and
submerged grasses/vegetation. Hypoxia occurs in many parts of the
world, and in the United States it occurs in several near-coastal
waters.
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 and physical changes to the
River, such as channelization and loss of natural wetlands and
vegetation along the banks. The interaction of freshwater from the
River with the saltwater of the Gulf is also a factor.
There is evidence that associates algal blooms and hypoxia with
nutrient pollution--excessive 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 from fertilizer and animal waste; and,
air deposition from motor vehicles and electric utility
facilities.
Finally, there is growing evidence of serious threats to coastal
resources and human health from microbiological organisms. For example,
Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred in the Chesapeake Bay and North
Carolina rivers in recent years, resulting in fish kills and suspected
human health impacts. Red tides cause fish kills, the closing of
shellfish beds, and beach closures each year. These outbreaks undermine
public confidence in the safety of coastal waters and can result in
dramatic impacts on fishing, tourism, and related interests.
We know that coastal waters face serious pollution problems now. In
the future, the potential for such problems is likely to persist
because coastal waters are especially vulnerable to degradation as a
result of high population density, intense land uses, and rapid
population growth in coastal areas.
Coastal Pollution Response Programs
It is essential that we have strong and effective programs to
restore and protect the quality of the Nation's coastal waters.
EPA has strong statutory authority for protection of coastal and
ocean waters under the Clean Water Act and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuary Act (MPRSA). For example, EPA and delegated
States require permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the
United States under section 402 of the CWA. In the case of discharges
to ocean waters, these permits impose additional controls consistent
with guidelines established under section 403. EPA also works with the
Army Corps of Engineers to manage ocean dumping of dredge materials
under the MPRSA.
In addition, EPA implements a range of additional programs focusing
on coastal water quality including the NEP, beach water quality
programs, and programs to protect specific geographic areas, such as
the Chesapeake Bay. EPA and NOAA work with States to implement nonpoint
pollution control programs with specific authorities to protect coastal
waters from nonpoint pollution. Several of these programs are discussed
later in this testimony.
The Clean Water Action Plan, announced by President Clinton in
February of last year, provides an overall framework for efforts by
Federal and State agencies to work with local governments and
organizations for cleaner and safer water. A key theme of the Action
Plan is cooperation among different levels of governments and other
parties to develop solutions to water pollution problems on a watershed
basis.
the Action Plan also specifically addresses how diverse coastal
programs, including the work of EPA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Army Corps of Engineers, fit
into a larger clean water strategy. Some of the specific coastal
protection activities described in the Action Plan include----
a coastal research and monitoring plan;
efforts to address Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB's) and
Pfiesteria;
better focused efforts to assess shellfish bed condition
and restore these valuable resources;
specific schedules for State programs to control pollution
of coastal waters by nonpoint sources; and
better coordinated efforts to protect coastal wetlands.
Since the publication of the Action Plan last year, EPA has
expanded efforts to protect coral reefs and address the threats posed
to these waters by invasive species.
ii. assuring beach safety
Beach Water Quality Problems and Programs
Water pollution at the Nation's beaches is a persistent problem.
The number of reported beach closures and health advisories has
increased over the past several years. EPA recently completed the
second annual, National Health Protection Survey of Beaches, which is a
voluntary survey of government agencies that collected information on
beach health activities. Based on this survey, EPA estimates that about
one-third of the 1,062 beaches reporting in 1998 had at least one
advisory or closing. This is an increase from the first survey, when
about 26 percent of 738 beaches reporting had at least one closing or
advisory. More detailed information is available at EPA's ``Beach
Watch'' site on the Internet (www.epa.gov/ost/beaches).
Using EPA data and other information, the Natural Resources Defense
Council recently estimated that the number of beach closure days (i.e.,
days that various beaches were closed or under advisories) rose from
over 4,000 in 1997 to over 7,000 in 1998. Although some portion of the
increase in both estimates is the result of better monitoring and
reporting, this is evidence of a serious problem.
Beach advisories and closings are generally due to disease-causing
microorganisms, or pathogens, originating from discharges of sewage or
runoff from many different sources, into local waters. Beachgoers,
especially children, are at risk of infection from ingestion or
inhalation of contaminated water, or through contact with the water.
To protect waters designated for this recreational use, States use
scientific information developed by EPA to set water quality standards
that include criteria for levels of indicator pathogens with known risk
of infection. States and local governments then monitor waters for
these indicators, compare their results to the criteria, and determine
if action is needed to protect public health or the environment.
However, only 16 of the States have adopted EPA's current criteria
for recreational water quality. In addition, some recreational waters
are not monitored at all. EPA believes that better monitoring and
improved water quality standards will lead to greater recognition of
the health threats posed by beach pollution and increased commitment to
restore the quality of these important waters.
Recognizing the need to strengthen beach programs, EPA's
Administrator, Carol Browner, announced the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Program on May 23, 1997. The
goal of this program is to significantly reduce the risk of health
threats to users of the Nation's recreational waters through
improvements in recreational water programs, communication, and
scientific advances.
The BEACH Program emphasizes three themes:
getting up-to-date beach water quality standards adopted
in all States;
informing the public about recreational water quality; and
conducting research to develop new indicators for non-
gastrointestinal diseases and new monitoring protocols to ensure
detection of water quality problems.
These key concepts are carried forward in the Clean Water Action
Plan.
In early 1999, EPA released an Action Plan for Beach and
Recreational Waters describing priority actions for Federal, State,
Tribal, and local implementation of beach monitoring and notification
programs. The research agenda set forth in the Plan covers several
areas, including monitoring strategies, improved indicators, enhanced
modeling tools to predict beach contamination, and epidemiology
studies.
The Beach Plan also describes the importance of States adopting up-
to-date water quality standards for protecting beach water quality and
public health, and describes EPA's commitment to promulgate the
criteria with a goal of assuring that the criteria apply in all States
not later than 2003.
Beach Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Acts--S. 522 and
H.R. 999
The Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health Act (S.
522), introduced by Senator Lautenberg, provides for a comprehensive
program to improve beach monitoring and to assure that the public has
good information about health risks at the Nation's beaches. H.R. 999,
passed by the House of Representatives, includes comparable, but
somewhat different, provisions. As noted below, both bills have strong
points. The Administration supports beach safety legislation that is
generally consistent with the approach in these bills.
An important provision of both bills would require States, within
3\1/2\ years of enactment, to adopt water quality criteria for
pathogens and pathogen indicators for their coastal recreation waters
that are at least as protective of human health as EPA's recommended
criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators, which EPA published in
1986.
EPA has encouraged States promptly to adopt current criteria for
pathogen indicators into their water quality standards for their
coastal recreation waters and, as noted above, intends to use current
statutory authority to adopt appropriate standards for these waters
where States fail to do so.
A key difference between the bills is that S. 522 proposes that
water quality standards are ``considered'' promulgated where a State
has not adopted the standards at the end of the 3\1/2\ year period.
H.R. 999 would require EPA to go through additional steps of
disapproval of existing standards and formal adoption of new standards.
Although it varies from EPA's current process for promulgating water
quality standards, the approach in S. 522 would result in faster
adoption of needed water quality standards.
Both bills provide for States or local governments to conduct
expanded monitoring of beach quality and to notify the public of water
quality problems at beaches. The Senate bill provides a clear and
direct mandate to States to follow regulations that the EPA
Administrator would be required to publish. Nine million dollars would
be authorized for grants to support State and local efforts.
The House bill would authorize up to $30 million for grants to
States to develop and implement beach monitoring and assessment
programs. The Administration has concerns about the funding source for
this program and will work with the Committee to identify an
appropriate funding mechanism. Further, EPA agrees with the concept in
the House bill that EPA can implement the program in a State if the
State fails to participate.
There are several other differences between the House and Senate
bills that will need to be resolved before enactment and EPA stands
ready to work with the Congress to develop the best possible beach
safety legislation for final enactment.
iii. protecting the nation's estuaries
Estuaries are one of the most productive types of ecosystems and
yet are also among the most stressed. Estuaries often serve as sinks
for pollutants originating upstream within their watershed and upwind
of their ``airshed.'' In addition, estuaries are directly impacted by
human activity--well over half the people in this country live, work,
or play near the coast.
National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established by Congress in
1987 to address the complex problems associated with estuary management
and protection.
The NEP seeks not only to protect and restore the health of
estuaries and their habitat and living resources, but also to support
economic activities that take place in, or depend on, healthy
estuaries. Under the NEP, EPA provides modest grants to support
``management conferences'' of interested parties and these groups
develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the
estuary. EPA supports 28 estuary projects around the country.
Unlike traditional approaches to environmental protection, the NEP
acknowledges that pollution problems of estuaries are exacerbated by
combined and cumulative impacts of many individual activities
throughout the coastal watershed. In order to address watershed-wide
concerns, the NEP encourages the use of a combination of traditional
and nontraditional water quality control measures available through
Federal, State and local authorities as well as private sector
initiatives. The NEP has strongly influenced our evolution toward
watershed management, including the focus on watershed restoration and
protection in the Clean Water Action Plan.
A cornerstone 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.
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act--S. 835
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, introduced by
Chairman Chafee, would create new authority and authorize new funding
for the Army Corps of Engineers to work with other Federal agencies,
States, and communities to carry out projects to restore estuary
habitat. The bill would also reauthorize the National Estuary Program.
The goals of the bill are laudable and include----
a national goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary
habitat by 2010;
fostering coordination of Federal, State and community
estuary habitat restoration programs, plans and studies through
creation of a ``Collaborative Council'' and other means;
establishment of estuary habitat restoration partnerships
among public agencies and between the public and private sectors;
promotion of efficient financing mechanisms for estuary
restoration activities; and
development and enhancement of monitoring and research
capabilities to ensure that estuary habitat restoration efforts are
based on sound scientific understanding.
The habitat restoration provisions of S. 835 can make an important
contribution to the coastal protection program described in the Clean
Water Action Plan and will complement the work underway in the National
Estuary Program. For example, the Action Plan calls for coordinated
approaches to protecting and restoring water quality on a watershed
basis. Coastal habitat restoration projects could complement
traditional water pollution control projects implemented as part of
watershed restoration plans.
EPA supports the new authority for estuary habitat restoration
proposed in the bill. We also have several suggestions for improvements
to the bill, described below, as well as some technical comments that
will be provided to Committee staff.
First, S. 835 defines estuaries to include areas where a body of
water in which ``freshwater from a river or stream meets and mixes with
salt water from the ocean.'' We suggest even broader language to
include not only estuarine water areas, but also near-shore marine
habitats and associated ecosystems.
We would also like to see further clarification of the bill with
respect to its relationship to local NEPs and other local habitat
restoration plans. We suggest that the term ``Federal estuary
management plan'' be clarified to specifically include such plans as
NEP and other such Plans. We note that although NEP plans must be
approved by EPA, they are in fact local plans generated by the
collaborative NEP process, rather than ``Federal'' plans.
In addition, we would like to see further regional coordination to
ensure that habitat restoration priorities are set on a region-by-
region basis. The House version of this bill, H.R. 1775, includes a
regional review process to facilitate priority setting and we would
support the inclusion of regional review teams.
Finally, EPA agrees that an ``estuary habitat restoration
activity'' should include ``clean-up of contamination related to the
restoration of the estuary'' but recommends that this provision be
expanded to include measures to restore or protect water quality, such
as buffer strips or related measures to prevent polluted runoff. The
provision of the bill prohibiting support of activities ``regulated''
by Federal or State law is appropriate, but the prohibition on
activities that are merely ``otherwise governed'' by such laws needs to
be clarified.
Legislation to Reauthorize the National Estuary Program--S. 835 and S.
878
Both S. 835, discussed above, and S. 878 would extend and increase
the authorization for the NEP.
Both bills would also make grants under section 320 of the Clean
Water Act, now used for development of CCMPs, available to implement
projects called for in CCMPs. S. 878 would require a 50 percent non-
Federal match for implementation of projects whereas S. 835 would
require only the current 25 percent match for such projects. In
addition, both bills increase the authorization for the NEP program
from the current level of $12 million--to $25 million, in the case of
S. 835, and $50 million, in the case of S. 878.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the NEP is for
approximately $17 million. This amount reflects the continued
development of CCMPs and the costs associated with providing limited
grant support for local program management of approved CCMPs. Program
management grants assure oversight of implementation efforts and
involvement of stakeholders in the implementation phase of CCMPs. In
some past appropriation statutes, Congress has included specific
language to permit EPA to award grants for the implementation of CCMPs.
The Administration supports amendment of the Clean Water Act to
more specifically support NEP grants for program management as well as
program development and supports increase of the authorization level
consistent with the long-term balanced budget agreement.
EPA recognizes that implementing pollution control projects called
for in CCMPs sometimes requires Federal assistance. A primary source of
financial assistance is the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs)
under Title VI of the Clean Water Act.
Projects to implement NEP plans developed under section 320 of the
CWA are currently eligible for CWSRF loans. In addition, the President
proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget new authority for Governors to
use up to 20 percent of the annual Federal funding for Clean Water SRFs
for grants to implement projects called for in CCMPs as well as to
implement measures to reduce polluted runoff, including runoff to
coastal waters. Use of this provision would be at the discretion of a
Governor. EPA believes this is a very effective way to the Federal
Government to make a major financial contribution to implementation of
CCMPs.
iv. protecting the chesapeake bay
Chesapeake Bay Resources and Protection Program
Chesapeake Bay is a national resource of outstanding significance
and vital national importance. The Bay, which is served by a watershed
of 64,000 square miles, provides millions of pounds of seafood, is a
hub for shipping and commerce, offers habitat for wildlife and fish,
and provides recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.
The Chesapeake Bay Program was originally created in 1983 and gets
its statutory authority from Section 117 of the Clean Water Act. The
Bay Program's emphasis on watershed management, public participation,
and voluntary partnerships has been a model for similar efforts
elsewhere in the United States, as well as in the world. In fact, the
National Estuary Program was based on the Chesapeake model, and the
President's Clean Water Action Plan finds its origins in the Program,
as well.
There have been many successes in the Bay restoration effort.
Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution has been reduced dramatically. The
Program should meet its 40 percent reduction goal for phosphorus in
2000, but a similar goal for nitrogen reduction will probably not be
achieved until a couple of years after 2000. The comeback of striped
bass is a success story that benefits the entire east coast. The
Program has also provided national leadership in the restoration of
riparian forest buffers, nutrient management, biological nutrient
removal at wastewater plants, and many pollution prevention programs.
The Chesapeake Bay Program, which is a partnership of the Bay
States, the District of Columbia, local governments and the EPA, is
currently in the process of creating a new Chesapeake Bay Agreement for
2000. This process is a cooperative effort by all of the partners and
it seeks to involve all sectors of the public. Just this month, the
Chesapeake Bay Program partners held a joint press conference to
announce the kick-off a new Agreement in 2000, and to solicit public
input into the process.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act--S. 492
I'd like to thank Senators Sarbanes and Warner, and the rest of the
Chesapeake Bay delegation, for their leadership and vision in
introducing the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act. It is my understanding
that this bill reflects a consensus among the governments of Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.
This bill seeks to continue the highly successful Chesapeake Bay
Program into the 21st Century. It will allow the Bay Program to better
develop new goals and commitments for the next century and implement
programs to restore and protect the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed.
For example, the bill authorizes Federal support for small watershed
programs, assessment of ways to strengthen current protection programs,
and expanded study of the relationship between living resources of the
Bay ecosystem and water quality. EPA strongly supports these and
related provisions of S. 492.
S. 492 would also increase the authorization for the Bay program
under section 117 of the Clean Water Act from $13 million to $30
million. The Administration supports funding of the Chesapeake Bay
program at levels above the current statutory authorization. The
President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes funding of almost $19
million.
v. protecting and restoring coastal wetlands
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Challenges and Programs
The Nation's coastal wetlands are in trouble. Thousands of acres of
coastal wetlands have already been lost and additional acres have been
degraded by pollution. Because of the alteration of several important
coastal wetland processes over the past 75-80 years, Louisiana has lost
more than 600,000 acres of coastal vegetated wetlands and is now losing
coastal wetlands at an annual rate of more than 25-35 square miles per
year (20,000-25,000 acres per year).
Further, the concentration of the U.S. population along coastal
areas is a continuing source of development pressure. Threats to
coastal wetland resources include residential and commercial
development, agricultural and urban run-off, shoreline modification,
municipal waste disposal, oil and gas development, and over-harvesting
of resources.
Louisiana's 3.5 million acres of coastal wetlands represent about
40 percent of all of the coastal wetlands in the continental United
States. These wetlands are an extremely valuable resource. They protect
against flooding, provide effective storm protection/ buffering, help
maintain water quality, and provide habitat for fish/shellfish and
wildlife. Coastal environments are important economically, generating
billions of dollars annually through such industries as tourism and
commercial fisheries. Coastal wetland habitats in Louisiana serve as a
foundation for a $1 billion seafood industry and a $200 million sport
hunting industry.
EPA has worked in close partnership with other Federal agencies,
including the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to implement coordinated
wetlands protection policies and programs. Some of our projects include
joint rulemakings and guidance as well as participation on the White
House Interagency Wetlands Working Group. We also have formed
successful partnerships with State, Tribal and local groups.
We have made great strides over the last decade at reducing
wetlands loss. While much remains to be done, the Clinton
Administration has demonstrated a strong commitment to meaningful
wetlands protection. EPA has implemented wetlands activities described
in the Clean Water Action Plan, increasingly integrated wetlands
regulatory provisions into watershed plans, worked with the Corps to
make nationwide Permits more environmentally protective, and undertaken
additional activities that help ensure the wetlands program is fair and
effective.
EPA's initiatives and effective partnerships will help to achieve
the Administration's goal of a net increase of 100,000 wetland acres
per year by 2005.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
(Public Law 101-646, Title III--CWPPRA), also known as the Breaux Act,
was signed into law in 1990. It ensures that State and Federal moneys
are available for coastal restoration and conservation efforts.
the Act directed that a Task Force consisting of representatives of
five Federal agencies (including EPA) and Louisiana develop a
comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal
wetlands in Louisiana. A Priority Project List is developed and
approved by the Task Force each year, outlining which projects will
receive CWPPRA funding. Pursuant to CWPPRA, coastal restoration
projects in Louisiana may be eligible to receive 85 percent of the
project funds through Federal funding. The remainder of the funds are
used for projects to protect, restore, and enhance coastal wetlands
under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
EPA has strongly supported CWPPRA as a means to address a
significant ecological problem, and endorses S. 1119, which provides
for the extension of authorizations for CWPPRA through 2009 at existing
levels. It is my understanding that this bill may have a pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) impact.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to review the diverse programs EPA is
implementing to protect and restore coastal waters and to comment on
proposed measures to protect estuaries, coastal and ocean resources.
In closing, I want to make a special appeal to the Committee to
consider the difficult challenges the Agency faces in implementing some
of the important and needed programs proposed in legislation we have
discussed today given the budget reductions likely to be imposed on EPA
in fiscal year 2000.
Under the congressional budget allocations, EPA may be forced to
implement significant reductions in fiscal year 2000. If these general
reductions occur, at the same time that increased appropriations are
provided at the levels these coastal bills authorize, the Agency might
have to dramatically reduce current core program efforts. I urge this
Committee to consider the best overall approach to meeting coastal
project funding needs in the context of the serious budget constraints
the Agency is facing.
In addition, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget calls for new
authority for Governors to have the option of allocating up to 20
percent of Federal capitalization grants for Clean Water SRF to make
grants to implement NEP plans and to implement measures to reduce
polluted runoff, including runoff to coastal waters. Enactment of this
new authority for Governors to direct resources to areas of critical
need will be a major step forward in our efforts to protect and restore
coastal waters and I hope that the C
ommittee will agree that this proposal is a key piece to the
coastal funding puzzle.
As I have indicated on previous occasions, we welcome dialog with
the Congress and others concerning the appropriate, long term funding
level for the clean water SRF program.
This concludes my remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Thank you.
______
Responses by Charles Fox to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. Coastal States are concerned that EPA beach monitoring
and public notification criteria or regulations will be rigid and
require States to adopt one-size-fits-all programs. States have pointed
out that beaches in California are different from beaches in Florida or
beaches in New England. How does EPA intend to develop criteria that
will provide uniform, consistent, national standards while still
allowing States the flexibility to take into account site specific
conditions?
Response. EPA agrees that beach monitoring and public notification
programs must be consistent nationally in order to provide better
public health protection but that site-specific flexibility for States
is important. S. 522 and H.R. 999 would require EPA to develop
standards for recreational water quality, water quality monitoring, and
public notification.
Both bills include provisions for consistent water quality
standards. EPA believes that consistent, scientifically defensible
water quality standards for States and tribes are very important. These
standards provide the scientific and programmatic framework for
enhancing protection of public health at beaches. EPA is working with
all States and tribes to ensure that they adopt State standards that
incorporate the Agency's published criteria for Escherichia cold and
enterococci; research data support the use of these microbes as
indicators of swimming- associated gastrointestinal disease. The water
quality standards program framework established by the Clean Water Act
and continued by the bills is flexible, allowing for State variation
consistent with protection of public health and good scientific
practice, and revisions by EPA as new microbiological indicators,
monitoring protocols, and models are developed.
The bills also include provisions for EPA to establish either
performance criteria or regulations for all other aspects of a beach
monitoring and notification program. EPA intends to work with State and
local governments to develop these performance criteria/regulations. In
developing these performance criteria/regulations, EPA would
incorporate available scientifically valid tools for predicting health
risks associated with recreational waters, and promote the use of these
tools within a nationally consistent framework for recreational water
monitoring and notification. We anticipate that EPA performance
criteria/regulations would provide flexibility to accommodate local
circumstances. For example, EPA will consider the significance of site-
specific conditions (e.g. known pollution discharges; hydrological
factors such as water depth, distance from shore, currents; rainfall
events, beach usage, etc.).
Question 2(a). EPA has recommended targeted monitoring of certain
beaches. Given the extremely scarce resources at the Federal, State,
and local level, how would EPA target its monitoring?
Response. EPA believes that beaches should be targeted for
monitoring on the basis of recreational use and public health risk.
This targeting can be accomplished by focusing on high use beaches,
such as those with lifeguards, and known risk factors, such as
proximity to storm sewer or combined sewer outfalls. Through its
National Health Protection Survey of Beaches, EPA has compiled
information on swimmer use and on known sources of pathogen
contamination at coastal and Great Lakes beaches. This and other
available water quality data (such as State or local data) will be
useful in setting priorities for beach monitoring and notification
activities.
Question 2(b). Do all beaches suffer from contamination and need to
be monitored, or only beaches in certain areas?
Response. The goal of State and local governments should be to
maintain a regular monitoring program for all their waters. However, we
recognize the need to prioritize waters due to resource constraints. In
order to protect public health, EPA believes that beach monitoring
should be conducted at high recreational use beaches, in both inland
and coastal areas. The highest priority for monitoring could be
assigned to those beaches associated with known risk factors such as
proximity to storm sewer or combined sewer outfalls.
Question 3(a). While some States have statewide monitoring and
notification programs, many States do not. Does EPA know why so many
States and local governments are unable to implement monitoring and
notification programs?
Response. Implementation of beach monitoring and notification
programs is inconsistent among and within States. Inconsistency exists
because of differences in microbial water quality standards, testing
methods, and beach advisory and closing practices. Monitoring is also
limited by the availability of resources. To enable nationally
consistent implementation of beach monitoring and notification
programs, EPA intends to provide the guidance, tools, and training
needed by State and local governments. EPA will develop and validate
predictive models for assessing recreational waters. EPA will develop
better, faster indicators of disease causing organisms. EPA will also
develop and provide training on guidance for beach water quality
monitoring, risk assessment, and risk communication.
Question 3(b). Do States and local governments possess the
resources to develop and implement such programs in the absence of
Federal grants?
Response. We have not conducted any formal analyses of States' and
local governments' ability to finance these programs; however, lack of
resources is cited anecdotally by States and local governments.
Question 3(c). What are EPA's estimates of the cost to develop and
implement statewide monitoring and notification programs? Does this
estimate include the cost to upgrade testing protocols?
Response. EPA has developed a preliminary estimate of the cost to
implement a beach monitoring and notification program in all coastal
and Great Lakes States. However, there are limitations to this
estimate, including the fact that it does not factor in existing State
beach monitoring expenditures and there is uncertainty about the total
number of beach miles to be monitored.
Question 4. EPA has placed the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay on
the Virginia list of impaired waters.
Should this be taken as an indication that EPA believes the
voluntary approach implemented by the Chesapeake Bay program was not
achieving results fast enough?
What effect, if any, will listing the Chesapeake Bay have on the
operation of the Bay program?
Will completion of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan for the
Chesapeake Bay require the implementation of additional control
measures beyond what is currently contemplated by the Bay program?
Response. Section 303 (d)(1) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's
implementing regulations requires States to list those waters which,
after application of technology-based and other controls, are not
achieving water quality standards. The statute and regulations then
require that TMDLs be developed for waters on the list unless the TMDL
developing authority determines that no TMDL is necessary for the water
(I, because the water is achieving applicable water quality standards
or is reasonably expected to achieve applicable water quality standards
as a result of required controls).
While the Chesapeake Bay States have made much progress in the
recovery of the Bay, pollution levels continue to impair the living
resources in the Bay including the Bay grasses, finfish and shellfish.
These impairments, which disrupt the natural ecology of the Bay, are
primarily caused by low levels of dissolved oxygen, which is traced to
excessive nutrients. For this reason Maryland listed the Bay on their
303(d) list and EPA added the Bay and certain tributaries to the 303(d)
list in Virginia.
Identifying the Chesapeake Bay for TMDL development will be
harmonized with the ongoing Chesapeake Bay program. EPA sees the 303(d)
process as a supplement to help assure that water quality standards
will be met. While great progress has been made, it is uncertain if the
Chesapeake Bay program will bring the Chesapeake Bay back to attainment
of water quality standards. If as a result of these voluntary and
regulatory programs the Bay achieves water quality standards, it need
not be included in future section 303(d) lists and thus would not need
a TMDL. If the voluntary approach is not sufficient for the Bay to
achieve water quality standards, then the Clean Water Act requires EPA
and the States to continue with the development of a TMDL. The
perception that the Chesapeake Bay Program nutrient reduction strategy
is totally voluntary is somewhat misleading. Point source reduction of
phosphorous have been incorporated into NPDES permits for more than 3
decades, and where necessary so have nitrogen.
Under an agreement reached by the EPA Regional Administrator and
the State environment and natural resources secretaries in Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Program will continue to
pursue nutrient reduction goals under its cooperative approach, while
laying the groundwork for a TMDL if those efforts fall short. The
States of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia, as well as the
District of Columbia are part of this broad effort. A consensus is
emerging that this will entail working together over the next decade to
reduce the nutrient inputs to the Bay and its tidal tributaries by
2010, thus allowing the Bay to meet water quality standards and the Bay
to be ``delisted''.
The Bay nutrient goals have been established since 1987. While EPA
commenced discussion with the States on an approach for developing a
TMDL for the Bay, we have not yet drawn out a timeframe for the TMDL
but expect to wait until 2010 to see if the Bay meets water quality
standards. Since the development of a TMDL for the Bay is a complex
scientific effort involving 6 States and the District of Columbia, our
expectation is that it could take 5 to 10 years to complete this TMDL.
Thus, EPA believes that the cooperative approach will be given ample
time to demonstrate effectiveness in achieving water quality standards.
All the participating States also have mandatory nutrient management
laws applying to agricultural activities.
Question 5. The Chesapeake Bay watershed includes parts of six
different States and the District of Columbia. Pollution is flowing
into the Chesapeake comes from multiple different States. Several of
those States have neither signed the Bay agreement nor become part of
the Chesapeake Bay program. How would Virginia go about implementing a
TMDL for pollution originating outside of the State?
Response. The Administration has on many previous occasions
identified the Chesapeake Bay Program as one of the leading examples in
the United States of successful approaches to solving water quality
problems on a watershed basis. The Bay Program has been implementing a
policy, adopted in 1992, of engaging all of the States in the
watershed, not just the signatories to the Bay Agreement, in
cooperative approaches to address specific issues of need. Nutrient
management through point and non-point source controls was identified
as an area for early action and attention. The Program has witnessed
significant progress and growth in the relationship with non-signatory
States in addressing selected issues.
With regard to the specific challenge of developing TMDLs for the
entire watershed, the Principals' Staff Committee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program discussed, in June 1999, the need to integrate the cooperative
and statutory programs of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Since
then, representatives from all of the six Bay watershed States, the
District of Columbia, EPA, and others have held three meetings and
several conference calls to outline a process for continuing a
watershed process to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The group has reached
several agreements on approach and guiding principles. These include
the goal of improving the water quality in the Bay and its tributaries
so that the waters may be removed from the impaired waters list
(delisted) prior to the timeframe when a TMDL would be established. A
target date of 2010 was established for this. In addition, they agreed
that the Year 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement would more clearly define
the relationship between the Bay Program and the Clean Water Act
listing and TMDL processes.
Most importantly, the group of States has agreed to continue
working together on a watershed basis to address the impairment problem
in the main Bay which was the cause of the 303(d) listing for Virginia.
They are fully cooperating in the development of the next round of
nutrient reductions through the expanded TMDL effort.
The Chesapeake Bay Program and EPA will continue to provide the
leadership and a coordinating role for this group since it clearly
involves a multi-state effort to be successful.
______
Response by Charles Fox to an Additional Question from Senator
Lautenberg
Question. My Beaches Environment Assessment, Closure, and Health
Act (S. 522) gives EPA flexibility in creating regulations for beach
water quality criteria and for monitoring and notification programs.
Under this framework, States have ample opportunity to adopt their own
programs. In fact, States have 3 years and 180 days to develop
acceptable water quality criteria and monitoring and notification
programs specific to the States' needs. States may also delegate
responsibility to local government authorities. Does EPA intend to work
with the States to allow them to develop flexible plans that take into
consideration the individual States' situations?
Response. EPA agrees that beach monitoring and public notification
programs must be consistent nationally in order to provide better
public health protection but that site-specific flexibility for States
is important. S. 522 and H.R. 999 would require EPA to develop
standards for recreational water quality, water quality monitoring, and
public notification.
Both bills include provisions for consistent water quality
standards. EPA believes that consistent, scientifically defensible
water quality standards for States and tribes are very important. These
standards provide the scientific and programmatic framework for
enhancing protection of public health at beaches. EPA is working with
States and tribes to ensure that they adopt State standards which
incorporate the Agency's published criteria for Escherichia cold and
enterococci; research data support the use of these microbes as
indicators of swimming-associated gastrointestinal disease. The water
quality standards program framework established by the Clean Water Act
and continued by the bills is flexible, allowing for State variation
consistent with protection of public health and good scientific
practice, and revisions by EPA as new bacteriological indicators,
monitoring protocols, and models are developed.
The bills also include provisions for EPA to establish either
performance criteria or regulations for all other aspects of a beach
monitoring and notification program. If either bill is enacted, EPA
intends to work with State and local governments to develop these
performance criteria/regulations. In developing these performance
criteria or regulations, EPA would incorporate available scientifically
valid tools for predicting health risks associated with recreational
waters, and promote the use of these tools within a nationally
consistent framework for recreational water monitoring and
notification. We anticipate that EPA performance criteria/regulations
would provide flexibility to accommodate local circumstances. For
example, EPA will consider the significance of site-specific conditions
(e.g. known pollution discharges; hydrological factors such as water
depth, distance from shore, currents; rainfall events, beach usage,
etc.).
__________
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 discuss the Army Corps of Engineers environmental restoration and
protection mission and present the Department of the Army's views on S.
835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999. I will
also discuss the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act (CWPPRA), commonly referred to as the Breaux Act and S. 1119, which
extends funding for implementation of CWPPRA.
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 traditional mission areas of improving our
navigation and transportation system, protecting our local communities
from flood damages and other disasters, and maintaining and improving
hydropower facilities across the country. The Corps environmental
activities have expanded 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. 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. With an overall
objective to link economic growth with protection of the environment,
the Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate,
and environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and
protection opportunities.
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); 35,000 acres of restored flood plain under
construction as part of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project in the
Florida; and, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored under
authorities for the beneficial use of dredged material for ecosystem
restoration.
On July 1, the Army submitted to Congress a comprehensive plan to
restore the Everglades. The plan proposes the world's largest ecosystem
restoration project, one which will help restore over 2.4 million acres
of wetlands in the south Florida Ecosystem as well as improve the
health of estuaries and Florida Bay.
We are especially proud of our efforts on all coasts in conjunction
with the Coastal America initiative. Some examples of projects where
the Corps led 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;
the Sagamore Salt Marsh Restoration, Massachusetts; restoration of 1100
acres to provide riparian and submerged habitat at Poplar Island,
Chesapeake Bay, Maryland; and, shoreline stabilization and submerged
aquatic vegetation restoration around Tangier Island in the Chesapeake
Bay. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request includes study funds for 12
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.
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. In this regard, we would add as a
purpose of the bill the need to promote a greater public appreciation
and awareness of the value of our estuary and coastal resources. As
with many environmental issues, future generations depend upon our
actions today.
Legislation to expand the authority of the Corps to use its unique
skills and experience to restore and protect estuary habitat would add
to the Corps environmental portfolio. The authorities are being applied
to achieve an economically and environmentally sustainable future for
the Nation and the world. Let me assure you that the Department of the
Army is prepared to take a leadership role in reaching the goals of S.
835. Army would approach implementation of S. 835 in accordance with
the 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.
Additionally, Army would explore the possibility of using the
existing organization and structure of the Coastal America partnership
to jump-start restoration efforts. Coastal America has National and
Regional Implementation Teams already in place, and many of the members
of these teams would be the very same experts we would consult with
under S. 835.
s. 835
I would now like to focus on the Department of the Army views on S.
835. 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 its goal of a net increase of 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, and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(NERRS), which uses science to improve management of estuaries. The NEP
and the NERRS strive 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, 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.
We are pleased to note that important changes that the Army
requested at your Committee hearing held on S. 1222 last Congress have
been incorporated into S. 835. These changes limit Federal assistance
for each habitat project to 65 percent of project cost, strengthen the
role of the Secretary of the Army commensurate with the need for
accountability for appropriations received, and allow the Collaborative
Council to consider, where appropriate, non-governmental organizations
as sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects. We
also are pleased that the bill makes it clear that the term ``estuary
habitat restoration activity'' does not include mitigation for the
adverse effects of an activity regulated or otherwise governed by
Federal or State law, or acts that constitute restitution for natural
resource damages required under any Federal or State law.
While S. 835 is a bill that the Department of the Army could
support, we urge the Committee to revise the bill to include the
Federal agency participation on the Collaborative Council and
establishment of the Regional Council structure set forth in the
companion House bill, H.R. 1775. We feel that S. 835 could be revised
to make it clear that non-Federal sponsors are responsible for
providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
disposal areas and relocations, as is required for Army civil works
water resources projects. We also believe that the Secretary, not the
Collaborative Council, should make the determination, in accordance
with existing water resources policies, as to the acceptability and
valuation of any in-kind contributions for local cost sharing. As is
the case with essentially all water resources projects undertaken by
Army Civil Works, the Secretary may consider giving non-Federal
sponsors credit, toward their cost share, for lands, easements, rights-
of-way, dredged material disposal areas and relocations required for
the Federal project.
We urge you to consider expanding the geographic scope of the
habitat protection and restoration activities proposed in S. 835 to
include the Great Lakes region, which is widely recognized as a coastal
region of the United States. This coastal region has many ecosystem
problems that mirror those of more traditional coastal areas and has,
for that reason, been included as a coastal region in the programs
authorized under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
and in the Administration's Coastal America Initiative. We believe that
the addition of a regional council representing the Great Lakes region,
to include the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, merits serious
consideration. You also may wish to consider including the islands and
territories of the United States for similar reasons.
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 and not so successful projects, and manage
adaptively to adjust to ever-changing conditions. Environmental
restoration efforts for the Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River
System Environmental Management Program, and the Coastal Wetlands
Preservation Protection and Restoration Act, all acknowledge, to
varying degrees, the value of demonstration projects and adaptive
assessment approaches. Adding to S. 835 a demonstration component with
a cost share that is consistent with that applied to habitat projects,
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.
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 timeframe. In
light of the $27 billion backlog of ongoing Corps construction
projects, and other authorized projects awaiting construction, the
dollar magnitude of 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 impact on
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.
We applaud the co-sponsors of S. 835 for their vision and
leadership in this area. The Army supports S. 835 and looks forward to
working with you and your House counterparts in enacting such
legislation.
coastal wetlands planning, protection and restoration act
The Army also supports S. 1119, which provides continued funding
for the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA), an integral foundation to the implementation of more
comprehensive, longer term solutions to the National problem of coastal
losses. As I noted earlier, coastal wetlands are valuable resources
because they protect against flooding, help maintain water quality, and
provide habitat for myriad fish and wildlife species, many of them
threatened and endangered. Coastal environments generate billions of
dollars annually through such industries as tourism and sport and
commercial fisheries. Coastal wetlands also provide infrastructure
protection by reducing damage from hurricanes and other storms.
Louisiana's coastal wetlands provide habitat for fisheries,
waterfowl, neo-tropical birds and furbearers; amenities for recreation,
tourism, and flood protection; and the context for a culture unique to
the world. Benefits go well beyond the local and State levels by
providing positive economic impacts to the entire nation.
Approximately 40 percent of the coastal wetlands of the lower 48
States are located in Louisiana. Over the past 50 years, Louisiana has
lost an average of 40 square miles of marsh per year. This represents
80 percent of the Nation's annual coastal wetland loss for the same
period. If the current rate of coastal wetland loss is not slowed, by
the year 2050 an estimated additional 640,000 acres of wetlands will
disappear from the Louisiana coast. As a result, the Louisiana
shoreline could advance inland as much as 33 miles in some areas. The
loss of coastal wetlands is a national problem. However, Louisiana is a
showcase for this issue. Economic losses are substantial and could run
into the billions over 50 years.
By serving as a buffer to destructive climatic forces and the
episodic impact of storms, Louisiana's coastal wetlands provide
protection for the people who live and work there and the
infrastructure that supports them--including 400 million tons of
waterborne commerce per year (the largest in the nation), natural gas
valued at $7.4 billion per year, and petroleum products valued at $30
billion per year.
Concerns for wetland losses have prompted both Louisiana and
Congress to act. In 1989, Louisiana established a dedicated Wetlands
Trust Fund for coastal wetlands restoration. Congress passed the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in
1990. Commonly referred to as the Breaux Act, it created a CWPPRA Task
Force with representatives from the Department of Army, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the State of
Louisiana. The Task Force provide oversight and develops, annually,
lists of high priority projects focused on marsh creation, restoration,
protection or enhancement.
To date eight priority lists have been formulated involving 81
active projects, 30 of which have been completed. When implemented,
these projects will reduce the loss of coastal wetlands by 67,726 acres
over the next 20 years. It should be noted, however, that the CWPPRA
and the other Corps small projects authorities are only a partial
solution. The current rate of wetland loss is staggering and
projections are that only 23 percent of coastal wetland losses will be
offset by gains accomplished under these authorities.
S. 1119 may be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, in which case the bill could
have an appreciable impact on direct spending.
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 have enjoyed working with you and your staff on
S. 835 and other legislation before your committee, including a 1999
WRDA. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work on this
important legislation continues. The Department of the Army is also
looking forward to working with the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, and Transportation,
and the non-Federal participants in the designated coastal regions, to
restore and protect our nation's estuary habitat. You can be assured
that Army Civil Works is committed to making partnerships work. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you or the committee may have.
__________
Statement of Mayor Martin L. Pagliughi, Avalon, New Jersey
Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Martin L. Pagliughi. As Mayor of
Avalon, New Jersey, a barrier island tourist community, and a Board
Member of the American Coastal Coalition, I am very pleased to be here
today and thank Senators John H. Chafee, Chairman, and Max Baucus,
Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, for
the invitation to testify here today. I also express my appreciation to
Senator Frank Lautenberg for the opportunity to speak in support of his
BEACH Act, which proposes the establishment of uniform testing of
marine recreational waters and which will establish a nationwide
standard for notifying the public when waters are contaminated. The
Senator's bill provides for swift implementation of the testing
program, which is imperative.
I am very proud of the fact that since 1985 New Jersey is the only
State to have a mandatory beach protection program that includes a
bacteria standard, a monitoring program, and mandatory beach closure
requirements when the bacteria standard is exceeded. But I also am
appalled that 14 years later we still do not have a nationwide,
mandatory testing program of our recreational waters, which so
critically impacts (1) public health and (2) the U.S. economy!
Does it make any sense to carefully monitor foods and drugs in this
country to protect public health, yet permit people to swim in untested
recreational waters? We know for a fact marine waters can appear clean
but may harbor life-threatening pathogens.
You may recall that in 1987-88 New Jersey experienced beach
closings due to trash and medical waste washing ashore, losing almost
$3 billion in tourism revenues. Unfortunately, those tourists, who left
to go elsewhere, had no assurance of the quality of the water where
they went because neighboring States had no similar water quality
testing program.
To regain our previously loyal beach goers, obviously we had to fix
a variety of pollution problems. This we have done. Last week the
Natural Resources Defense Council announced that beach closings in New
Jersey were at a record low. But without the Cooperative Coastal
Monitoring Program, that would not have happened.
Here's how the program works in Avalon. The county health
department samples water quality weekly at 10 recreational sites from
mid-May through mid-September, testing for fecal coliform and enterocci
bacteria. If the bacterial count at any of the sites is above the
permissible limit, the beach is closed to swimmers. This means large
signs are posted advising bathers they are not permitted to swim, and
lifeguards remain on duty to prevent the public from entering the
water.
Obviously, beach closings are not a PR plus for a tourist
community. But they are a must when you are putting the health and
welfare of your visitors first and foremost. Fortunately, in Avalon, we
have not had a beach closing in years. But that is not by accident.
Since 1991 Avalon has won seven of eight Quality New Jersey Shore
Quality Awards for the steps we have taken to prevent pollutants from
entering recreational waters. With the threat of possible beach
closings, we have taken those steps necessary to assure that water
quality remains excellent.
During the last decade Avalon has spent many millions of dollars to
prevent non-point source pollution, which is the primary cause of
pathogens entering recreational waters. Major expenditures have been
made on equipment to clean beaches, skeets and catch basins, and on
projects such as storm water disposal system rehabilitation, repair and
relocation of outfall lines, manhole cover repair, the installation of
tide flex valves on storm water outfalls, required capping of all sewer
vents, TV inspection of our infrastructure, and intense litter
abatement, to name a few.
Avalon has undertaken these projects with little outside help. But
Senator Lautenberg's legislation, with the inclusion of $9 million in
grants to States, should help get the ball rolling. By enacting this
legislation you will send a message to the world that we in the U. S.
care about the public health of tourists who visit our beaches.
I would remind you that the No. 1 tourist destination in the United
States is the beach, with coastal States receiving about 85 percent of
all tourist-related revenues, generating billions of Federal tax
dollars. Foreign tourists who also prefer U.S. beaches, create a
significant trade surplus.
Therefore, it is incredible to me that our Federal Government makes
such a feeble effort to support, promote and improve our nations
beaches and recreational waters. In the future, we will pay for such a
lax attitude. Meanwhile, other counties, who wish to compete, are hard
at work. From 1950 to 1993 the United States subsidized only $15
million in shore restoration projects versus Germany which spent $90
million; Spain, $250 million and Japan, $1.4 billion.
If we are going to maintain our edge in world tourism, we must be
able to give visitors assurance that we have the world's best beaches
and that all U.S. recreational waters are monitored uniformly and
consistently. They must know that if there is a problem, they will be
advised and prohibited from entering waters that could be dangerous to
their health.
That is why the Federal Government must immediately begin to
address the quality of its beaches and recreational waters. We are
meeting that challenge in New Jersey and I'm here today in support of
Senator Lautenberg's BEACH Act which would make water quality testing
mandatory nationwide. It is time this nation begins to protect and
enhance one of its most economically vital assets--its beaches and
recreational waters.
Again, my sincere thanks to Senators Chafee, Baucus and Lautenberg
for the opportunity to testify here today.
______
Responses by Mayor Martin L. Pagliughi to Additional Questions from
Senator Chafee
Question 1. While New Jersey has a statewide monitoring and
notification program, many other coastal states do not. Why do so few
state or local governments have monitoring and notification programs?
Answer. My experience has been that it is rare for local government
to police its own activities. In fact, a local government might even be
tempted to hide or cover up a situation which they believe may be
detrimental to the financial well being of their community.
However, with a federal monitoring program in place, I believe it
would be highly unlikely for state or local government to deliberately
conceal violations. In fact it would behoove local government to
aggressively enforce and attack any potential contamination problems.
New Jersey is a perfect example of the latter. In 1986 health care
professionals and the public described illnesses thought to be related
to swimming at New Jersey beaches. In 1987 the New Jersey Department of
Health initiated a comprehensive study, greatly expanding the Ocean
Outfall Monitoring Program begun in 1984. For the most part the study
did not reveal any contamination exceeding permitted limits but the
damage already had been done in the public mind. In 1987 and 1988
tourists deserted their favorite Jersey beaches and headed into
Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina and elsewhere where monitoring,
notification and beach closure programs were non-existent. Billions of
New Jersey tourist dollars were lost. As a result, New Jersey coastal
communities, my own community of Avalon included, have spent millions
of dollars to prevent non-point source pollution, which is the primary
cause of pathogens entering recreational waters, to prevent a
reoccurrence of the 1987-88 fiasco.
Question 2. Congress has traditionally viewed beach monitoring and
public notification as a state or local government responsibility. Why
should the federal government become involved in how local governments
monitor their waters and notify their citizens?
Answer. The federal government has an obligation to protect the
public health. Thus, it needs to establish a uniform beach monitoring
and notification program for all recreational waters. Without a
consistent program nationwide, tourists are permitted to leave a
monitored area, where a beach has been closed due to contamination, and
head for unmonitored waters where contamination could be more
hazardous.
______
Responses by Mayor Martin L. Pagliughi to Additional Questions From
Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. In 1985 New Jersey enacted laws that require a
statewide program that includes monitoring of beach waters, public
notification of the water quality and mandatory closure of beaches when
the waters have excessive amounts of bacteria. Can you describe the
initial and long-run public reaction to the beach waters being tested
and, as a result, sometimes facing closed beaches?
Answer. New Jersey initiated comprehensive water monitoring when
there already was a perception New Jersey waters were polluted. Thus
the initial reaction by the public was fear of swimming in the ocean
off the Jersey coast and, in many cases, desertion to other tourist
locations. However, because New Jersey communities have taken
extraordinary steps to prevent pollutants from entering recreational
waters, ocean testing has shown New Jersey waters to be clean. Thus,
there have been fewer and fewer beach closings. The public has reacted
very positively and has returned to their favorite vacation spots along
the Jersey coast. As for the occasional beach closure, I believe the
public has become educated to the fact that it is for their own
protection and appreciates that the public health is being safeguarded.
Unfortunately, because there is no federal beach monitoring and
notification program, there is always the threat of contamination of
New Jersey waters from neighboring states who have no program in place.
Question 2. You mentioned in your testimony how much the Nation
financially benefits from tourism and general recreational activities
at beaches. Can you explain either with concrete numbers, or in general
terms, how you have seen New Jersey benefit financially by maintaining
a coastal water monitoring and public notification program?
Answer. During 1987-88, the public had the perception that New
Jersey coastal waters were contaminated due to beach closings because
trash and medical waste had washed ashore. As a result, New Jersey lost
almost $3 billion in tourism revenues. Once beach monitoring results
proved our waters were clean, vacationers began to return in ever
increasing numbers. In recent years tourism to the Jersey shore has
been on the upswing. In 1996, tourism throughout the state generated
approximately $25 billion. And it appears 1997, 1998 and 1999 will
substantially surpass that dollar amount.
Question 3. As you know, protecting public health remains the
paramount objective of my Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure,
and Health Act (S. 522). As you astutely noted in your testimony, it
will take up to six years under the House bill before public coastal
waters have monitoring and notification programs. If other States are
allowed to delay implementing programs, how does that negatively affect
those States that are actively trying to protect the public?
Answer. Permitting other states to delay implementing monitoring
programs could very adversely effect not only those states who have a
monitoring program in place but the tourist industry as a whole! We
know that the number one tourist destination in the U.S. is the beach,
with coastal states receiving about 85% of all tourist-related
revenues, generating billions of federal tax dollars. If there were a
sudden rash of illnesses among tourists swimming in waters off a
coastal state with no monitoring program in place, the perception more
than likely would be that swimming in the ocean can be hazardous to
ones health and that beach vacations are not a good idea. This not only
would be extremely unfair to New Jersey and any other states with a
monitoring program in place, but could prove an economic disaster for
the nation as a whole. The immediate implementation of Senator
Lautenberg's Beach Act would give visitors assurance that we have the
world's best beaches and that all U.S. recreational waters are
monitored uniformly and consistently.
__________
Statement of Ted Danson, President, American Oceans Campaign
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Good morning. My name is
Ted Danson. I am the President and cofounder of American Oceans
Campaign. American Oceans Campaign (AOC) is a national, nonprofit
organization based in Santa Monica, California and is dedicated to
protecting and enhancing our nation's oceans and coastal resources.
On behalf of AOC and the many other organizations that endorse the
B.E.A.C.H. bills, I wish to express my thanks to Senators Chafee and
Baucus, and the other members of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, for inviting me to testify today on the B.E.A.C.H.
bills.
Since the early 1990's, American Oceans Campaign has focused a
significant amount of attention to the health of recreational beach
waters. Working with many, dedicated advocates from different regions
of the Nation, we have long-supported reducing coastal water pollution,
improving beach water testing programs, and consistently informing the
public about contaminated beach waters. We have worked with Los Angeles
County to improve its beach water testing protocol and advocated for a
California beach water monitoring and public notification bill, which
was enacted into law. Additionally, AOC produces and distributes many
television, radio, and print public service announcements about beach
water quality. Over the last 2 years, these PSAs have reached hundreds
of millions of people.
This year, AOC, the Surfrider Foundation, the Center for Marine
Conservation, the Clean Water Network and many other organizations were
strong advocates for the passage of H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999--the B.E.A.C.H. bill. On
Earth Day, we were delighted that the House of Representatives
unanimously passed this bill. We are now diligently working to promote
swift passage of a B.E.A.C.H. bill in the Senate. I commend Senator
Frank Lautenberg and the other cosponsors of the S. 522 for their
determined leadership in the Senate to address the problems of
inconsistent testing and public notification of unhealthy beach waters.
introduction
Beaches are leading tourist destinations in the United States. In
1997, California's beaches alone attracted almost 116 million
visitors.\1\ As a child growing up in Arizona, I used to visit cousins
in California and spend time at the beach. Like most Americans, I have
always had a huge desire to be near the ocean. Years later, I took my
daughters to the beach and saw a sign that read, ``Water polluted, no
swimming.'' Trying to explain that to my children was difficult. I left
that day grateful for the warning but concerned about the health of our
coastal waters. This summer, thousands of adults and children will
swim, snorkel, surf or wade in beach waters that, unbeknownst to them,
are contaminated by pathogens. These pathogens may cause a variety of
illnesses, ranging from gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and
various ear, nose, and throat infections. Bouts with these ailments can
quickly ruin a family vacation or a weekend getaway, and can cause a
person to miss work or school. Mr. Chairman, a day at the beach should
not end with a trip to the doctor's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To protect themselves from harmful pathogens, swimmers must rely on
beach water quality tests conducted by local public health agencies and
proper, timely notification about unhealthy beach waters.
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.
I believe the public has a right to know about the quality of
recreational beach waters that are open for swimming and other water
sports. To improve the flow of information about polluted recreational
waters and to provide uniform protections for beach-goers, American
Oceans Campaign, along with other conservation organizations, strongly
support both B.E.A.C.H. bills--as common sense solutions. The
B.E.A.C.H. bills will ensure that States have adequate beach testing
programs to protect citizens from health risks, while allowing States
flexibility in determining beach closures or in implementing stricter
standards.
pathogens in beach waters
Pathogens are disease-causing microorganisms that are found in
animal and human wastes. There are a number of potential sources of
pathogens in coastal waters. After heavy rainfalls, animal wastes can
run off lawns and agricultural fields, be carried by storm sewers and
eventually dumped into coastal waters at storm drain outfalls. In many
older coastal communities, storm sewer lines are combined with sewage
conveyance lines. During rain storms, these combined pipes overflow and
the wastewater is sent to be discharged in rivers, coastal waters, and
other receiving waters, rather than proceeding to the wastewater
treatment plant. These events (called combined sewer overflows)
discharge raw sewage into the nation's waters. Another common source of
pathogens is overburdened sewage treatment plants that will
occasionally release raw or partially treated sewage into waterways.
Malfunctioning individual septic systems, runoff from agricultural
lands, and improper disposal of wastes from boats are other sources of
pathogens in coastal waters.
When raw or inadequately treated sewage is discharged into coastal
waters, pathogen contamination can result. In many coastal areas,
pathogen-contaminated waters lead to beach closures, restrictions on
shellfish harvesting, and other water sport limitations. According to a
recent report published by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), Testing the Waters 1999: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation
Beaches, there were at least 7,236 individual beach closures and public
health advisories at U.S. ocean, bay, Great Lakes, and a few other
freshwater beaches during 1998.\2\ Since 1988, there have been at least
29,996 closings and advisories.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sarah Chasis and Mark Dorfman, Testing the Waters 1999: A Guide
to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches., (New York: Natural Resources
Defense Council, 1999) v.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
health risks associated with pathogens
Various pathogens can be found in water: (1) viruses that can cause
hepatitis and gastroenteritis--a complex of flu-like symptoms including
vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, stomach cramps, headache, and fever; (2)
bacteria that can also cause gastroenteritis as well as cholera,
typhoid fever, eye and ear infections; and (3) amoeba and other
protozoa that can cause giardiasis, skin rashes, dysentery and other
diseases. These illnesses rarely threaten human life, however they can
lead to significant physical discomfort, cause a person to miss work,
and be spread to others. Also, the physical consequences of these
diseases can be more significant for select members of the general
population, such as children, the elderly, and people with weakened
immune systems.
santa monica bay epidemiological study
During the summer of 1995, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
(SMBRP) sponsored an epidemiological study, conducted by researchers at
the University of Southern California. The purpose of the study was to
assess the health risks associated with swimming in Santa Monica
Bay.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Robert W. Haile, et al., An Epidemiological Study of Possible
Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay (Santa Monica
Bay Restoration Project, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the study, water samples were analyzed for the presence of total
and fecal coliforms, enterococci, E. Coli, and enteric viruses (all
indicators of pathogens). On the days the water samples were made, more
than 15,000 swimmers were approached and asked to participate in a
telephone survey. Within 10 to 14 days after being questioned at the
beach, more than 13,000 swimmers were telephoned and asked to describe
any symptoms they experienced after swimming in the Bay. Researchers
eliminated from the study those who visited the beach more than once
during the study period in order to show a clear relationship between a
single day's exposure and pathogen levels. The study compared swimmers
near storm drains to those 100 and 400 yards away. The study determined
that people who swim within 100 yards of storm drains emptying into
Santa Monica Bay are 50 percent more likely to get colds, flu, sore
throats, and diarrhea than those who swim farther away. This study, one
of the strongest documentations yet of the link between beach water
pollution and illness, concluded that as many as one in ten of those
individuals swimming near storm drains will experience symptoms related
to pathogen exposure.
From this study, it is reasonable to extrapolate that more frequent
swimming--as is common among surfers, windsailers, snorkelers,
vacationers, or youth living in beach communities--is likely to cause
more frequent or more serious symptoms of illness. Second, because the
SMBRP study was conducted during dry weather, it is likely that
symptoms would be greater for those entering the water during the wet
season or after heavy rainfalls when more contaminants flow into
coastal waters.
Surfers, in particular, have long reported symptoms after spending
time in recreational waters. Skeptics have dismissed these symptoms as
being merely anecdotal reports, or resulting from exposure to the cold
rather than to pathogens in the water. The scientific evidence,
especially that presented in the SMBRP epidemiological study, validates
surfer's claims: immersion in coastal waters can and does cause
illness, if those waters contain unhealthy levels of pathogens.
epa epidemiological studies
Prior to the SMBRP study, EPA conducted a series of epidemiological
studies that showed:
swimmers who bathe in water contaminated with sewage are
at greater risk of contracting gastroenteritis;
as the quality of bathing water degrades, the swimming-
associated illness rate increases; and
at equivalent indicator densities in marine and fresh
waters, the illness rate in swimmers was greater in marine swimmers
than in freshwater swimmers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Action Plan for
Beaches and Recreational Waters, (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1999), EPA/600/R-98/079, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These studies, comparing the symptomatic ailments between swimmers
and non-swimmers at beaches, demonstrated the relationship between
water quality and human illness.\6\ Other studies conducted around the
world established the link between contracting illnesses and swimming
in feces contaminated waters.\7\ Some of the studies conducted abroad
displayed an inverse relationship between water quality and rate of
disease contraction--as water quality deteriorated, the risk of
infection increased.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id. At 13.
\8\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Action Plan for
Beaches and Recreational Waters, (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1999), EPA/600/R-98/079, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inconsistent monitoring practices
There are currently no Federal requirements for monitoring
recreational beach waters for pathogen contamination. In 1986, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
recommendations for State health officials to use in setting statewide
standards for bacterial pollution in coastal recreational waters.\9\
Thirteen years after EPA issued its recommendations, only a handful of
coastal States have accepted the Agency's recommendation, enterococcus,
as the bacterial indicator in their marine water quality standards.
Some of these States have set the enterococcus standard at levels less
protective than EPA recommendations. It is interesting to note that
recreational saltwater just meeting EPA's recommended standards will
cause an estimated 19 swimmers out of 1000 to become ill.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The EPA recommended standard for recreational salt waters is
104 enterococcus bacteria per 100 ml for a single, instantaneous sample
and 35 enterococcus bacteria for a geometric mean sample. The
recommended standard for recreational waters in the Great Lakes is a
geometric mean of 33 enterococcus bacteria per 100 ml or 126 E. Coli
bacteria per 100 ml of water. Enterococcal bacteria are associated with
human illness whereas other common measures, such as fecal or total
coliform do not necessarily cause illness, but are found in conjunction
with bacteria that do.
\10\ Chasis and Dorfman, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of enterococcus, several States use either fecal coliform
or total coliform as the bacterial indicator forming the basis of their
State standards. Because of the use of various indicator organisms and
different concentrations of these indicator organisms to determine
whether swimming should be allowed, beach-goers are subject to vastly
different levels of protection. Beach waters with the same
concentration of pathogens may be closed or subject to health
advisories in one State, but be open to the public in another State. In
many States, these discrepancies can be noted among counties or other
local jurisdictions.
Not only is there significant variation among the States with
regard to accepted bacterial standards for recreational waters, but
there is also significant inconsistency in beach water monitoring
practices among coastal States, and often within States. Last week, the
Natural Resources Defense Council published its ninth annual survey of
State beach water testing programs and beach closures. In producing
this report, NRDC surveyed coastal areas and used data from an EPA
survey of coastal and Great Lakes communities and counties about their
monitoring programs and beach water quality conditions. According to
the most recent report, four coastal States do not regularly monitor
their public beach waters to determine if they are contaminated by
pathogens and thus, pose health risks for swimmers.\11\ Thirteen States
only monitor a portion of their recreational beach waters.\12\ Only
nine States regularly monitor all or a significant portion of their
coastline.\13\ Two States and one territory test their beach waters,
but do not share the results with the public.\14\ In order to better
protect the beach-going public from possible illness associated with
pathogen-contaminated waters, there needs to be more consistent beach
water monitoring activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Chasis and Dorfman, viii.
Beaches in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, and Washington are not
monitored regularly.
\12\ Chasis and Dorfman, viii.
The thirteen states that have regular monitoring and public
notification programs for a portion of their public beaches include:
California, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin.
New York State comprehensively monitors and provides public
notification for its ocean beaches but only limited monitoring for its
Great Lakes beaches. In 1999, Georgia will begin a monitoring program.
\13\ Chasis and Dorfman, viii.
The nine states that comprehensively monitor their recreational
beaches and notify the public are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania.
\14\ Chasis and Dorfman, viii.
Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and Texas have monitoring programs for
all or portions of their beaches, but no programs for public
notification or beach closures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, several coastal States have taken steps to upgrade
their beach water monitoring programs. In 1997, the State of California
passed a State ``right to know'' bill that amended the State Health and
Safety Code. Weekly monitoring between April and October will be
required at all public beaches with more than 50,000 annual visitors.
Regular monitoring will also be conducted at beaches located near storm
drains. California beach waters that fail to meet health-based
standards as a result of tests will be posted with public health
advisories, and a toll-free number providing daily reports of polluted
beaches will be established.
inconsistent public notification
Among the States that do monitor their waters, procedures for
notifying the public when waters are too contaminated for safe swimming
differ considerably. In too many States, even when there is a
monitoring report showing polluted water conditions, health authorities
fail to properly warn the public or close the beach. As a result of
these inconsistent public notification practices, many of the millions
of Americans and international tourists visiting our beaches will be
swimming in unhealthy waters, totally unaware of the health risks. For
example, the Miami Herald recently reported that the waters off Fort
Zachary Taylor beach on Key West had three times the acceptable amount
of disease causing pollution--yet the county health department decided
not to post a warning.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Miami Herald, July 16, 1999, see Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Oceans Campaign believes that the public deserves better
protection. We believe people have a right to know about the water
quality of public, recreational beaches--especially, if tests indicate
that swimming in contaminated waters could lead to physical illness.
The information provided to the public should be timely and
conspicuous. Notice of health-based violations of water quality should
be provided at public access points, such as lifeguard stations. Armed
with accurate, timely information, individuals can take appropriate
steps to protect their health and the health of their families.
b.e.a.c.h. bills
On March 3, 1999, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S.
522, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Act (the
``B.E.A.C.H. bill''). The next day, Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
introduced H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and
Health bill. Both B.E.A.C.H. bills will ensure that coastal States have
adequate beach water quality testing programs to protect public health
and safety. American Oceans Campaign energetically supports both bills
and we commend Senator Lautenberg and Representative Frank Pallone for
their leadership on this issue over the last decade. We also thank
Representative Brian Bilbray and Representative Sherwood Boehlert for
their strong leadership on this critical issue.
American Oceans Campaign believes both B.E.A.C.H. bills establish a
common sense, national approach to the problems of inconsistent beach
water quality testing and public notification. The bills:
protect beach goers from health risks associated with
pathogen-contaminated waters by requiring States to adopt minimum water
quality standards for recreational beach waters.
direct nationwide public beach water monitoring so that
States and localities will know when and where beach water
contamination occurs.
provide timely, important information about violations of
health-based standards to the public. American Oceans Campaign believes
this notice should be provided at public access points to recreational
beaches.
call for the U.S. EPA to conduct further research to
develop better indicators for detecting harmful contaminants and more
expedient testing practices. The bill also requires the EPA to develop
a more complete list of potential health risks from swimming in
pathogen-contaminated waters.
authorize the EPA Administrator to make grants to assist
States in their efforts to make beach water testing consistent
nationwide.
It is time for a comprehensive national program to protect the
public from potential health risks associated with swimming and surfing
in polluted 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. bills
promote a nationwide commitment to ensure beach-goers receive the basic
information needed to protect themselves and their families from
harmful pathogens.
s. 522
The language of Senator Lautenberg's bill, S. 522, is based on
prior B.E.A.C.H. bills introduced by the New Jersey delegation over the
past decade. It requires States to adopt beach water quality standards
that are consistent with current EPA criteria. Under S. 522, should a
State not adopt the current standards, EPA criteria will be deemed
promulgated and becomes the State's water quality standard.
The bill also calls for EPA to promulgate regulations addressing
beach water monitoring and public notification. States will have 3\1/2\
years from the date of enactment to implement a monitoring and
notification program. S. 522 authorizes nine million dollars (per year
for 5 years) for grants to States to implement these programs. The
Federal share of such programs cannot exceed 50 percent. Fortunately,
the successful implementation of beach water programs is not contingent
on funding. Once EPA promulgates the regulations, States will be
required to monitor coastal beach waters and notify the public when
swimming in polluted waters could cause illness.
h.r. 999
H.R. 999, Representative Bilbray's B.E.A.C.H. bill, requires States
to adopt standards that are as protective of human health as the 1986
EPA beach water quality criteria. If a State fails to adopt such
standards within 3\1/2\ years of enactment, EPA must promulgate
regulations establishing the beach water quality standards for that
State. H.R. 999 also differs from S. 522 in that it requires EPA to
promulgate ``performance criteria'' for beach water monitoring and
notification. Though performance criteria have no force or effect of
law, States, tribes, or localities must satisfy the criteria and
demonstrate where and how it will monitor and notify the public in the
event pathogens contaminate the water. This State requirement is a
prerequisite to receiving EPA grants for implementation of a beach
water program.
H.R. 999 authorizes 30 million dollars (per year for 5 years) to be
distributed to States for their programs. The Federal share is 50 to
one hundred percent of the cost of such program. Under this bill, EPA
must maintain a list of areas that do and do not meet the performance
criteria for monitoring and notification. If a State or locality fails
to implement an approved program 3 years after EPA formulates the above
list, EPA must conduct the monitoring and notification activities for
that area. EPA will be entitled to use dollars not distributed to such
State or locality to conduct its beach program in that area.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Attachment 2 provides a more detailed comparison of both
B.E.A.C.H. bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coastal tourism
Coastal communities and States derive great benefits from the
revenue generated and the jobs created by coastal recreation
activities. Visitors to the beach spend millions of dollars to
participate in water related recreation, such as swimming, sport
fishing, boating, birdwatching or other activity. In 1997, the
California Trade and Commerce Agency estimated the value of
California's coastal tourism derived from nine coastal counties to
exceed $37 billion and the number of tourism related jobs to be more
than 387,000.\17\ In 1990, it was calculated that the annual economic
value of boating, sport fishing, and swimming in the Long Island Sound
was more than $5.2 billion.\18\ Also, the Florida Department of Revenue
estimated that tourist expenditures totaled $23 billion in its coastal
counties in 1995\19\ and the South Carolina Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism estimated that $4 billion and more than 73,000
jobs were generated from coastal tourism in 1997.\20\ Similar
impressive figures are reported by other States that track tourism in
their coastal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Information provided by the California Trade and Commerce
Agency, Division of Tourism to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
cited in Chasis and Dorfman, 9. The nine California counties are Los
Angeles, Monterey, Orange, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, San Diego, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, and Ventura.
\18\ Marilyn A. Alotbello, The Economic Importance of Long Island
Sound 's Water Quality Dependent Activities (Storrs, Connecticut:
University of Connecticut, College of Agricultural and Resources
Economics, 1992) 8, 23, 31.
\19\ Sarah Chasis and Peter Lehner, Testing the Waters Volume VII:
How Does Your Vacation Beach Rate?, (New York: Natural Resources
Defense Council, 1997) 10.
\20\ Chasis and Dorfman 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal water pollution puts these benefits at risk. For those that
become ill from swimming in pathogen-contaminated waters, medical
expenses and lost workdays can result in personal economic losses. Of
course, closing beaches adjacent to polluted waters will result in
short-term economic losses for a community. However, if the community's
public health agency uses such incidents as an opportunity to educate
beach-goers about the steps it is taking to protect public health as it
also works to reduce the sources of beach water pollution, the
community stands to gain the public's confidence and a beach-goer's
return visit.
Investing in clean water improvements will help maintain the health
of swimmers, the productivity of fisheries that attract recreational
anglers to the coast, and the jobs of local citizens who work in water
sport businesses and related enterprises (hotels, restaurants).
The coastal States and counties that have established regular beach
water testing programs are able to protect the public at reasonable
costs. The State of New Jersey regularly monitors its 127 miles of
public beaches, provides notice to the public, and closes beaches when
beach waters are found to violate health-based standards.\21\ Its
annual cost for beach water testing activities was $250,000 in
1998.\22\ New Jersey's annual cost per beach mile monitored is $1,969.
The State of Delaware also regularly monitors 50 miles of bay and ocean
beaches, and spends $31,250 annually for its monitoring and
notification activities.\23\ This represents an annual cost per beach
mile of $625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Chasis and Dorfman 104.
\22\ Chasis and Dorfman 104.
\23\ Chasis and Dorfman 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comparison of the revenue generated by coastal tourism with the
costs of beach water monitoring and notification programs suggests that
the relative costs are modest. For example, New Jersey received $5.8
billion from coastal tourism expenditures in 1998 and spent $250,000 on
beach water testing. Utilizing funds for a beach program is a sound
investment that not only helps to protect the public but also pinpoints
pollution problems that need to be addressed in order to maintain the
quality of beaches and fisheries that attract people to the Jersey
shore.
reducing and preventing beach water pollution
The B.E.A.C.H. bills will improve beach water standards, monitoring
and public health. However, they do not include any requirements to
reduce or prevent the sources of beach water pollution. It is my hope
that the raised awareness about beach water quality will identify where
large challenges remain and will lead to even greater public support
for controlling pollution.
More than a quarter century after the passage of the Clean Water
Act, there are several remarkable success stories concerning coastal
water quality. For example, in many estuaries, the acreage of sea
grasses and other aquatic vegetation is increasing from levels observed
just a decade ago. Many coastal areas that were ``permanently'' closed
to shell fishing or swimming are now open. Much of the progress is
attributed to advancements in sewage treatment technologies and in
pretreatment of industrial wastewater. In addition, 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.
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. 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.\24\ 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.\25\ Other coastal waters are subject to an increasing
number of fish consumption advisories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality
Conditions in the United States: A Profile from the 1996 National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1998).
\25\ United States 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Oceans Campaign believes that significant steps still need
to be made in reducing and preventing coastal pollution. The U.S. needs
to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce and prevent nonpoint
source pollution--often called ``polluted runoff.'' We believe the
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, led by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the most effective national
program designed to reduce and prevent pollution from diffuse sources--
such as marinas, urban sites, agricultural lands, forested lands, and
septic systems. We encourage members of this Committee to continue
supporting the NOAA program through the appropriations process.
In addition, we support many of the specific actions identified in
the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP). AOC would like to
thank Congress for increasing funds to this important program last
year. The Plan targets additional measures to help reduce polluted
runoff into impaired watersheds and improve public health protections.
The Plan also establishes a framework to improve coordination among
Federal agencies and State officials. We expect this Plan to help the
United States make further advancements in cleaning up our nation's
waters--particularly some of our most impaired waters. American Oceans
Campaign urges Congress to provide maximum funding for the various
Federal agencies that will be working on this coordinated strategy to
reduce polluted runoff and protect public health.
American Oceans Campaign also believes that Congress should use
revenues from offshore oil drilling to protect critical resources,
without providing incentives for new offshore drilling. Funding for
specific existing coastal and ocean programs has been left out of many
Federal funding proposals being considered by Congress, that deal with
this revenue source. Funding for ocean and coastal programs is of
crucial importance. AOC urges Congress to fund existing high value,
underfunded Federal ocean programs such as the Coastal Polluted Runoff
Program, the Marine Sanctuary Program, estuarine programs and ocean
habitat research and protection. Outer continental shelf (OCS) oil
revenues are a logical source of funds for these programs since they
are derived from non-renewable ocean resources and the adverse impacts
of OCS development fall predominantly in the oceans and on the coasts.
At the same time, we support increasing investments for important
water infrastructure projects, such as upgrading sewage treatment
plants, eliminating combined sewer overflows, and improving urban
stormwater management. We believe the authorization for and
appropriations to the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund should be
significantly increased to help continue the progress toward achieving
improved water quality.
Clean water is extremely valuable. We cannot live without clean
water to drink and grow our food. We cannot fish or swim without clean
water. We cannot manufacture many products, ranging from computer chips
to soft drinks, without a dependable supply of clean water. In a world
where we all live downstream, using public funds to help cleanup public
waters just makes good sense.
recent activities--presidential directive
In a May 1999 radio address, President Clinton announced a
multifaceted directive to Federal agencies, requiring them to
strengthen water quality protections--particularly as they relate to
beaches. The President required the Federal Government to take the lead
in beach water safety by having the U.S. Park Service and other
agencies monitor coastal waters under their jurisdiction and notify the
public if poor water quality threatens human health. The measures also
called on EPA to speed up work with States to upgrade beach water
quality standards and directed EPA to propose strong national sewage
regulations within 1 year to deal with sanitary sewer overflows (a
significant source of beach water pollution).
recent activities--epa program
Over the past 2 years, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has made numerous advancements in helping to establish a more
comprehensive beach water monitoring program and improve the public's
access to beach water quality information by creating a website. The
``BEACH Watch'' website provides information about past beach closures
and health advisories and describes the monitoring activities that are
used at our nation's public beaches. In the future, EPA hopes to
provide real-time advisory and closure information.
As part of their enhanced beach monitoring program, the EPA is
``strongly encouraging'' States to adopt Agency-recommended criteria
for beach waters. It is committing itself to work with States, tribes
and municipalities to improve monitoring practices by increasing
training activities and providing additional guidance to State
agencies. EPA will also work to develop new, improved criteria for
microbiological organisms that should be in place by 2003. Finally, the
Agency will also sponsor research to accelerate the delivery of
accurate laboratory results.
American Oceans Campaign applauds and supports the leadership EPA
has shown in improving beach water quality programs and promoting more
consistent protections for swimmers and other water sport enthusiasts.
The Agency has done much work to involve environmentalists, State
officials, public health experts and other Federal agencies in putting
their program in place.
We believe the Administration's program must go further. In order
to provide maximum protections for beach-goers, States should
continually upgrade their beach water quality standards to reflect new
science. In addition, we believe States need to regularly monitor beach
water for pathogen contamination. Finally, we believe posting
historical information about beach closures and health advisories
should not be a substitute for providing timely, accurate information
about current water quality conditions that could pose health risks to
swimmers. For these reasons, we promote passage of the B.E.A.C.H. bill
to ensure consistent protections for beach-goers.
the importance of estuaries
In addition to health and safety measures at the beach, the Nation
also needs improved estuary protections. This hearing will address
estuary bills before the Senate and therefore, American Oceans Campaign
will offer the following comments.
Estuaries are dynamic bodies of water along our nation's coasts
that 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 promoting the growth of aquatic
vegetation, and a continuous mixing of the system by winds, tides, and
river inflows create conditions that 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\26\--and
the predicted population trends suggest that this percentage will rise
in the upcoming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ United States 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: United States 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.\27\ It is estimated that commercial
and recreational fishing contributes $152 billion to the nation's
economy and generates approximately two million jobs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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.
\28\ 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.\29\ 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Elliot A. Norse, Ph.D., Global Marine Biological Diversity: A
Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making (Washington DC:
Island Press, 1993)65.
\30\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Fact
Sheet #2 (Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
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 sea grasses 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.\31\ In addition, between
1950 and 1982, sea grass coverage in Tampa Bay decreased from 40,627
acres to 21,647 acres--a 47 percent reduction\32\--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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ San Francisco Estuary Project, Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (Oakland CA: San Francisco Estuary Project, 1992) 44.
\32\ 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, combined sewer 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 as a model for comprehensive estuary
protection
Estuaries are highly valued and intensely used waters. However,
Congress only recently recognized these areas as a unique and severely
depleted resource requiring special attention. During the 1987 Clean
Water Act reauthorization, Congress established the National Estuary
Program (NEP) 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 convenes 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), 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.'' Eighteen of the 28 estuaries have completed their
plans and are proceeding to implement the identified priority actions.
The following table 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.
Massachusetts Bay (MA).......... 1990.............. Approved 1996.
Casco Bay (ME).................. 1990.............. Approved 1996.
Indian River Lagoon (FL)........ 1990.............. Approved 1996.
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary 1990.............. Approved 1997.
(LA).
New York/New Jersey Harbor (NY, 1988.............. Approved 1997.
NJ).
Tampa Bay (FL).................. 1990.............. Approved 1997.
Corpus Christi Bay (TX)......... 1992.............. Approved 1999.
Maryland Coastal Bays (MD)...... 1995.............. Expected 1999.
Tillamook Bay (OR).............. 1992.............. Expected 1999.
Lower Columbia River (OR)....... 1995.............. Expected 1999.
Peconic Estuary (NY)............ 1992.............. Expected 2000.
San Juan Bay (PR)............... 1992.............. Expected 2000.
Barnegat Bay (NJ)............... 1995.............. Expected 2000.
Morro Bay (CA).................. 1995.............. Expected 2000.
Mobile Bay (AL)................. 1995.............. Expected 2000.
New Hampshire Estuaries (NH).... 1995.............. Expected 2000.
Charlotte Harbor (FL)........... 1995.............. Expected 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the strengths of the National Estuary Program is its
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, sea grass 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 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.
During today's hearing, two estuary bills will be addressed. One
bill focuses Federal resources in support of community based habitat
restoration, while the other initiative strives to strengthen and
expand the existing National Estuary Program (NEP).
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999 (S. 835).
On April 20, 1999, Senator Chafee, along with several members of this
Committee, introduced S. 835. 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. 835 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 various 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 National Estuary Conservation Act (S. 878). Senator Torricelli
introduced S. 878 on April 26, 1999. 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 Nation should invest an
even greater amount. 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. A much more
significant Federal investment is needed to ensure these plans have a
chance for success.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for holding this
hearing about important ocean and coastal issues. It is time for a
comprehensive, national strategy for estuary protection and beach water
testing and public notification.
American Oceans Campaign urges Congress to support bills that are
dedicated to achieve an actual increase in coastal habitat. Congress
should also support bills that require the implementation of, and
authorize appropriations for approved estuary management plans.
Specifically, Congress should support initiatives that strengthen the
National Estuary Program.
In addition to estuary protections, the Nation needs health and
safety measures at the place where most of us get to enjoy the ocean
firsthand--the beach. Health risks associated with the presence of
human and animal wastes in coastal waters are persistent due to leaking
septic systems, inadequate sewage treatment, stormwater pollution, and
agricultural runoff. Unfortunately, families often do not know when it
us unsafe to hit the surf. The B.E.A.C.H. bill will allow us to protect
ourselves and our children from disease causing pathogens by setting
national beach water quality criteria, establishing nationwide
monitoring programs, and ensuring prompt public notification of
contamination.
The B.E.A.C.H. bill protects the health of families and alerts
communities with vital information about coastal pollution. Although
the B.E.A.C.H. bill does not contain provisions to act against
polluters, the monitoring and notification process will empower local
governments and States to be better stewards of beaches. I therefore
urge this Committee to support the B.E.A.C.H. bill.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
______
attachment 1
[From the Miami Herald, Friday, July 16, 1999]
Swimmers Not Warned About Polluted Beach
(By Marika Lynch)
Key West--The waters surrounding Fort Zachary Taylor--like those
off all other public beaches on this island--are so polluted that
anyone daring to swim risks ear infections and gastrointestinal
diseases, test results released Thursday show.
But the general public may not get the news.
Despite tests that show Fort Taylor's waters have three times the
acceptable amount of a feces indicator, the Monroe County Health
Department has decided not to post a warning at the popular beach, said
Jack Teague, the department's environmental administrator.
Knowing what he does about the results, Teague says he personally
wouldn't risk swimming off that beach. But because the specific test
the department uses isn't recognized by Florida law, he says his agency
isn't required to post a health advisory.
``It's unbelievable,'' said DeeVon Quirolo, of Key West's
environmental group Reef Relief. ``It's a short-term effort to try to
salvage some beach so the tourists can go for it. We are caught in a
very sad situation that could have been avoided years ago.''
Jim Gentilucci, who swam with his wife and two sons off Fort Taylor
on Thursday, was surprised he didn't see anything about the tests at
the park. He said he wouldn't have gone in the water, had he known.
``If they are telling me there's sewage runoff, I wouldn't go in,
like I wouldn't go swimming in my toilet,'' said the visitor from
Frederick, Md.
For the past month, the health department has posted warnings
against swimming at six popular spots--including all of Key West's
other public beaches--after routine tests showed elevated levels of
fecal coliform bacteria. City engineers believe leaking sewer pipes and
boaters who dump their waste overboard are the likely causes. The
pollution hasn't spread to the reef, which department officials say is
fine for swimming.
The health department recently began testing Key West's beach
waters for another sewage indicator called enterococci bacteria, which
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has lobbied States to use
as their standard.
Enterococci is a better indicator of human waste, especially in
marine waters, said Dale Griffin, a researcher with the University of
South Florida who has studied Keys waters. While fecal coliform
typically dies quickly, enterococci bacteria sticks around, making it
easier to detect for a longer period.
Tests at Fort Taylor showed the waters had minimal levels of fecal
coliform, yet have more than three times the acceptable level of
enterococci. Because the State relies only on the fecal coliform test,
the health department has decided not to warn swimmers--even though a
health risk does exist.
``I would say that the readers of this information can make their
own decision, knowing what has been written about enterococci,'' Teague
said. ``And they can take into account what this level is.
``But that's something that is quite different than what the formal
constraints are for our agency.''
______
attachment 2
S. 522 and H.R 999 Side-By-Side Comparison--Courtesy of the Center
for Marine Conservation
Key: WQS--Water Quality Standards; WQC--Water Quality Criteria;
CWA--Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act; EPA--United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 999 (passed 4/ S. 522 (introduced 3/
Topic/Heading 22/99) 3/99)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings and Purposes....... None................ Sec. 2: Contains
findings and
purposes (to
protect public
safety and improve
environmental
quality)
State Coastal Recreation Sec. 2 [CWA Sec.
Water Quality Criteria and 303].
Standards. States must
adopt within 3\1/2\
years of enactment,
and/or 3 years
after revised
criteria are
adopted by EPA, WQC
and WQS for
pathogens and
pathogen indicators.
Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
Failure of State to Adopt Sec. 2 [CWA Sec. Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
WQC/WQS within 3\1/2\ years 303(i)(2)]: EPA 702 (c)]: EPA
of enactment. must prepare and criteria is deemed
publish proposed promulgated and
regs for the State becomes the State
setting forth the WQC.
initial WQS for
pathogens.
Studies..................... Sec. 3(a) [CWA Sec. Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
104(v)]: EPA must 703 (a)]: Same
conduct studies
within 3 years to
provide additional
information for use
in developing more
complete
determination of
health risks,
effective
indicators for
improving
detection, and
guidance for state
application of WQC.
Revised Criteria............ Sec. 3(b) [CWA Sec. Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
304(a)(9)]: Within 703(b)]: EPA must
4 years of issue revised WQC
enactment, EPA must within 5 years of
issue new or enactment and not
revised WQC for less than every 5
pathogens and years thereafter.
pathogen indicators [No requirement for
based on studies, EPA to issue
and at least every regulations if
5 years thereafter states do not adopt
must review and revised criteria.
revise the WQC as EPA criteria not
necessary.. ``deemed'' to be
[No requirement for that of the State.]
EPA to issue
regulations if
states do not adopt
revised criteria.].
EPA Monitoring and Sec. 4 [CWA Sec. Sec. 3[CWA Sec.
Notification Requirements. 406(a)]: Within 18 704(a-c)]: Within
months, EPA must 1\1/2\ years, EPA
publish performance must promulgate
criteria necessary regulations
for the protection requiring
of public health monitoring by
and safety for:. states of ``public
monitoring coastal recreation
``coastal water and beaches''
recreation waters for compliance with
adjacent to beaches WQC, and
or other points of maintenance of
access open to the public safety which
public for specify:
attainment of methods,
applicable WQS,'' frequency and
and protection of location of
public safety from monitoring;
floatable materials. methods for
and for detecting harmful
prompt notification pathogens and
of any exceedance harmful short term
of WQS. increases,
Sec. 406(e) conditions and
: EPA must also procedures for
provide technical exempting discrete
assistance to areas by EPA from
states, tribes and monitoring; and
localities. prompt
[The details of notification and
monitoring and posting of signs of
notification failure or
requirements likelihood of
developed by EPA failure to meet
are in the Sec. WQC.
406(a) performance Regulations
criteria and Sec. must be reviewed
406(b) state grant every 5 years.
conditions (below)]. Within 1\1/
2\ years, EPA must
also issue guidance
to establish core
performance
measures for
testing,
monitoring,
notification and
delegation to local
governments, and
provide technical
assistance to
monitor and assess
floatables
Coastal Recreation Waters Sec. 5[CWA Sec. Sec. 3[CWA Sec.
Defined. 502(21)]: Great 701(1)]: water
Lakes and marine adjacent to public
coastal waters, beaches of the
including coastal Great Lakes and
estuaries used by marine coastal
the public for water (including
swimming, bathing bays, lagoon
surfing or other mouths, and coastal
similar water estuaries within
contact activities. the tidal zone)
used by the public
for swimming,
bathing, surfing or
similar body
contact purposes.
State Monitoring and Sec. 4 [CWA Sec. Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
Notification Programs. 406(b)(2)]. 704(d)]: States
EPA is have 3\1/2\ years
authorized to make from enactment--and
grants to states, 2 years from any
tribes and local revisions--to
governments that implement a
meet EPA's monitoring and
``performance notification
criteria.''. program consistent
Grants also with the
contingent on regulations.
public notice and Sec. 3
comment; [CWASec. 706]: EPA
identification of may make grants for
coastal recreation use in meeting
waters within the requirements of
jurisdiction of the Sec. Sec. 702
state or tribe; (water quality
identification of criteria and
coastal standards) and 704
recreational waters (monitoring and
covered by the notification
program; monitoring practices).
priorities;
frequency of
monitoring based on
periods and nature
of use, as well as
proximity to
sources of
pollution;
delegation to local
governments;
methods for
detecting harmful
pathogens; prompt
notification; and
posting of signs.
List of Waters.............. Sec. 4 No such list
[CWA Sec.
406(b)(4)]: After
receiving federal
grants, states,
tribes and local
governments must
submit to EPA a
list of discrete
areas that are
subject to the
program for
monitoring and
notification, and a
list of areas where
fiscal constraints
prevent compliance
with performance
criteria..
CWA Sec.
406(f): Within 18
months, EPA must
maintain a list of
areas that do and
do not meet the
performance
criteria for
monitoring and
notification.
EPA implementation.......... Sec. 4 [CWA Sec. Not specified:
406(g)]: 3 years States simply
after an area is required within 3\1/
listed under Sec. 2\ years to
406(f) as not implement
meeting performance monitoring and
criteria for notification
monitoring and programs consistent
notification, EPA with EPA
must conduct the regulations
monitoring and pursuant to Sec.
notification 704(d).
program for that
area. Funds
appropriated for
grants to that area
revert back to EPA
to implement
programs in that
area.
Federal Grants.............. Sec. 4 [CWA Sec. Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
406(b)(5)]: Federal 706(b)]: Federal
share 50%-100%. share cannot exceed
50%
Federal Agency Monitoring Sec. 4 [CWA Sec. No Federal agency
and Notification Programs. 406(c)]: Federal monitoring and
agencies must notification
monitor and post programs required.
coastal recreation
waters subject to
their jurisdiction,
consistent with
performance
criteria.
National Coastal Recreation Sec. 4 [CWA Sec. Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
Water Pollution Occurrence 406(d)]: EPA must 704(g)]: EPA must
Database. maintain and make maintain a database
available to the listing communities
public, a database that conform to the
to provide regulations and
information on information
exceedances of reported to EPA,
beach WQS. including failures
or likelihood of
failures to meet
WQC.
Funding Authorization....... Sec. 4 Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
[CWA Sec. 406(h)]: 707]:
$30 million/year $9 million/
for 5 years for year for 5 years
State, tribal, and for state grants.
local grants.. $3 million/
Sec. 7: year to carry out
Congress authorizes provisions of this
other sums Act
necessary to carry
out the provisions
of this Act.
Report to Congress.......... Sec. 6: EPA must Sec. 3 [CWA Sec.
report to Congress 705]: EPA must
within 4 years of report to Congress
enactment, within within 4 years and
the succeeding 4 periodically
years, and thereafter:
periodically on the need
thereafter:. for additional WQC,
on the need other
for additional WQC,. actions necessary
other to improve beach
actions needed to water quality, and
improve water an
quality,. evaluation of state
an efforts to
evaluation of implement the Act.
Federal, State and
local efforts to
implement the Act,
and.
recommendat
ions on
improvements for
monitoring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Statement of Michelle Kremer, Surfrider Foundation
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the Committee, it is indeed
an honor and a privilege to be able to present to you today our written
testimony concerning an issue that both myself and the Surfrider
Foundation are very passionate about--the BEACH bill. Not only will
this legislation dramatically impact my life, it will also provide
benefit for every person that comes in contact with our Nation's
coastal waters.
My name is Michelle Kremer and although I am not able to testify in
person on this most worthy issue, our spokesperson today, Ted Danson,
President of the American Oceans Campaign, has presented to your
Committee the reasons why this legislation is needed today. The
Surfrider Foundation, American Oceans Campaign, Center for Marine
Conservation, Coastal States Organization, and Environmental Protection
Agency have been intimately and passionately involved with the final
legislation included in House Resolution 999, the Beaches Environmental
Awareness, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999, passed by your esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives on Earth Day April 22, 1999.
Key Aspects of the BEACH bill:
Creates a National Water Testing Standard;
Utilize State Health Agency Department input to formulate
the Standard;
Provides for Monitoring Criteria to be set by the EPA;
Provides for Federal grant money for states to implement
the monitoring; and
Creates a National Clearinghouse of monitoring data.
In promoting ocean care and environmental awareness every day,
Surfrider Foundation continues to support the key issue and need for
legislation that adopts a National Beach Water Quality Testing
Standard. The Surfrider Foundation is an international not-for-profit
organization whose 25,000 Members are dedicated to the preservation and
enjoyment, for all people, of the worlds waves, oceans, and beaches
through conservation, activism, research, and education (CARE). The
Surfrider Foundation is an issue-driven non-profit environmental
organization. We support issues and not people. We are thankful for the
opportunity to participate in this cause in which we strongly believe.
The Surfrider Foundation is hopeful that a National Water Testing
Standard is signed into law this year. The Surfrider Foundation has
advocated for the types of protections addressed by the BEACH Bill for
many years. As a representative of Surfrider Foundation's staff,
membership, and constituency of an estimated 2 million U.S. surfers,
who as a result of their enthusiasm for ocean recreation are in contact
with coastal waters on average of 250 days per year, I can state
unequivocally that the health and safety of all who venture into
coastal waters whether daily or infrequently, are at stake.
In your review and consideration of the BEACH Bill you have
undoubtedly heard of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
Epidemiology Study. This study, a first of its kind, evaluated the
health risk associated with human ocean water contact at or near
flowing storm drains. The Study concluded that contact with the ocean
near where a storm drain empties places you at a ``Statistically
significant increase in risks for a broad range of adverse health
effects including infection, coughing with phlegm, respiratory disease,
and gasteroentric disease with nausea, and diarrhea.'' According to the
Natural Resources Defense Council 1999 report ``Testing the Waters,''
in 1998 we had over 7,000 pollution caused beach closures or health
advisory warnings issued in the U.S. The BEACH bill represents a sound
starting point from which we can accomplish a goal that the
environmental community shares, that of clean and healthy coastal
recreational waters.
The issue is not whether we have infrastructure problems throughout
this country that contribute to or result in episodes of contaminated
water. That much is clear. The issue is whether we can assist the pubic
in recognizing and evaluating the hazards associated with water
contact. For the general public who may venture to the coast on a
vacation once a year, or even for the experienced ocean enthusiast, the
ability to evaluate the health risks of water contact at most locations
can be an impossible task. Lack of standardized testing methods, no
consistent method providing public notice and the lack of National
criteria for evaluating water quality all work to frustrate and confuse
the concerned public. Any life long surfer can tell you that one
question that we are often asked is ``what do you do if you see a
shark?'' Well, my answer always is--it is the ones you can not see that
you need to worry about.
This provides a fine analogy to the matter at hand. First, it is
outside the general public's ability to evaluate the condition of the
ocean water beyond what they can see, or sometimes smell. And, it is
what you can not see that you must worry about. It is, however, within
the ability of local health agencies, who are familiar with local
conditions, to conduct testing, and to create a consistent,
understandable, and accessible method of providing timely public notice
of ocean conditions.
In the BEACH bill's Findings, it states that ``the Nation's beaches
are a valuable public resource used for recreation by millions of
people annually.'' It has been reported that water-related recreation
is an annual $380 billion dollar industry. Employing 6 million people,
it is the second largest employer in America, second only to health
care. We Americans truly love our seaboards. Clean and safe water is
good for local economies, and good for America. The BEACH Bill is the
right kind of regulation. It does not impose any restrictions upon the
pubic, but does provide them with the ability to evaluate the
conditions and choose for themselves.
Amid the backdrop of voluntary testing programs, and spotty pubic
notice programs, comes the cry, ``we do not need mandatory testing or
mandatory posting, it will upset the voluntary programs in place.'' I
am a living witness to the fallacy of that logic. Even in California,
where testing and posting of contaminated beaches is mandatory,
government agencies only reluctantly comply when beach closures would
impact local economies. The intent of BEACH bill is to seek solutions,
not to point fingers and assess blame. The effective identification and
elimination of contamination episodes should be addressed using a
``watershed approach.'' Only mandatory testing and posting of
contaminated coastal recreational waters, followed by source
identification and elimination will insure the public health, and the
long-term financial well being of local economies.
Application of promulgated standards, mandatory testing, and public
notification, together with the watershed approach to source
identification and elimination builds in a balance that even the
playing field between large cities and small municipalities. The
incentives created by posted beaches, whether at Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware, or Huntington Beach, California are the same. More
importantly though, the public has a right to know where ever their
health risk is beyond acceptable levels.
Throughout the Committee's consideration of the BEACH bill
legislation before you, I respectfully request that you not lose sight
of the value of local input. It is voluntary actions and programs of
local agencies and municipalities, accomplished at water testing and
notification of the pubic, that can provide important details and
experience that can turn a Federal mandate into working pubic health
legislation. Likewise, the experience of NGO's, such as the Surfrider
Foundation, which has conducted a nationwide program of coastal water
testing and public outreach, must also be considered. The scientists
and laboratories of the Environmental Protection Agency surely can
provide leadership in determining proper standards and methods.
Although, I would hope that representatives of the Environmental
Protection Agency could comment on the relative merit of the lengthy
time indicated in the body of the Bill, and whether that amount of time
is necessary to identify standards and methods. The experience of
Surfrider, in cooperation with the County of San Diego, and the State
of California indicate that reasonable scientific consensus currently
exists regarding preferable testing standards and methods. The time has
come for this legislation.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this written
testimony to the honorable members of this Committee. Since its
introduction, myself and key colleagues with Surfrider Foundation have
continued to review and analyze the BEACH bill legislation and worked
with interested Federal agencies, non-profit environmental
organizations and other groups who have all made additional comments
and support to the merit of this legislation. I would be happy to share
comments from other members within Surfrider Foundation with staff so
that the perspective of other citizens who come in constant contact
with the coastal water of the United States can be considered. With
that offer, I conclude my comments and would be happy to answer any
questions the Members may have.
__________
Statement of Linda Shead, Executive Director, Galveston Bay Foundation
Good morning. On behalf of the Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF) and
Restore America's Estuaries, I would like to thank Senator John Chafee
and the other members of the committee for this opportunity to present
testimony in strong support of S. 835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act. I am privileged to be before you today.
Before I speak to the vital importance to the Nation of working to
pass S. 835 this session, let me introduce myself. My name is Linda
Shead. I am the executive director of GBF, which is located in
Galveston Bay, Texas and is a member supported, non-profit
organization. Our mission is to restore and protect the Bay and its
watershed.
I am also a member of the board of RAE, which is a coalition of 11
regional environmental organizations that devote a substantial part of
their efforts to estuary protection and restoration.
GBF and RAE members unabashedly represent a very special interest--
the restoration and protection of this nation's coastal estuaries.
These are resources that not only have high inherent aesthetic and
``quality of life'' values but also Unction as the heart of significant
biological activity that has a direct connection to the human economy
along the Nation's highly populated coastline. Our work, our mission is
fundamentally about good stewardship and assuring strong and vibrant
coastal communities.
The geographical sweep of the RAE alliance's focus is revealed most
clearly by indicating where we are located:
Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware
Long Island Sound in Connecticut and New York;
Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island and Massachusetts;
The Gulf of Maine from Cape Cod Bay to the Bay of Fundy;
The Hudson/Raritan estuary complex in New York and New
Jersey;
The North Carolina coast;
Tampa Bay in Florida;
Coastal Louisiana;
Galveston Bay in Texas;
San Francisco Bay in California, and
Puget Sound in Washington State.
This geographical listing, however, or the combined 250,000 members
of our organizations are simply the tip of the resource we are speaking
for: RAE stands for a national effort to champion estuary habitat
restoration and protection wherever those resources are located and
whoever is working on them.
Our organizations have in some cases been working to restore and
preserve our estuaries for 35 years or more. We have pledged
collectively to restore at least one million acres of habitat in our
nation's estuaries by the year 2010. And the need for action is great.
The vital importance and historical losses of the Nation's coastal
estuary resources are well documented. Estuarine habitat provides food,
shelter, resting areas and breeding areas for thousands of species of
flora and fauna. Without these habitats, estuaries would be virtually
dead and the vibrancy they provide to so many of our coastal
communities ended.
Along the Gulf Coast, habitat is still being lost, and in the
estuary I know best, Galveston Bay, we've lost more than 30,000 acres
of marsh habitat in the last 40 years alone. In addition, only 700
acres of seagrasses remain. In Galveston Bay, diverse users, such as
the petrochemical industry, environmentalists, commercial and
recreational fishers, recreational boaters, and commercial navigation
interests, have realized the importance of establishing habitat and are
working together to restore and protect the Bay. We have had some
successes, but the losses are great and they continue. These losses
have dire consequences for our environment, our economy, our way of
life, and our health.
Estuaries around the country have lost varying degrees of habitat
and biological function. For example, 70 percent of the eel grass beds,
and 50 percent of the salt marshes around Narragansett Bay in Rhode
Island have been lost due to human activity, and the Hudson Raritan Bay
area in lower New York Harbor has lost over 80 percent of its original
wetlands. In the Chesapeake Bay the oyster harvest collapsed from 25
million pounds in 1959 to only a million pounds in 1989. And of course,
the Wisteria crisis is now well known to everyone. In the Long Island
Sound more than 40 percent of the wetlands are gone. The story
continues on west coast. San Francisco Bay has lost 95 percent of its
original marshland.
Additionally, and sadly, tens of thousands more acres of estuarine
habitat continue to be destroyed each year. Habitat that is the life
blood of 75 percent of all commercial fish species, and the 28 million
jobs that depend on healthy, vibrant estuaries.
These are astounding statistics. They demand action. Fortunately we
still have time to act. We need to start now and turn the tide on this
devastating trend and actually foster the rebirth of our estuaries and
their critical wetlands. And we believe S. 835 is an essential part of
any coordinated and effective plan of action.
In some cases, the losses are irretrievable and we simply need to
proceed with a heightened resolve to prevent or minimize further future
losses of coastal estuary habitat. I would emphasize that Senator
Chafee's habitat restoration legislation is simply one critical piece
of the legislative and policy equation that must include a strong Clean
Water Act and a rejuvenated National Estuary Program if we are to ever
get ahead of the curve in stemming coastal resources losses and
degradation.
Where S. 835 can play a vital role is in helping provide the
leadership and resources needed to restore earlier damage to estuary
habitats that can be fully or partially reversed. S. 835 will allow the
Nation's coastal regions to seize restoration opportunities which must
be acted on if the biological productivity of the Nation's coastline is
to begin to recover.
Without spending too much time on the specifics of the legislation,
let me highlight why S. 835 will serve as a national catalyst for
helping restore our Nation's Estuary habitat. Once up and running, it
is designed to:
Infuse limited new Federal resources that will leverage
local resources and commitment sufficient to help our communities
achieve an actual increase of one million acres of habitat by 2010.
Give our communities and our organizations a real voice in
the selection process because restoration projects will be driven from
the community up through voluntary efforts that build effective public-
private partnerships.
Look to watershed based planning efforts and build on
existing plans such as the comprehensive plans we've worked to develop
as part of the NEP. There's no reinventing of the wheel here, just a
focused effort to make good use of good planning and get to work
restoring critical estuary habitat.
Build a peer review process that will assure that only the
most deserving projects are selected.
Help build a new level of streamlining and coordination
among Federal programs and agencies. The importance of accomplishing
this task is highlighted by a report RAE released last year on Federal
funding for habitat restoration which identified over 65 programs
scattered over 7 different agencies. S. 835 would help us much better
coordinate and increase the on-the-ground impact of these many
programs.
RAE also supports S. 835's choice to fund this work through an
inter-agency effort led by the Army Corps of Engineers. Many RAE
members have long histories of strong disagreement with the Corps. At
the same time, we also recognize that in recent years the Corps has
started to try and change course and work to restore habitat in
partnership with other Federal agencies, State and local government and
our communities.
We believe that S. 835 will be an important part of helping lock
in--and advance--this real and important change in the stated goals of
the Corps and in the way it does business. The bill takes the Corps at
its word and then builds a strong collaborative process of project
selection and work that will assure that funds are used to implement
real restoration in all of the Nation's estuaries.
It is through these mechanisms, and the interest they've generated
that S. 835 is already helping us focus attention on restoration, focus
attention on the critical need to bring new resources and dedication to
the conservation of our nation's estuaries. The bill's bipartisan
cosponsors in the Senate and the House speak to this growing awareness
of the need to act now and move on this legislation. So does the strong
support the bill has received from our colleagues in the environmental
community, the sporting industry, business and our State and local
governments.
RAE members are committed to helping you move forward with S. 835,
and get it enacted into law this year. The bill is a vital component of
our efforts to bring back healthy conditions not only in Galveston Bay,
but in Narragansett Bay, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and the other
estuaries that make up one of this Nation's most precious resources.
Galveston Bay is my home. Even if we live miles from it's shore, it
is part of what makes our whole region 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. We
need to do the same in all of the Nation's estuaries. S. 835 helps us
accomplish this vital task and helps us ensure a secure and bountiful
future for our country.
On behalf of all of the RAE membership, I want to thank Senator
Chafee and the members of this committee for their vision and
leadership in working to help us protect and restore our nation's
estuaries. RAE members looks forward to working with you to move this
important legislation forward and turn a very good bill into very good
law. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.
______
Responses by Linda Shead to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1a. Many different stakeholders have recognized the
importance of Galveston Bay and come together to protect the Bay.
How did you manage to get the petrochemical industry, the
environmental community; fishermen, boaters, and the tourism industry
to work together to develop a management plan?
Answer. The formation of the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
(a federal-state program) paralleled the formation of the Galveston Bay
Foundation (a nonprofit organization) in 1987-1988. With the heavily
populated and industrialized Galveston Bay region, it was recognized
early on, for both entities, that the old paradigm of adversarial
approaches would not succeed in ensuring the future health of the
invaluable resources of Galveston Bay. The various interests were
approached with the notion of having a seat at the table to assure that
their perspective was heard. A seminal moment in the formation of the
Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF) came when representatives of the
commercial fishing industry and recreational fishermen agreed to work
together within the Galveston Bay Foundation to ensure there is a
resource, and to continue in other arenas their debate over who gets to
use it.
Question 1b. What have you found are the major impediments to on-
the-ground implementation of restoration projects?
Answer. We have found two key impediments to restoration projects
One is simply having enough financial resources and enough flexibility
within the funding requirements to meet the restoration needs. It has
taken decades of mis-use to create our current state of lost habitat
value, and will take a major commitment of resources at every level
(public/private, local/state/national) to begin to repair the damage.
The latter issue (flexibility) relates specifically to matching funds
requirements. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, for example,
used to require that matching funds be routed through that entity, when
many of local funding partners would want to give the matching money
directly to a local entity (such as GBF). It still requests that checks
for the match go to them to be re-disbursed to the local entity.
Prohibitions on federal-federal matches are another example that hurts
building partnerships.
The second impediment is institutional problems. That is, getting
agencies (and particularly legal departments) to work for solutions
instead of throwing up roadblocks. One example is the new
interpretation by NOAA's legal department that prohibits nonprofit
organizations from being a recipient of coastal management grants for
restoration projects. Another example has been the incredible slowness,
in Texas, of getting a reasonable process in place for the selection of
projects and disbursement of Natural Resource Damage Assessment funds.
You also mention that historically, the relationship between the
environmental community and the Army Corps has not always been ideal.
Question 1c. How are the current working relationships between the
various stakeholders and the Corps and the other federal agencies?
Answer. The national office of the Corps of Engineers and many of
the new leadership have embraced the idea of working on habitat
restoration. However, some of the long-term rank-and-file of the agency
have not yet adopted this attitude. They also have not always perceived
themselves as part of a team of players and experts within a community,
instead of being the holder of wetlands knowledge. The situation has
improved somewhat, but still varies with each new district engineer
appointment (every 2-3 years) and depends on the civilian leadership
for continuity, or lack thereof.
Question 2a. A 1996 report on estuaries by the American Oceans
Campaign stated that roughly 6.7 million people live in the Galveston
Bay watershed. Over 566 municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge
into the Bay watershed, and it has been estimated that Galveston Bay
receives over 50 percent of all the permitted wastewater discharged in
Texas.
How are you balancing the pressures of development and a growing
population with the need to protect a nationally important estuary?
Answer. The Galveston Bay Foundation has adopted a position
supporting the concept of sustainable development. We believe that
projects can be designed to minimize negative impacts or even to
enhance the environment without making them infeasible. The current
project to deepen and widen the Houston Ship Channel stands a very good
chance of becoming an example of sustainable development. After the
initial project was condemned in 1987-1988 by a wide variety of
environmental and Congressional interests, it was reduced in size, re-
designed, and incorporated beneficial uses of dredge material for the
restoration of bird habitat and of marshes (some 4,260 acres over the
50-year life of the project).
Question 2b. Do you feel that you are making progress in restoring
the Bay, or are all of your efforts simply keeping the situation from
getting worse.
Answer. Some of both. There is most definitely progress through
restoration projects. It will, naturally, take time for the full
benefits to be realized. S. 835 would make it possible for us to ensure
that we indeed keep moving forward more steps than we slip back. I know
that my colleagues in the other major national estuaries feel the same.
Most of the continuing losses in Galveston Bay are a result of past
abuses (e.g. increases in erosion as a consequence of subsidence) or
due to inadequate application/implementation of wetlands regulations.
__________
Statement of Richard Ribb, Director, Narragansett Bay National
Estuary Program
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of the Association of
National Estuary Programs (ANEP), I appreciate the opportunity to
submit to the Environment and Public Works Committee our views on the
protection and restoration of the Nation's estuaries. I am Richard
Ribb, Director of the Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program and a
member of the Board of Directors of ANEP. The Association of National
Estuary Programs is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting
stewardship and a common vision for the preservation of the nation's
bays and estuaries. Our members include representatives of industry,
agriculture, fisheries, tourism, and the greater business community,
who volunteer their time to develop and implement comprehensive
management plans for a network of nationally significant estuaries.
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, transportation, defense, boating, research and learning, and
providing irreplaceable wildlife and fisheries habitat. Over half of
the U.S. population lives in our coastal counties and that percentage
is increasing. This morning you have heard from many of the witnesses
of the many and varied problems facing our estuaries.
The National Estuary Program represents a successful approach to
defining and addressing the problems in our estuaries. Citizens,
municipalities, environmental groups and interested business and
industry organizations come together with State and Federal Governments
to reach agreement on long-term management plans that seek to guarantee
the economic and biological productivity of the nation's estuaries into
the future. Forty-two percent of the continental United States
shoreline is within the watersheds of the NEP's 28 estuaries.
Economically, these estuaries of national significance produce over $7
billion in revenue from commercial and recreational fishing and related
marine industries; tourism and recreation in these NEPs are valued at
over $16 billion annually. These programs are clearly an important
factor in at least a quarter of the nation's inland and coastal
watersheds. The management plan for each of these 28 NEPs is unique,
but they 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, using the abilities of their local NEPs, work to leverage Federal
and State dollars with contributions from local governments and the
private sector. Each of these NEPs serves as the primary technical and
coordination support structure (and frequently the initiator) for a
wide web of partnerships and actions to conserve and restore the
estuary.
the anep position
We are pleased that this committee is turning its attention toward
the plight of the Nation's estuaries. Our testimony today focuses on
two of the bills under consideration today. S. 835, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act of 1999, introduced by Mr. Chafee of Rhode
Island and co-sponsored by members from all regions of the country,
clearly recognizes the critical importance of estuarine habitat to the
ecological and economic health of our nation and to the quality of life
of our citizens. This bill creates a national program to fund estuary
habitat restoration efforts in partnership with the States, non-
governmental organizations and local communities. A sub-section of the
bill deals with reauthorization of the National Estuary Program,
created under the Clean Water Act and administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in close partnership with State and
local governments, interested citizens and the business community. A
key strength of the bill is the collaborative approach outlined which
mirrors the NEP framework and, based on the success this approach has
brought to the NEPs, we feel that the process created by this
legislation will prove successful in restoring the nation's estuarine
habitats. On the whole, this bill demonstrates Sen. Chafee's continuing
dedication to and leadership on the protection and enhancement of the
nation's coastal resources and estuaries.
S. 878, which amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and is
introduced by Mr. Torricelli of New Jersey, offers a simple
reauthorization of the National Estuary Program. As does S. 835, it
allows Federal Clean Water Act funds to be used not only for
development of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) required under Section 320, but also for implementation of
these community-based plans which target local needs. Both bills also
increase the levels of Federal funding for the program--S. 835 at $25
million annually over 2000-2001; S. 878 at $50 million annually over
2000-2004.
The Association of National Estuary Programs strongly supports S.
835. Those of us who work everyday with citizens' groups and
municipalities on habitat restoration projects believe that the Federal
funding and support provided by this measure will prove a critical
resource in achieving restoration goals for our estuaries. In setting
goals, developing a national habitat restoration strategy and
committing funding, Congress would make the Federal Government a real
partner with the States in restoring the nation's estuarine resources.
We would like to provide three specific comments on the bill.
First, we endorse the provision pertaining to Clean Water Act Section
320 that allows funding to be used for both the development and
implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) that are produced for each estuary in the program. Second, we
support the development of a mechanism for the bill that would increase
the level of regional and local input in the development of a national
habitat restoration strategy and into setting criteria for the grant
decisionmaking process. Third, in the Definitions section of the bill,
ANEP supports an expanded definition of ``Federal estuary management
plans'' that specifically includes CCMPs developed under Section 320 of
the Clean Water Act.
ANEP endorses the funding level of $50 million annually over 4
years in S. 878 in order to continue this successful Federal
partnership with State and local efforts. The basis for supporting this
funding level is described in the sections below.
a federal investment in progress and results
Through its 10 years of experience, the National Estuary Program
has become an excellent model for developing solutions to complex
environmental problems. The NEP has been the laboratory and testing
ground for the watershed management techniques now being applied across
the country. Characterizing and systematically monitoring conditions,
ensuring that management decisions are based on sound science,
coordinating watershed actions, creatively finding project funding,
promoting citizen involvement in managing public resources, bringing
local people and Federal and State partners together to build solutions
to estuary problems the NEP can claim a good deal of responsibility for
the success and popularity of these techniques. The 28 NEP programs
have developed and used these techniques to implement their management
plans, designed to improve water quality, habitat and estuarine
resources. Strong Federal support is critical in maintaining the
success of this popular program. By maximizing the Federal investment
in 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.
ANEP believes that the increased authorization for this national
program will truly be a sound investment in the future of the nation's
estuaries. In years past, there were just a dozen NEPs receiving
approximately $12 million to develop CCMPs--about $1.0 million per NEP.
However, due to recognition of the value of these programs and the
resulting demand, today there are 18 NEPs implementing CCMPs with
another 10 in the development stage--that same $12 million has been
increasingly stretched to attempt to support the additional Estuary
Programs created at the request of Governors and citizens across the
Nation. An increase in authorized funding 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 as determined
by local interests.
A recent report from the Estuary Programs shows that, based on a
conservative analysis, the EPA contribution under Section 320 to
implement the NEP estuary management plans was, on average, only 32
percent of the total dollars that these community-based programs
directed to actions in the estuaries. In fact, for a quarter of the
programs it was less than 20 percent. In general, this means that for
every dollar in direct Section 320 funding invested, the NEPs leverage
2 dollars from State, local and other funding sources and services.
There are few Federal programs that can show this kind of return on
investment. This also reflects the level of State and local commitment
to the NEPs as well as recognition that these programs are an effective
catalyst for action in our nation's estuaries.
In a program that has a strong history of leveraging funds,
enhanced Federal funding will allow the NEPs to bring in additional
State, local and other funds to protect our estuaries. With stable
support for the local NEP staff, more staff resources can be devoted to
seeking out these additional funding sources and directing them toward
creating solutions for estuary problems. Also, the NEPs will have the
capacity to accommodate the increased demand for actions in our
estuaries as coastal population increases and resources are
increasingly stressed. These programs are already being called upon to
deal with emerging issues such as invasive species, harmful algal
blooms and sea level rise. With enhanced funding, the NEPs could meet
the growing demand for action while continuing to effectively build
local solutions that satisfy identified scientific and economic needs
as well as the interests of the many stakeholders in their estuaries.
linking estuary habitat restoration and nep reauthorization: a formula
for success
The National Estuary Program is a broad-based program, taking a
comprehensive approach to addressing the wide range of problems facing
the Nation's estuaries: preventing habitat degradation and loss of
recreational and commercial fisheries; protecting and improving water
quality; pioneering watershed management techniques; controlling sewage
outfalls and septic system impacts; mitigating impacts from increasing
land development; developing strategies to deal with invasive species
and harmful algal blooms--the list goes on and reflects the inter-
related nature of these problems and the community-based nature of the
NEP approach. In contrast, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
Act takes a targeted approach toward a specific problem: loss and
degradation of estuarine habitat. The NEP program, while currently
deeply involved in habitat restoration planning and projects, does not
have sufficient resources to adequately address habitat restoration in
addition to addressing the broad range of other problems included under
our mandate. This is why a Federal funding program for this purpose is
so necessary. At the same time, S. 835's mission is urgently needed but
not broad enough to address the entire spectrum of pressures on our
estuaries including those environmental factors that significantly
affect the success of restoration projects. These two pathways join
within the National Estuary Program. Because the NEPs are an on-the-
ground, in-place mechanism for effecting estuary habitat restoration
within the larger watershed perspective that is the foundation of the
NEP's success, we believe that NEP reauthorization and habitat
restoration legislation must be considered together. They form a web of
action and resources that will result in the kind of measurable
environmental progress that we are all working to achieve.
the national estuary program: securing a sound future for the
nation's estuaries
The National Estuary Program has evolved into a leader in coastal
protection and action over the last decade and a half (refer to the
attached success stories list, Results from the National Estuary
Program). Starting with four pilot programs in 1985, the success of and
need for the program has led to the current status--28 estuaries in the
national program of which 10 are in the developmental stage and 18 are
in the implementation stage of their individual Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans. The implementing programs have been
tackling the many pressures and problems in our estuaries and the
remaining programs will soon be fully in the implementation phase. The
funding level authorized under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act has
not kept up with the growth of and demand for the program. The cost of
implementing the 28 CCMPs far outweighs the cost of developing them.
Current funding levels ($17.321 million appropriated in fiscal year
1999 for all 28 NEPs) have barely been sufficient to allow the programs
to finish development of these critical estuary management plans. Now
faced with implementing these publicly and federally approved
management plans, the need for Federal funding support is greater than
ever. The level of funding authorization presented in S. 878 is the
level realistically necessary to allow for implementation of the 28
CCMPs., as mandated by Congress.
The National Estuary Program is clearly not the ``command-and-
control'' type of EPA program. Rather, it is a program where local
governments, citizens and the private sector come together and agree on
how to manage the Nation's estuaries and on how to craft local
solutions to common coastal problems. Only with the full support of the
local sector is the proposed CCMP submitted to the State Governors and
the EPA Administrator for approval. Thus, it is the States, in close
coordination with the local stakeholders and the Federal Government,
that create and implement new, non-adversarial and cost-effective
estuary management plans, in contrast to the ``command-and-control'',
top-down approach to environmental protection.
The NEP has a history of valuing community involvement and building
support for initiatives.
Citizens see these programs (and their staffs) as a part of a
governmental structure that uses resources efficiently, is responsive
to their needs, and is effective in solving problems and raising issues
and awareness. NEPs have been particularly effective in identifying and
funneling relevant resources (grants, technical assistance, etc.) to
States, communities and citizens' groups. Sandra Wyatt, a member of a
citizens' group in Barrington, R.I., the Allins Cove Neighborhood
Association, seeking to restore a nearby cove's coastal wetlands,
recently said this of her local NEP:
``We have been trying to deal with Federal and State agencies
to get our cove restored and we felt that there was a lot of
talk but very little action. But recently, with Estuary Program
coordination, technical assistance and persistence, things are
starting to happen. The Estuary Program's coastal habitat
restoration initiative has some steam behind it and they have
really brought the issue to the public's attention and, equally
important, have helped focus Federal and State agency resources
on our local habitat restoration needs.''
The National Estuary Program is one of a handful of Federal
nonregulatory programs that truly attempt to address local concerns.
This effective national network of programs shares its experiences and
lessons learned with each other and with other watershed and
governmental organizations. It has been and, with your help, will
continue to be a national resource for the protection and improvement
of the nation's estuaries.
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.
results from the national estuary program
Through the National Estuary Program, many environmental problems
are being solved. A few examples of NEP success stories include:
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. As part of this effort, the
program has linked up with business interests to promote innovative
technologies for pollution prevention and remediation.
Through the work of the Barnegat Bay NEP, more than 32,000
acres of critical habitat area have been preserved in Barnegat Bay, New
Jersey.
Over 40,000 acres of impounded marsh and mangrove wetlands
have been reconnected to the Indian River Lagoon on Florida's eastern
coast, one of the most productive ecosystems in the United States,
located in an area with high population growth and human pressures.
On the Florida's Gulf Coast, the Sarasota Bay NEP has
helped achieve a 28-38 percent reduction in nitrogen loadings to the
Bay, spurring a 7 percent increase in seagrass production.
Two NEPs, in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas and Tampa Bay,
Florida, are developing long-term dredged material management plans to
provide environmental protection and to maximize beneficial uses of
dredged materials.
The San Juan National Estuary Program is reducing the
number of unauthorized raw sewage discharges from boater pumpout
stations while the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program played a seminal
role in having the entire bay and the State's coastal waters designated
a ``No Discharge Zone'' (the first large estuary to achieve such
designation).
Maine's Casco Bay Estuary Program teamed up with local
lobstermen to study habitat in Portland Harbor, discovering that the
harbor supported a thriving lobster community, larger than anyone had
thought. This partnership then relocated thousands of lobsters to other
areas while the harbor was dredged, thereby protecting an important
natural resource while supporting the increased economic development
that the dredging allowed.
The New York/New Jersey Harbor NEP, through its Habitat
Workgroup, has prioritized and produced GIS coverages of habitat sites
targeted for restoration and acquisition by the two States. This
process has already resulted in the funding several millions of dollars
worth of restoration projects. The data are being used to identify not
just potential sites, but also other factors that can impair
restoration such as erosion problems and incompatible land uses.
The San Francisco Estuary Project has partnered with local
land commissions to provide 25 educational workshops for 1400
developers, contractors and local officials. This training and
information has resulted in improved compliance with erosion and
sediment control requirements in the Bay area increasing from 30-40
percent in the early 1990's to 90 percent in 1998.
The Long Island Sound NEP has been instrumental in
developing the scientific data that has resulted in the ongoing and
planned upgrades of sewage treatment plants (with bi-State bond funding
totaling several billion dollars) to reduce nitrogen loading to the
Sound, leading to improved levels of dissolved oxygen that better
support marine life.
In Mobile Bay, AL, the local Estuary Program responded to
community concern over introduced species from ship ballast water by
creating a cooperative project with the U.S. Coast Guard to check ship
logs for compliance with voluntary maritime ballast exchange policies.
700 acres of Florida upland habitat were restored through
the removal of exotic plant species and restoration of natural
hydrology in a partnership effort led by the Charlotte Harbor NEP.
In 1998, the Seabrook Middle Ground clam flat in coastal
New Hampshire was reopened to clamming for the first time in nearly 10
years due largely to improvements in water quality coordinated by the
New Hampshire Estuaries NEP.
__________
Statement of Joseph E. Costa, Ph.D., Executive Director, Buzzards Bay
Project National Estuary Program
introduction
In September of 1998, a funding information request was sent by
Tiffany Lutterman, Director of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program of Florida, to all 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs). The
purpose of this information request was to better understand the
relative importance of EPA funding of NEPs through Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act, in comparison to other sources, both public and
private. This report summarizes the responses forwarded to the Buzzards
Bay Project and subsequent follow-up questions
methods
Each NEP was asked to provide an estimate of expenditures in each
of the following funding categories:
1. EPA funding through Section 320,
2. EPA funding through non Section 320 funding (e.g., grants in
319, 104b3, 604 programs),
3. State funding,
4. Local funding (municipal, county, and regional entities),
5. Non-governmental.
The request for information was meant to cover amounts in both
Fiscal Year 1998, and projections for Fiscal Year 1999. Because of
differences in state and federal fiscal years, and the start of the
state fiscal year varies from state to state, we left it up to the
discretion of each contact with the NEP to report in either state or
federal fiscal year totals, since the purpose of this exercise was to
approximate relative contributions of various funding sources. Because
fiscal year 1999 expenditures were difficult for many NEPs to project,
they were considered less reliable than fiscal year 1998 values, so
only the fiscal year 1998 data are presented in this report.
In many instances, it was difficult or impossible to quantify CCMP
implementation expenditures because the NEP was not directly involved
with managing or directing these expenditures. Expenditures by local
government and nonprofits were an especially difficult category for
most NEPs to quantify. Out of necessity, $0 dollars were included for
NEPs when no response was given so that averages of funding
calculations could be calculated. Therefore, the totals in these
categories should be considered underestimates.
There were also differences in how comprehensive this evaluation
should be. In some instances it appeared that the respondent only
quantified funding directly received by or administered by the NEP. In
other cases the respondent took a broader view of CCMP implementation
related expenditures by other agencies. We made no attempt separate
these different kinds of responses, and all responses were included in
this draft report. A draft report was provided to each NEP for review
which generated only a modest response.
results
Twenty-three out of twenty-eight NEPs responded to the requests for
information. A summary of fiscal year 1998 for each NEP is included in
Table 1 below. Actual amounts of each funding category were also
converted to percent contributions in Table 2.
Table 1.--Total Funding Reported By Each NEP for Each Funding Category Related to NEP and CCMP Implementation Funding for Fiscal Year 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priv/Non- Non-EPA
Estuary Program FY 98 Profit Local State Federal EPA-non 320 EPA-320 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albermarle-Pamlico..................................... .............. .............. ........... $81,259 ........... .............. ........... $0 ........... $325,000 ........... $406,250
Barataria-Terrebonne................................... 621,100 .............. ........... 5,616,669 ........... 61,110,657 ........... 0 ........... 260,000 ........... 67,608,426
Barnegat Bay........................................... 214,100 28,200 ........... 862,250 ........... 617,000 ........... 80,000 ........... 401,000 ........... 2,202,550
Buzzards Bay........................................... 86,000 165,000 ........... 72,500 ........... 60,000 ........... 454,500 ........... 199,500 ........... 1,037,500
Casco Bay.............................................. 75,993 21,000 ........... 209,277 ........... 5,000 ........... 98,740 ........... 199,500 ........... 609,510
Charlotte Harbor....................................... 48,851 134,292 ........... 200,638 ........... 24,750 ........... 0 ........... 485,000 ........... 893,531
Corpus Christi......................................... 165,472 53,000 ........... 264,667 ........... 369,667 ........... 0 ........... 860,000 ........... 1,712,806
Delaware............................................... .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
Delaware Inland Bay.................................... 50,000 5,000 ........... 67,500 ........... 0 ........... 279,950 ........... 234,500 ........... 636,950
Galvaston Bay.......................................... .............. .............. ........... 750,000 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 260,000 ........... 1,010,000
Indian River Lagoon.................................... 403,700 15,465,000 ........... 4,856,000 ........... 0 ........... 320,000 ........... 260,000 ........... 21,304,700
Long Island Sound...................................... .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
Lower Columbia River................................... .............. .............. ........... 300,000 A .............. ........... .............. ........... 585,000 ........... 885,000
Maryland Coastal Bay................................... 5,000 310,935 ........... 2,648,980 ........... 175,000 ........... 75,000 ........... 410,000 ........... 3,624,915
Massachusetts Bay...................................... A B ........... 89,000 C .............. ........... .............. ........... 267,000 ........... 356,000
Mobile Bay............................................. 38,680 127,200 ........... 146,500 ........... 150,000 1 0 ........... 775,000 ........... 1,237,380
Morro Bay.............................................. .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
Narragansett Bay....................................... .............. 15,080,000 ........... 19,775,000 ........... 0 ........... 0 ........... 1,500,000 ........... 36,355,000
New Hampshire.......................................... .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
New York/New Jersey.................................... .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
Peconic Bay............................................ *** 150,000 ** 12,000 ........... 10,000 ........... 0 * 446,500 * 618,500
Puget Sound............................................ * * ........... 13,668,677 ........... * ........... 195,490 ........... 346,500 ........... 14,210,667
San Francisco.......................................... 2,750,000 147,000 ........... 470,000 ........... 75,000 ........... 0 ........... 308,150 ........... 3,750,150
San Juan Bay........................................... .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
Santa Monica Bay....................................... 310,000 9,200,000 ........... 379,000 ........... 0 ........... 0 ........... 250,000 ........... 10,139,000
Sarasota Bay........................................... 750,000 39,997,166 ** 2,692,536 ........... 6,040,000 ........... 115,000 ........... 874,645 * 50,469,347
Tampa Bay.............................................. .............. 333,873 1 .............. ........... 0 2 70,000 2 346,500 ........... 750,373
Tillamook Bay.......................................... .............. .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................. $5,518,896 $81,217,666 ........... $53,162,444 ........... $68,637,074 ........... $1,688,680 ........... $9,593,795 ........... $219,818,555
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Notes:
Indian River Lagoon: Note: Table does not include the estimated >$27,500,000 expended on land acquisition initiatives from state, local and private sources since 1995.
Lower Columbia River: (A) $150,000 from Oregon, $150,000 from Washington.
Mass Bays: (A) Implementation costs are so large that we depend on lots of sources, obviously. EPA funds are used just to support the core program. (B) MBP gets additional support that we don't really count in that the regional
planning agencies that house our regional staff also pay part of their salaries. Essentially they are out doing MBP tasks all the time anyway. (C). Same as for (B). There are many things that agencies are doing that we nudge along
that we don't take financial credit for.
Mobile Bay: Note: $290,000 carried over from previous year, 1 = Gulf of Mexico Program.
Peconic:
* Does not include implementation funding sources which are administered by entities other than the Peconic Estuary Program's Program Office. These include NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act Funding ($1.3 million in 1998. Approx $2.
5 million in 1999) and Land Preservation partnership ($15 million Town, $15 million County of 3 years); ** Minimum commitment is shown. Actual contributions will be substantially higher. *** Value of services are substantial but
unquantified.
Puget Sound: *Puget Sound Estuary Program does not track private non-profit, local or non-EPA Federal spending for implementation of the estuary program. However, we know that local and tribal governments are spending considerable
sums to carry out actions called for in the CCMP. For example, about half of the local governments in the basin have established utilities to fund stormwater management programs; other local governments are upgrading combined
sewer overflows and sewage treatment plants, implementing watershed plans, acquiring and restoring habitat, inspecting on-site sewage systems, enforcing environmental laws, educating the public, etc.--all of these activities would
easily add up to $50 to 100 million (and that is probably a very conservative estimate). State and federal agencies are providing additional funding from SRF, 319, transportation programs, and the state cigarette tax to local
governments, tribes, ports, sewer and water districts, and conservation districts to help them fund the activities listed above and others which protect the Sound. In addition, there are a minimum of 200 private, nonprofit groups
working to protect the Sound.
Sarasota Bay: * Estimates $274,645 carryover into FY 98, $300k allocations for FY 98-9; ** Assumes $28 million wastewater re-use system is constructed on Manatee County, funds committed in FY 97; estimates for proposed reuse system
expansions in Sarasota County not available; includes $10 million for the completion of Phillippi Creek $40 million stormwater retrofit project.
Tampa Bay: (1) Includes cash contributions for operation of TBEP. Does not include expenditures by local governments and nonfederal agencies for project contributing to implementation of CCMP. (2) Does not include potential federal
grants to TBEP partners for projects contributing to implementation of CCMP.
Table 2.--Total Funding as Percent (%) by Category Reported by Each NEP Related to NEP and CCMP Implementation
Funding for Fiscal Year 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-EPA
Private/ Local State Federal EPA-non EPA-320 EPA-% 320
Estuary Program FY 98 Non- [In [In [In 320 [In [In [In
Profit percent] percent] percent] percent] percent] percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle-Pamlico.................. 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 80% 100%
Barataria-Terrebonne............... 1 9 8 90 0 0 100
Bamegat Bay........................ 10 1 39 28 4 18 83
Buzzards Bay....................... 8 16 7 6 44 19 31
Casco Bay.......................... 12 3 34 1 16 33 67
Charlotte Harbor................... 5 15 22 3 0 54 100
Corpus Christi.................... 10 3 15 22 0 50 100
Delaware........................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Delaware Inland Bay................ 8 1 11 0 44 37 46
Galveston Bay...................... 0 0 74 0 0 26 100
Indian River Lagoon................ 2 73 23 0 2 1 45
Long Island Sound.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Lower Columbia River............... 0 0 34 0 0 66 100
Maryland Coastal Bay............... 0 9 73 5 2 11 85
Massachusetts Bay.................. 0 0 25 0 0 75 100
Mobile Bay......................... 3 10 12 12 0 63 100
Morro Bay.......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Narragansett Bay................... 0 41 54 0 0 4 100
New Hampshire...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
New York/New Jersey................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Peconic Bay........................ 0 24 2 2 0 72 100
Puget Sound........................ 0 0 96 0 1 2 64
San Francisco...................... 73 4 13 2 0 8 100
San Juan Bay....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Santa Monica Bay................... 3 91 4 0 0 2 100
Sarasota Bay....................... 1 79 5 12 0 2 88
Tampa Bay.......................... 0 44 0 0 9 46 83
Tillamook Bay...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Average........................ 7 20 27 9 6 32 85
% based on national expenditure 3 37 24 31 1 4 85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
Total expenditures in fiscal year 1998 toward CCMP implementation
activities were more than $212 million for the 23 reporting NEPs (Table
1). On a National level, the US EPA Section 320 funding represented
only 5 percent of this total (Figure 1 ). This contribution of Section
320 funds is in fact an overestimate since NEPs were unable to
adequately characterize funding in some funding categories.
Figure 1, however, is somewhat misleading in characterizing typical
expenditures for individual NEPs since expenditures by partnering
agencies in certain NEPs was sometimes quite large. For example, more
than $60 million of non-EPA Federal dollars were reported by the
Barrataria-Terrebone NEP for fiscal year 1998, which alone represented
more than 25 percent of the $212 million national expenditure total.
To better characterize funding pat- terns, the average percent
contribution of Section 320 funds and other funding categories are
shown in Figure 2.
This figure shows the averages of all category funding percentages
calculated from individual NEP program funding breakdowns as shown in
Table 2. This representation of the data eliminates the skewing effect
of large dollar expenditures in any one NEP.
As shown by Figure 2, US EPA Section 320 funds represented a
minority of total implementation funding as a percent of all funding,
accounting for an average of 32 percent within each NEP for CCMP-
related expenditures for fiscal year 1998.
Although 32 percent may represent a national average of the
contribution of Section 320 funds in relation to all fiscal year 1998
expenditures, Figure 3 demonstrates that there is a great variation in
the relative importance of Section 320 funds among individual estuary
programs. For example, for 7 of the 23 respondents, Section 320 funds
represented 20 percent or less of the total expenditures. As noted
previously, because some sources of funding such as local and state
expenditures may have been underestimated, section 320 contributions
may also be overestimated in this figure.
Also of interest to some NEPs is the amount of EPA funding provided
to the NEPs through other EPA programs other than Section 320 (e.g.,
319, 104b3, 604, etc.), since these programs are viewed as important
mechanisms for funding NEPs and CCMP implementation activities.
As shown in Figure 4, there is also a considerable amount of
variation in the amount of non-section 320 EPA funding that each NEP
program receives, with Section 320 funds ranging from 31 percent to 100
percent of all EPA funds received, with the mean being 83 percent.
______
appendix a. table 1 funding notes
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON: NOTE: Table does not include the estimated
>$27,500,000 expended on land acquisition initiatives from state, local
and private sources since 1995.
LOWER COLUMBIA: A: $150,000 from Oregon, $150,000 from Washington
MASS BAYS: A. Implementation costs are so large that we depend on
lots of sources, obviously. EPA funds are used just to support the core
program.
B. MBP gets additional support that we don't really count in that
the regional planning agencies that house our regional staff also pay
part of their salaries. Essentially they are out doing MBP tasks all
the time anyway.
C. Same as for B There are many things that agencies are doing that
we nudge along that we don't take financial credit for.
MOBILE BAY: Note: $290,000 carried over from previous year, 1= Gulf
of Mexico Program
PECONIC:
* Does not include implementation funding sources which are
administered by entities other than the Peconic Estuary Programs
Program Office. These include NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
Funding ($1.3 million in 1998. Approx. $2.5 million in 1999) and Land
Preservation partnership ($ 15 million Town, $ 15 million County of 3
years).
** Minimum commitment is shown. Actual contributions will be
substantially higher.
*** Value of services are substantial but unquantified.
PUGET SOUND:
* Puget Sound Estuary Program does not track private non-profit,
local or non-EPA Federal spending for implementation of the estuary
program. However, we know that local and tribal governments are
spending considerable sums to carry out actions called for in the CCMP.
For example, about half of the local governments in the basin have
established utilities to fund stormwater management programs; other
local governments are upgrading combined sewer overflows and sewage
treatment plants, implementing watershed plans, acquiring and restoring
habitat, inspecting onsite sewage systems, enforcing environmental
laws, educating the public, etc.--all of these activities would easily
add up to $50 to 100 million (and that is probably a very conservative
estimate). State and Federal agencies are providing additional funding
from SRF, 319, transportation programs, and the state cigarette tax to
local governments, tribes, ports, sewer and water districts, and
conservation districts to help them fund the activities listed above
and others which protect the Sound. In addition, there are a minimum of
200 private, nonprofit groups working to protect the Sound.
SARASOTA BAY:
* Estimates $274,645 carryover into fiscal year 1998, $300K
allocations for fiscal years 1998-1999
** Assumes $28 million wastewater re-use system is constructed in
Manatee County, funds committed in fiscal year 97; estimates for
proposed reuse system expansions in Sarasota County not available;
includes $10 million for the completion of Phillippi Creek $40 million
stormwater retrofit project.
TAMPA BAY:
1 Includes cash contributions for operation of TBEP. Does not
include expenditures by local governments and non-Federal agencies for
project contributing to implementation of CCMP.
2 Does not include potential Federal grants to TBEP partners for
projects contributing to implementation of CCMP.
__________
Statement of Michael F. Hirshfield, Senior Vice President, Chesapeake
Bay Foundation
Good afternoon. On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) I
would like Committee Chairman (John) Chafee and Ranking Member (Max)
Baucus, Senator (John) Warner and the other members of the Committee
for this opportunity to present testimony in strong support of S. 492,
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999. We would also like to thank
Senator (Paul) Sarbanes, as well as his colleagues from the Chesapeake
Bay region, for their consistent and long-standing support for the Bay,
exemplified by the legislation that is the subject of this hearing. I
am privileged to be before you today.
Before I speak to the vital importance to the Nation of working to
pass S. 492 this session, let me introduce myself. My name is Michael
Hirshfield. I am the Senior Vice President of CBF, which has its
headquarters in Annapolis, Maryland and offices in Virginia and
Pennsylvania. CBF is a member-supported, non-profit environmental
education and advocacy organization with over 80,000 members throughout
the Bay watershed and nationwide. Our mission is to Save the Bay--to
restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
Mr. Chairman, I have good news and bad news concerning the health
of the Chesapeake Bay. A year ago, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
released its first annual State of the Bay Report. We assessed the
health of 12 factors that go into making a healthy Bay--including, for
example, oysters, crabs, striped bass, underwater grasses, and wetlands
in order to produce a sort of Dow Jones for the Bay. We compared the
health of each of these factors against what they would have been over
300 years ago, before the beginning of European settlement. If the Bay
of Captain John Smith's time was considered 100 percent, we calculated
that the Bay of 1998 was only 27 percent. Bad news indeed, a Chesapeake
Bay only a small fraction of what it once was and what it could be. As
Will Baker, President of CBF, said when we released the report: ``The
Bay will never again reach the pristine levels of the past. But we
think a Bay with a value of 70 percent is achievable. The State of the
Bay Report provides a reference point for how far we have fallen and
how far we have to go to reach a reasonable level of health for this
marvelous body of water.''
But there is good news. Mr. Baker also concluded the following:
``The work of public agencies and private groups and individuals is
beginning to show small signs of success. The Bay experienced a steady
downward trend in health, but it has stabilized and begun slowly
improving. On balance, the Bay is in somewhat better shape than it was
15 years ago.'' Mr. Chairman, for the Bay to be even slightly better
off than it was 15 years ago, in the face of the pressures of
population growth during that period, is nothing short of remarkable.
And it owes that improvement, in no small measure, to the hard work of
the dedicated individuals from both the public and private sector led
by the Chesapeake Bay Program. We believe that we have stopped the
decline, and can now truly talk about restoring the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has been described as a national and
international model of a cooperative ecosystem restoration program. It
brings together Federal, State, and local government officials under a
cooperative management umbrella in unique fashion. The relatively
modest amount of Federal dollars devoted directly to the Chesapeake Bay
Program through the EPA are leveraged many times over other Federal,
State, local, and private dollars. We at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
have been critical of the Bay Program in the past, and I am quite
confident we will be critical of it in the future. I'm sure you would
be surprised and disappointed if we weren't. It is too slow, too
cumbersome, too bureaucratic. CBF is impatient, and it is our job to
push as hard and as fast as we can. Yet our impatience with the Bay
Program is also a measure of our respect--we expect nothing less than
the best from it. It has never been ``just another government
program,'' and we intend to make sure that it continues to strive for
the highest goals, not the lowest common denominator.
The Bay Program has done a lot for the Bay since the 80's. At the
present time, it is in the process of challenging itself once more to
develop goals and objectives for the next decade and beyond. We will be
urging the Program to set lofty goals, and we will be working hard to
help achieve them. But to do the work of Saving the Bay, we need a
solid framework for the Bay Program. S. 492, the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act of 1999 provides such a framework. It reauthorizes the
Chesapeake Bay Program, providing it with the institutional resources
necessary to carry out such an enormous task. We are pleased to see
that it includes mechanisms to ensure good public accounting of its
actions and expenditures. CBF believes that such public accounting
mechanisms are essential to ensure public confidence in its government
leaders.
We are also excited to see the new section on small watershed
grants, that will enable local government and community groups to help
engage in active restoration. Such on the ground activities have two
major benefits: first, they produce tangible results that benefit the
Bay. Second, they produce expanded constituencies for Bay restoration.
It is for this reason that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has committed
itself to spending $10 million in privately raised dollars to restore
oysters, wetlands, streamside buffers, and underwater grasses,
leveraging the dollars and efforts of government agencies and private
agencies throughout the watershed. However, CBF is only one of the many
organizations spending time and resources on Bay restoration under the
umbrella of the Bay Program. On behalf of all of those individuals and
groups who are not here today, I urge you to move rapidly to approve S.
492, so that the effort to Save the Bay can continue with renewed
energy and momentum on into the next century.
I would also like to take a few minutes to comment on some of the
other legislation before you today. In particular, we would like to
thank Senator Chafee for introducing and working for passage of S. 835,
the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999. CBF is part of
Restore America's Estuaries (RAE), a coalition of 11 regional
environmental organizations that all have estuary protection and
restoration at the core of their missions. Will Baker currently serves
as chairman of RAE, and testified last week on behalf of a similar
piece of legislation introduced by Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, a
tireless worker on behalf of the Chesapeake. We would like to thank the
members of both bodies, from both parties, who recognize that restoring
the nation's bays and sounds is of critical importance to the health of
the nation's environment and economy. Others are testifying about S.
835 today; let me just add my voice to urge you all to move swiftly to
pass it.
Finally, I would like to join my colleagues on this panel in urging
you to support passage of a B.E.A.C.H. Bill in this Congress, as well
as legislation that would strengthen the implementation of plans
developed by estuaries as part of the National Estuary Program.
The common thread through all the legislation before you today is
clear. It has to do with the places we call home. The Chesapeake Bay is
our home. Even if we live miles from its shore, it is part of what
makes this whole region 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. We need to do the same in all of
the nation's estuaries and coastal areas. I urge you to help us by
passing the important legislation before you today. Thank you for
holding this hearing on these important issues, and for providing me
the opportunity to speak to you today.
______
Responses by Michael Hirshfield to Questions From Senator Chafee
Question 1a. The State of the Bay report gave the Bay a rating of
27 out of 100 points for health, and your testimony indicated that a
score of 70 out of 100 was achievable. At our current progress, how
long will it take us to reach 70?
Answer. At our current progress, we are not confident that we will
ever reach a goal of 70. CBF believes we can only reach a level of 70
if we dramatically change how we deal with pollution, habitat, and
fisheries management issues in the Bay watershed. However, we believe
that reaching a goal of 70 by 2050 is possible if we make the necessary
changes.
Question 1b. One of the important components of the Bay Program was
the establishment of numerical goals to measure progress and
improvement. Is the Program on track to meet those goals in the
specified time frame?
Answer. The most important goal-reducing nutrients by 40% by the
year 2000-will not be met on schedule, although the Program will come
close. However, this is only an interim goal, and is not the amount
necessary to truly restore the Bay.
Question 2a. One of the most serious threats to the Bay is the
change in land use. Between 1985 and 1997, the Chesapeake Basin lost
263, 000 acres of forests and wetlands while urban and suburban land
increased by 413, 000 acres. In addition, the number of vehicle miles
traveled was four times the rate of population growth, indicating that
people are moving farther away from the cities. In the face of
population growth and expansion, will the measures contemplated by the
Bay program result in an environmental improvement in Bay conditions,
or simply lessen the impact of population growth and expansion?
Answer. The measures currently contemplated by the Bay Program will
ultimately only slow the rate of decline in the face of population
growth unless major changes are made.
Question 2b. What additional measures does the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation suggest the Bay Program implement to further improve Bay
restoration and protection efforts?
Answer. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is in the process of
developing a plan of action for the year 2010 that we believe would
take the Bay to a value of roughly 50% by that date. We believe that,
if the actions recommended in this plan are taken, the framework will
be set in place for restoring the Bay to 70 by mid century. We will be
happy to provide the committee with a copy of this action plan when it
is finalized.
__________
Statement of Len Bahr, Executive Assistant To The Governor,
State of Louisiana
On behalf of Governor Mike Foster and the State of Louisiana I
would like to express our thanks to the Committee and the Chairman for
inviting us to appear today to share our thoughts on several matters of
vital interest to the State of Louisiana and the Nation. My name is Len
Bahr and I am Executive Assistant to the Governor. Governor Foster
could not be here today and he has asked me to appear in his stead.
The first matter I would like to address today is of paramount
importance to us and that is the reauthorization of a truly landmark
piece of legislation, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act, or the Breaux Act, as we call it in Louisiana.
To understand the importance of the Breaux Act and its
reauthorization, it is vital to understand the problem it was intended
to address and that was the calamitous loss of coastal wetlands and
barrier shorelines that are so vital to our national interest. The
Breaux Act recognized two indisputable facts. First that these lands
are essential to our ecological, cultural, and economic well being, and
second, that regulatory and education programs alone are not sufficient
to ensure their sustainability. In short, it recognized that an active
coastal restoration campaign was essential. We strongly agree.
Louisiana has 25 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands, 40 percent
of its salt marshes, and has experienced 80 percent of this nation's
coastal wetland loss.
The Breaux Act benefits all coastal States but I will focus my
comments on its role in the survival and stewardship of the lower
Mississippi River Delta Complex and the Chenier Plain. This includes
all of coastal Louisiana south of Interstate 10.
Prior to the passage of the Breaux Act in 1990, coastal Louisiana
was in a state of collapse. Worse, there was no realistic prospect of
saving it. The legacy of decades of leveeing, dredging, and draining--
often incident to Federal policies and programs--was a coast in which
the hydrology had been so altered that land was disappearing at a rate
of nearly 40 square miles per year.
In 1989 the State of Louisiana took the unprecedented step of
creating a multi-agency coastal wetlands restoration authority within
the Governor's office and creating a dedicated trust fund to support
its work. But the complexity and enormity of the challenge demanded a
true national effort--State and Federal--if the tide of land loss was
to be stemmed.
With the enactment of the Breaux Act all of that changed. This Act
forged a working partnership, not only between the State and the
Federal Government, but also among Federal agencies that had a long
history of working at cross purposes. In its 9-year history, the Breaux
Act has been responsible for unprecedented partnering, comprehensive
planning--most notably the recently completed Coast 2050 Plan--and the
development and implementation of a generation of restoration and
protection projects that have significantly reduced the rate of land
loss.
This view is borne out by the following facts:
(1) During the first 8 years following enactment of the Breaux Act,
the Federal/State restoration task force has approved about 85
projects. Approximately 60 percent of these projects have been
completed or are under construction. The remainder of approved projects
are in various stages of planning and design. These projects are
expected to result in a 15 percent reduction in coastal land loss over
the next 20 years.
(2) The Breaux Act has created a working partnership between and
among five Federal agencies, the State of Louisiana, local governments,
landowners, business, and interest groups.
(3) It has garnered an extraordinary level of public support, as
shown by the passage of two constitutional amendments facilitating
coastal restoration.
(4) It has spurred the development and dissemination of scientific
and technical information about the nature of the land loss problem and
its potential solution.
(5) It is responsible for the development of ``Coast 2050,'' a
blueprint for recreating a sustainable coast in 50 years that has had
extraordinary success at achieving consensus at Federal, State and
local levels. A copy of the executive summary of this plan has been
submitted for the record.
(6) It has spawned a recently completed major feasibility study of
restoring the system of barrier shorelines along the most threatened
part of our coast.
(7) The Breaux Act plans and partnership have been the bases for
the State of Louisiana's recent commitment of significant additional
funds to the restoration effort, to ensure the State's ability to be a
true and effective partner with the Federal Government.
(8) This partnership has produced benefits that go far beyond
simply developing coastal restoration projects. It has, for example,
increased the effectiveness of all agency regulatory and resource
management programs by focusing the agencies on a common set of goals
and objectives for the coastal area.
(9) Our initial small-scale river diversion projects are proving to
be especially effective. We are currently awaiting the completion of a
major feasibility study of diverting flow from the Mississippi River at
a number of different sites into coastal marshes that are desperately
in need of nourishment.
This history of success warrants extension. But as impressive as is
its history, the true measure of the Breaux Act is much more than a
list of milestones. The Breaux Act is best measured by the hope it has
given and the foundation it has created. The Breaux Act has provided a
true sense of collective responsibility for the stewardship of a vital
national treasure. It is the foundation upon which all future work will
build. It has worked well but it has much more work to do. The State of
Louisiana and Governor Foster strongly urge you to allow this work to
continue. It is vital to us ally Simply put, there is no substitute for
reauthorizing this seminal piece of legislation.
In addition to the reauthorization of the Breaux Act, we would like
to urge your support of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
Act. This bill would authorize a program that would complement the
Breaux Act and the National Estuary Program. It would authorize a
nonregulatory competitive grant program that would broaden the
partnering circle to include local governments, land owners and
interest groups, as well as focusing on estuarine habitats of all
types--wetlands, submerged grass beds, reefs and others. It is well
conceived, implementable, cost effective and much needed.
Again, we thank you for inviting us to share our experience with
the Committee and we would be pleased to offer any further assistance
as you consider these and other matters.
______
Responses by Len Bahr to Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. According to your testimony, the hydrology in Louisiana
has been altered so much that land was disappearing at a rate of 40-
square miles per year. Under the Breaux Act, Louisiana has developed a
conservation plan. The goal of the plan is no net wetlands loss. You
also indicated that the 85 restoration projects approved under the
Breaux Act should reduce coastal land loss by 15 percent over the next
20 years.
Answer. Since the turn of the century Louisiana has lost about
1,500 square miles of prime coastal wetlands and, as shown in Coast
2050, we are projected to lose approximately another 1,000 square miles
within the next fifty years unless we take effective action. During the
1960's the coast of Louisiana was disappearing at the rate of from 40-
to 50-square miles per year but the rate has slowed to about 30 square
miles per year, according to the most recent estimate (see answer 1b).
This decline in the rate of loss is related to the fact that the most
easily eroded land disappeared first. It also reflects a much more
protective coastal management program, which has been particularly
effective in reducing wetland losses from oil and gas production
activities, both onshore and offshore in Federal waters.
It is important to note that the conservation plan developed under
the Breaux Act involves Louisiana's commitment to a condition of no-
net-loss of coastal wetland values due to permitted actions. In recent
times, unavoidable permitted loss of Louisiana coastal wetland area has
closely tracked changes in oil and gas production activity. This loss
in wetland area declined significantly from 1986 to 1995, and currently
averages about 400 acres lost per year, mostly the impact of large
pipelines recently constructed across the coast from offshore
production facilities on the outer continental shelf. This permitted
loss of 400 acres per year (0.6 square mile), is only one fiftieth of
the 30 square miles of annual losses from ``natural'' causes, such as
subsidence and increasing salinity. In addition, under the Conservation
Plan, this unavoidable loss of coastal wetland area is currently being
mitigated one-for-one in terms of its wetland value.
Question 1a. What type of land is being lost?
Answer. The landforms that are being lost consist primarily of low
lying coastal wetlands but also include ridges, natural levees of
former river distributaries and barrier islands and shorelines. The
wetlands include swamp forest, freshwater marsh, brackish marsh and
salt marsh, with all the values and functions documented for prime
wetlands, including critical habitat and nursery zones for fish and
wildlife. Most of these wetlands stay wet year 'round and would never
be described as developable. In addition to their habitat value, these
disappearing landforms serve as the vital first line of defense against
hurricane surges for people and infrastructure.
Question 1b. What is the current rate of loss in coastal Louisiana?
How much land do you expect to lose over the next 20 years?
Answer. The most recent calculations carried out under the auspices
of the Breaux Act and reported in Coast 2050 indicate that coastal
landforms in Louisiana are currently being lost at an average rate of
about 30 square miles per year. In the absence of offsetting action,
this rate would be expected to continue for the next 20 years,
resulting in a projected loss of another 500 square miles by the year
2020.
Question 1c. What kind of resources would you need to actually
begin gaining land?
Answer. The Coast 2050 plan, the executive summary of which was
distributed to the Committee, includes an estimated ``price tag'' of
$14 billion to be expended over the next thirty years. Although this
number is imprecise, it reflects the best current estimate of the cost
of approaching an overall no-net-loss of coastal wetlands situation,
which would be sustainable into the future.
Question 2. Under the Breaux Act, funding for wetlands restoration
projects is divided among 3 different programs: the Louisiana Wetlands
Program, the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Grants and the North American
Wetlands Program. The funding is allocated so that 70 percent goes to
Louisiana, 15 percent goes to the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Grants
and 15 percent goes to the North American Wetlands Programs. In 1998,
Louisiana received $44 million for wetlands restoration projects.
Question 2a. Why should Louisiana receive such a large share of
Federal wetlands funding?
Answer. Of all the coastal wetlands in the lower forty-eight
States, 40 percent are located in south Louisiana. Unfortunately, 80
percent of the loss of the Nation's coastal wetlands is occurring
within Louisiana. This problem is clearly national in scope. For
example: (1) about 90 percent of the fisheries harvested in the entire
Gulf of Mexico spend part of their life cycle in Louisiana estuaries;
(2) the major waterfowl migration flyways of North America depend on
Louisiana's coastal marshes; (3) about 90 percent of the oil and gas
produced in the Gulf of Mexico flows through coastal Louisiana--and as
the coast retreats the pipelines and transfer equipment become
increasingly at risk of rupture with devastating spills reminiscent of
the Exxon Valdes incident; (4) Louisiana's ports, which lead the Nation
in tonnage shipped (450 million tons per year), are also at risk from a
deteriorating coast; and (5) a unique culture, $100 billion worth of
infrastructure and the entire city of New Orleans are becoming
increasingly vulnerable to hurricane damage--and subject to Federal
disaster claims.
Question 2b. How much funding has the State of Louisiana
contributed to wetlands restoration programs over the last 9 years?
Answer. As shown in the following table, Louisiana has invested
$193.6 million directly for coastal restoration (wetlands and barrier
shorelines) during the past decade,\1\ compared to about $319.1 million
in Federal dollars ($232 million from the Breaux Act and $87.1 from the
Water Resources Development Act). This means that our State has so far
invested 38 percent of the total contribution to coastal restoration in
Louisiana. The State contribution is especially noteworthy when one
considers that Louisiana is not a wealthy State. Our average annual
State investment of $19.4 million represents what could be called a
significant ``citizens' fiscal burden,'' over a tenth of a percent of
our relatively modest total State budget of about $14 billion. This
provides solid evidence of the State's willingness to do our fair share
to reverse a problem that is partly the result of Federal initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data shown are for the past 10 years, rather than the 9 years
since the Breaux Act was signed into law by President Bush. This
represents the entire life of Louisiana's dedicated coastal restoration
fund since 1989, when the State adopted its own coastal restoration
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These itemized direct costs for coastal restoration in Louisiana
during the past decade do not reflect the very high indirect costs to
the State from increased flooding from the Gulf of Mexico due to
coastal deterioration. Typical examples totaling over $28 million
within the past 2 years include: (1) $5 million spent to repair State
highways 1 and 308, critical north-south hurricane evacuation routes;
(2) $5.9 million spent to raise State highway 47 in Chalmette; (3) $7.5
million earmarked to raise State highway 90 between Raceland and des
Allemands, which submerges during strong south winds; (it should be
noted that both highway raising projects were necessitated by the loss
of buffer marshes, resulting in higher storm surges); (4) $3-$4 million
is allocated to shore up State highway 82, the last bulwark on a
retreating shoreline at Holly Beach; and (5) $6.3 million has been
spent for critical projects at Grand Isle, the only inhabited barrier
island in Louisiana and the site of one of our very few public beaches.
Financing Coastal Restoration in Louisiana
[July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Dollars in
millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Financial Contribution to Coastal Restoration:
Total Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Fund Income 203.4
(July 1, 1989 through present; funded from oil and gas
severance taxes and fees).................................
Minus Projected Balance at 6/30/99......................... -9.8
Total State Investment From July 1, 1989 through June 30, 193.6
1999....................................................
Federal Financial Contribution to Coastal Restoration:
Breaux Act Priority Projects (Lists 1-7)................... 232.0
Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion Project (WRDA)............. 8.4
Davis pond Freshwater Diversion Project (WRDA)............. 78.7
Total Federal Investment................................. 319.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is the fund status report from the State
Treasurer. The sum of the 3 numbers underlined, $203.4 million,
represents the total income to the Louisiana Coastal Wetland
Restoration Fund during this period. The amount of $9.8 million is the
balance in the fund on June 30, 1999.
Also attached is the project summary report by priority
project list prepared by the Corps of Engineers. The amount of $232.0
million represents the Federal construction funds available for Breaux
Act priority project lists 1 through 7.
The amount of Federal support for the Caernarvon
Freshwater Diversion Project (WRDA), $8.4 million, is that portion of
the project paid for from the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration
Fund during the period of this analysis.
The amount of Federal support for the Davis Pond
Freshwater Diversion Project (WRDA), $78.7 million, is predicated on a
total project cost of $105 million.
In summary, the State of Louisiana has contributed $193.6
million of the $512.7 million total direct costs of coastal
restoration, or 38 percent of the 10 year investment in coastal
restoration.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
[Project Summary Report by Priority List]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Non/Fed.
No. of CSA Under Const. construction construction Baseline Current Obligations Expenditures
P/L projects Acres executed const. completed Funds funds estimate estimate to date to date
available available
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................. 14 19,249 13 2 14 $28,084,900 $8,491,653 $39,933,317 $47,397,140 $22,351,369 $19,124,014
2............................................................. 15 13,373 15 1 10 28,173,110 10,019,903 40,644,134 56,819,161 34,438,410 38,033,515
3............................................................. 13 12,937 13 3 7 29,939,100 8,258,759 35,050,606 47,556,243 28,994,233 21,407,051
4............................................................. 8 2,387 7 2 1 29,957,533 2,663,379 13,924,366 17,870,123 9,847,867 2,219,950
5............................................................. 9 5,063 7 1 2 33,371,625 4,719,891 60,962,963 47,188,907 22,740,609 5,719,271
6............................................................. 11 10,538 7 3 0 39,134,000 5,631,169 54,614,991 56,257,068 14,025,982 774,172
7............................................................. 4 1,855 3 1 0 42,540,715 2,111,048 21,090,051 21,245,982 3,367,075 35,952
8............................................................. 6 2,324 0 0 0 41,864,079 3,541,176 16,435,508 16,435,508 1,561,725 10,447
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active projects............................................... 80 67,726 65 13 31 273,065,062 45,436,978 282,655,936 310,770,132 137,327,269 87,324,373
Deauthorized projects......................................... 11 312 5 0 2 ............ ............ 21,789,087 552,848 1,033,216 920,240
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total projects.............................................. 91 68,038 70 13 33 273,065,062 45,436,978 304,445,023 311,322,980 138,360,486 88,244,618
Conservation plan............................................. 1 0 1 0 1 ............ ............ 238,871 238,871 179,153 143,855
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total construction program.................................. 92 68,038 71 13 34 273,065,062 45,436,978 304,683,894 311,561,851 138,539,639 88,388,468
....... ........ ....... ......... 318,50 ............ ........... ........... ........... ............
2,040
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands Conservation Fund
[049-00071]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fiscal Accumulated
For Fiscal Years Deposits Interest Donations Other year revenue Expenditures balance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY89-90:............................ 5,000,000.00 165,187.00 ............ .............. 5,165,187.00 ................ 5,165,187.00
FY90-91:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 744,304.00 4,000.00 .............. ............... ................ ................
90-91............................. 10,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. 15,737,304.00 8,244,083.84 12,658,407.16
FY91-92:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
90-91............................. 20,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
91-92............................. 10,000,000.00 1,399,382.00 163,250.00 66,386.55 36,629,018.55 11,388,183.09 ................
Per Year Exp Adj.................. ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... (423.64) 37,899,666.26
FY92-93:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
91-92............................... 10,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
92-93............................. 10,000,000.00 1,399,726.00 61,520.00 184,891.00 26,586,137.00 8,905,605.68 ................
Per Year Exp Adj.................. ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... (52,571.83) 55,632,769.41
FY93-94:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
92-93............................. 10,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
93-94............................. 10,000,000.00 1,763,680.00 20,251.46 1,009.62 26,784,941.08 18,439,551.36 ................
Per Year Exp Adj.................. ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... (110,177.07) 64,088,336.20
FY94-95:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
93-94............................. 10,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
94-95............................. ............... 3,597,149.00 100,216.58 17,264.34 18,714,629.92 10,903,482.52 ................
Per Year Rev Adj.................. ............... .............. ............ 190,483.24 190,483.24 ................ 72,089,966.84
FY95-96:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
94-95............................. 0.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
95-96............................. ............... 3,739,561.00 12,318.85 15,956.13 8,767,835.98 16,106,489.61 ................
Per Year Adj...................... ............... .............. ............ 230,032.85 230,032.85 ................ 64,981,346.06
FY96-97:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
95-96............................. 10,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
96-97............................. ............... 3,744,752.00 104,785.28 11,773.47 ............... ................ ................
Tran from SGF Act 11.............. ............... .............. ............ 7,800,000.00 26,661,310.75 13,074,944.57 ................
Per Year Adj...................... ............... .............. ............ 954,720.32 954,720.32 ................ 79,522,432.56
FY97-98:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
96-97............................. 20,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
97-98............................. ............... 5,062,754.21 873,113.08 12,921.18 30,948,788.47 32,199,794.50 88,020,804.33
Per Year Adj...................... ............... .............. ............ 9,749,377.80 9,749,377.80 ................ ................
FY98-99:
Initial........................... 5,000,000.00 .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
97-98............................. ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ ................
98-99............................. ............... 4,141,257.00 744,167.88 9,594.80 9,895,019.68 16,580,174.40 81,928,096.70
Per Year Adj...................... ............... .............. ............ 592,447.09 592,447.09 ................ ................
Total--Inception to date........ 170,000,000.00 25,686,752.21 2,083,623.13 19,836,858.39 217,607,233.73 135,679,137.03 81,928,096.70
Deposits............................ ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... 170,000,000.00 ................
Less expenditures................... ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... (135,679,137.03) ................
Encumbrances........................ ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... ?? ................
Net mineral revenue................. ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... 34,320,862.97 ................
Adjusted Fund Balance............... ............... .............. ............ .............. ............... ................ 81,928,096.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Statement of Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
introduction
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
for the record on S. 835, your Coastal Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act of 1999, and S. 1119, to continue funding of the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.
noaa and estuary habitat restoration
I appreciate the Committee's leadership in focusing on the needs to
protect of the Nation's estuarine and coastal resources. Estuaries are
an important part of our Nation's economic and environmental well-
being. These special coastal places provide habitat for many important
species, act as nature's water treatment system, provide flood control
and protection against storm damage, and are wonderful recreational
areas. Estuaries and coastal wetlands also provide essential habitat
for 80-90 percent of the recreational fish catch and 75 percent of the
commercial harvest. Despite their importance, these natural systems are
in trouble. Estuaries are suffering from water quality problems,
declining habitat quality, and, in some areas, total habit loss. We
desperately need to restore these areas to help replace habitat that
fish, marine mammals and endangered species need to survive.
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Realizing the importance of our Nation's estuaries, Congress
established the National Estuarine Research Reserve System in 1972 to
improve the health of estuaries and coastal habitats. This Federal/
State partnership has proven successful at managing some of our
Nation's most pristine estuaries.
Today, there are 24 Reserves, with a 25th to be designated later
this year in Florida and two more will be added in 2000, one in
California, the other in upstate New York. Reserves are operated by 20
States and one territory, stretching along the East Coast from Wells,
Maine, to Jobos Bay in Puerto Rico, and along the West Coast to the
Tijuana River in California to Kachemak Bay, Alaska. Through the work
of expert staff, monitoring and education programs, and onsite labs,
NOAA has developed an innovative partnership with the coastal States
that has resulted in improved management of nearly one million acres of
estuarine waters and lands.
Earlier this year, the President announced his $1 billion Lands
Legacy Initiative to expand Federal efforts to save America's natural
treasures. The initiative includes a $14.7 million increase to improve
the Reserve System. This increase would enhance the protection of
critical estuaries by providing funds to States and communities for the
acquisition of lands in and around the existing Reserves. Funds will
also be used to improve management capabilities and upgrade facilities
at these sites.
Although the Reserves represent some of the Nation's most valuable
and least disturbed estuaries, restoration in both the Reserves System
and estuaries around the Nation is essential in order to protect these
biologically diverse resources. To date many of the Reserves, have
undertaken innovative restoration science projects. For example, the
Chesapeake Bay Reserve in Maryland is working to address erosion and
habitat loss. Areas of the Chesapeake Bay region are severely eroding
due to the impacts of sea level rise. In an effort to deter erosion the
Reserve is currently evaluating Maryland's policies concerning the
removal of invasive marsh grasses, a traditional restoration practice.
Research has shown that these grasses may prevent erosion. The Reserve
will conduct a workshop and the resulting recommendations may be used
to evaluate and revise current State policies relating to salt marsh
grass management in certain regions around the Chesapeake Bay.
In addition, the South Slough Reserve near Coos Bay, Oregon, has
conducted restoration activities at two sites that were experiencing
significant subsidence and erosion. By redistributing organic material
over the surface of the marsh, the Reserve was able to re-establish the
sites' original elevations, tidal flushing, and tidal and freshwater
channels utilized by salmon and other fish populations. Indicators of
healthy marsh ecosystems, such as water quality, abundance of marsh
grasses and fish species, and sedimentation and erosion rates were
monitored at all the restored sites. Experimental plots are being
designed to examine different techniques for developing habitat for
salmon and other fish.
To further improve our Nation's estuaries, NOAA and the University
of New Hampshire established the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and
Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). CICEET serves as a
national center for the development and application of innovative
technology to restore and improve estuaries and provides NOAA with a
mechanism to work with State and local communities as well as academia.
CICEET uses the Reserves as living laboratories and is currently
supporting several projects that apply innovative technologies to
coastal habitat restoration.
Fishery Habitat Restoration
The President's Lands Legacy Initiative also includes $22.7 million
in new money for Fishery Habitat Restoration. This important initiative
is designed to increase the restoration of marine and fish habitat,
including estuary restoration. NOAA has experience in both small and
largescale restoration at the community level through our Community
Based Restoration Program and at the regional level. The Fishery
Habitat Restoration initiative represents both small and large scales
of restoration implementation with Federal Agencies working with
States, local governments, private organizations and landowners to
accomplish voluntary restoration of our nation's valuable marine
habitats. NOAA urges any legislative initiative to recognize the
benefits of both large and small scale restoration and strongly points
to the need for full partnership with local communities, State and
Federal Governments and other stakeholders.
Restoring Estuaries Through Trusteeship
As a primary trustee for coastal and marine resources, NOAA is
responsible for protecting and restoring trust resources injured by
releases of oil or other hazardous substances. Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), the
Oil Pollution Act, and the Clean Water Act, NOAA has recovered funds
from responsible parties for restoring damaged estuaries.
NOAA works at hazardous waste sites with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under Superfund and with other lead cleanup
agencies to develop remedies that protect coastal resources, and
support habitats and human health. NOAA's Coastal Resource Coordination
program works at approximately 260 hazardous waste sites a year, about
75 percent of which affect estuaries. Several on-going protection and
restoration efforts in estuarine environments include the Tulalip
Landfill in Puget Sound in Washington, the Army Creek site in the
Delaware Estuary, the Bailey Waste Landfill in Texas, and the Conoco
site in the Calcasieu Estuary in Louisiana.
NOAA's Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) restores
coastal and marine resources injured by releases of oil and other
hazardous materials. Since its inception, DARP and its partners have
generated more than $230 million for the restoration of coastal
resources from those responsible for the damage. NOAA's unique
interdisciplinary approach to natural resource damage assessment and
restoration was shaped by more than 10 years of assessing injured
coastal and marine resources, including those affected by the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in March 1989.
DARP is currently working on a number of natural resource damage
assessments in estuarine environments, including the Calcasieu Estuary,
Commencement Bay in Washington, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, and
Lavaca Bay in Texas. Funds recovered through the damage assessment
process are used to restore injured coastal and marine resources. Most
of these restoration projects are completed in our Nation's estuaries
through cooperation with both Federal and State resource agencies. This
experience has reiterated the importance of partnerships and the
absolute need to document restoration success for the benefit of
further restoration efforts.
These natural resource trustee activities ensure that coastal
resources are protected and restored following releases of oil and
other hazardous materials, resulting in more productive and diverse
estuarine habitat for fish and wildlife, cleaner waters, and healthier
ecosystems.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
Another program, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Program provides critical funding and support
for the restoration, protection, conservation and enhancement of
threatened wetlands in the Louisiana coastal zone. NOAA and other
participating Federal and State agencies have the opportunity to plan
and implement large scale coastal wetlands restoration projects that
are significant on a local and national level. Forging partnerships
with State agencies such as the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources and local parish governments has proven critical to the
success of restoration projects and has resulted in the award of
funding for 17 restoration projects totaling over $65 million designed
to address the rapid loss of Louisiana's wetlands. CWPPRA provides the
hope of sustaining a resource that is important to the economic,
recreational and cultural base of the State and region.
As required by CWPPRA, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
established a Task Force composed of EPA, the Department of Commerce,
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the
State of Louisiana. The Task Force annually prepares and submits to
Congress a project priority list of wetland restoration projects in
Louisiana. The site selection process is based on the proposed
project's technical (scientific) merit, cost effectiveness, and
predicted wetland quantity and quality. The Task Force was responsible
for the preparation of a comprehensive coastal Restoration Plan for the
State of Louisiana which was completed at the end of 1993. The Plan
provides much of the basis for selecting future restoration projects.
Each CWPPRA project requires the sponsorship of a Federal agency
Task Force member for implementation. the Act uses a trust fund, which
is supported by revenues from tax receipts on small engines and other
equipment. Of the amount appropriated from this fund, 70 percent (an
amount not to exceed $70 million annually) is available for wetland
restoration projects and associated activities in Louisiana. While some
70 percent of the funds available under CWPPRA are dedicated to
restoring Louisiana wetlands, it is important to note that project
selection is still based on merit criteria. CWPPRA mandates a cost-
share of 85 percent Federal funds to 15 percent State funds for all
Louisiana projects. To provide a special incentive for comprehensive
planning, CWPPRA permits a lower cost for the State after the Task
force approves a coastal plan for restoration. The State complies with
this mandate by using the money in the State Coastal Restoration Trust
Fund created in 1989.
Our experience with CWPPRA has been excellent both in terms of its
operational principles and resulting restoration success. Any new
estuarine restoration legislation that emulates the planning,
organizational and implementation of CWPPRA in the State of Louisiana
would establish an excellent framework for duplicating the success of
the CWPPRA in other coastal environments.
In wetland restoration, is it is not necessarily the number of
acres of habitat restored that indicates success. Rather, the true goal
of any estuarine restoration program is to ensure the quality and long-
term viability of the restored estuary.
s. 835 coastal estuary habitat restoration partnership act of 1999
National estuary habitat restoration legislation represents an
excellent opportunity to further progress in promoting estuarine
habitat restoration. NOAA has much to add to a National Estuary habitat
restoration program particularly in the areas of research and
monitoring. NOAA supports a number of provisions found in S. 835, the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.
Area Restoration Plans--NOAA supports the priority given
to restoration in areas that have restoration plans currently in place.
These plans, which identify restoration goals, sites and priorities
within a region, need to be based on sound science; scientists would be
able to determine which efforts will most benefit the ecosystem, and
fit best within the socioeconomic trends of the area and concerns of
its citizens.
Achieving the goal of Estuarine Health--NOAA also supports
the priority given to estuarine areas and watersheds that already have
strong and effective programs to manage point and nonpoint pollution
sources and other activities that can significantly impact estuarine
areas. These programs will help ensure the long-term success of the
restoration activities.
Collaborative Decision-Making--NOAA supports a
collaborative approach to decisionmaking for funding restoration
projects as established by the Council, and believes the Council will
improve cooperation among Federal agencies. NOAA strongly supports the
provision of appointing a Council member to have lead responsibility
for overseeing and assisting others in implementing restoration
projects. This technique has been used under CWPPRA with a result of
enhanced collaborative efforts and joint responsibility between Federal
Agencies and the local project sponsors for restoration success. NOAA
would like to request a clarification that Collaborative Council
members can enter into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with project
applicants. NOAA believes it is very important that Federal agencies,
not just the Collaborative Council, be able to enter into these MOUs.
Balanced Approach to Funding--Funding, as proposed in S.
835, ensures an appropriate blend of restoration projects. NOAA would
suggest, however, that the Great Lake States and the island territories
and commonwealths (American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas
Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) also be
eligible for the grants as they have important estuarine habitats that
need restoration.
Monitoring--NOAA also is pleased by the bill's strong
commitment to monitoring the success of restoration projects. We need
to ensure consistent and comparable monitoring at various sites to
measure the success of the program as a whole. NOAA supports the
development of standard data formats while allowing for site-specific
flexibility. Such protocols should recommend a suitable long-term
monitoring period that may extend for periods of 20 years or more.
Data Collection and Management--NOAA's experience in
restoration science has repeatedly highlighted the need for detailed
regional restoration planning and follow-up monitoring and data
management. NOAA believes data management is an important aspect of any
National Program and we are pleased to see its inclusion in S. 835.
While NOAA is supportive of S. 835 overall, I would like to
recommend some areas where the bill could be strengthened.
Research--Vital estuarine ecological research needs to be
supported to promote adaptive management in the field. We recommend
funding for innovative projects that combine restoration with research
and development. Such projects promote the development of new, state-
of-the art restoration techniques and technologies. One mechanism to
ensure that such projects are funded is the establishment of a set
aside of funds for this purpose by the Council.
Regional advisory members for the Collaborative Council--
NOAA recommends that the Collaborative Council be expanded to include
regional representatives of States and private organizations with a
strong interest in estuaries restoration to help ensure that the
projects selected will meet local priorities. These persons, one
representing each region, would be advisory members of the
Collaborative Council. NOAA has made the same recommendation with
regard to H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act,
and the involved Federal agencies are providing drafting assistance on
this point. The agencies would like to offer the same assistance to the
drafters of S. 835.
Consultation with State Coastal Zone Management programs--
Consultation with State Coastal Zone Management programs should be
mandatory to ensure consistency with State CZM policies, especially
during development of State or local restoration strategies and during
reviews of locally or privately sponsored project proposals.
Consultation with State CZM programs will result in a more streamlined
process.
s. 1119, coastal wetland planning, protection, and restoration act
NOAA strongly supports the re-authorization of funding for CWPPRA,
as stated in S. 1119, to continue the important estuarine restoration
efforts described earlier in this testimony. Continued funding for this
important program is needed if we are to slow down the coastal wetland
losses in the highly productive Louisiana coastal zone.
conclusion
In conclusion, NOAA has expertise and scientific capability to
assist in making sound decisions about estuarine habitat restoration.
The primary lesson we have learned from our restoration activities is
the importance of partnerships, strong science and long-term monitoring
to achieve successful estuarine restoration.
S. 835 and S. 1119 provide a strong basis for coastal habitat
restoration. NOAA's expertise in estuarine restoration implementation,
science and monitoring can help achieve the goals of S. 835 as it is
now achieving the goals of the CWPPRA program. We look forward to
working with the Committee to improve this important legislation.
I believe the Committee has taken an important step forward in
addressing these important issues by holding this hearing today. I
applaud the Committee's leadership and commitment to protecting our
Nation's estuarine and coastal resources. We look forward to working
with you to restore the Nation's estuaries.
__________
Statement of Howard Marlowe, President, American Coastal Coalition
American Coastal Coalition is delighted that the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works is holding this hearing on H.R. 999,
Beaches Environmental Awareness, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999. This
bill unanimously passed the House of Representatives two months ago. We
are hopeful that it will be approved by this Committee and swiftly
brought to the floor so that its benefits will be felt by the public no
later than the beach season in 2000.
Beaches are the top vacation destination for both Americans and
foreign tourists. They are part of the nation's coastal infrastructure,
which is visited each year by over 180 million people who enjoy its
recreational opportunities. Coastal tourism is an economic engine that
supports over 28 million jobs and leads to investments of over $50
billion in goods and services. To a significant extent, this tourism
would not exist were it not for the lure of America's coastal
environment. Beaches, water, plants, and fish are a portion of that
environmental infrastructure. To the extent that public confidence in
that infrastructure declines, so does coastal tourism. They are
directly linked.
The American Coastal Coalition believes that many states and local
government agencies have taken steps to monitor beach water quality.
Their efforts deserve to be commended and supported so they are using
the most current standards and testing equipment. Unfortunately, not
all States monitor their coastal recreation waters to ensure compliance
with water quality standards for pathogens.
The BEACHES Bill (H.R. 999) requires States to incorporate water
quality criteria for pathogens in coastal recreation waters into their
water quality standards within 3\1/2\ years so that the State standards
are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. States and
local governments would be able to get grant money to develop and
implement programs to monitor for pathogens in coastal recreation
waters and to notify the public, local government officials, and EPA,
of when those criteria are exceeded.
We are, of course, deeply concerned about the numerous reports of
beach closings due to water contamination. The American Coastal
Coalition believes that congressional passage of H.R. 999 will help to
reduce the number of these closings while also increasing public
awareness of waters that may not be safe to enter.
It is appropriate, however, that we make it clear to Congress and
the public that better testing and monitoring alone will not solve the
problem. As more and more people come to live and vacation along the
coast, the local infrastructure required to handle the waste they
create is being stretched beyond its capacity. Until there is more
money available at the federal and state level to expand and modernize
sewage systems, we will see a disturbing increase in beach closures. A
July 16th report in the San Diego Union-Tribune that bacterial
pollution closed county beaches 877 times in 1998, ``a huge jump over
the 173 closures in 1997. This is an upward trend that will be repeated
in many areas of the country until government at all levels makes the
commitment to fund the necessary infrastructure and policies that will
either reduce the quantity of pollutants that can harm the coastal
environment or increase the capacity of treatment systems to handle
these pollutants.
The American Coastal Coalition is beginning to look into some sort
of Coastal Water Trust Fund that will provide an assured level of
federal funding for all aspects of beach management, including
restoring eroded beaches and expanding local sewage treatment
facilities. It will take some time to refine and gain support for this
concept. In the meantime, H.R. 999 will produce benefits that are
tangible. We urge this Committee to support it.
__________
Statement of the Coastal States Organization, Inc.
These comments are submitted for the hearing record on behalf of
the Coastal States Organization (CSO), representing the collective
interests of the coastal states, commonwealths and territories along
the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf coasts and Great Lakes in furthering and
sustaining the use and protection of our nation's coastal resources.
CSO's testimony focuses on Sen. Lautenberg's Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure, and Health Act, S. 522; Rep. Bilbray's bathing
water quality legislation, H.R. 999; the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act, S. 835; and Sen. Torricelli's bill to implement plans
developed under the National Estuary Program, S. 878.
the beach bills (s. 522 and h.r. 999)
States and communities already regularly monitor recreational
waters to protect public health, and are aware of the location of many
problem areas and some of the sources of those problems. However,
monitoring efforts can and should be improved upon.
There is a pressing need for timely and cost-effective sampling
techniques, predictive models, effective monitoring strategies, trained
personnel, and public education on the risks associated with bathing
waters. The discovery of the association between neurological
impairments in humans and outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, which
cannot be detected by ordinary water quality sampling, highlights the
need to improve the science and methodology of water quality
monitoring. Much is still unknown about the pathogens responsible for
swimming related illnesses and the adequacy of current indicators of
associated health risks.
One of the basic problems with monitoring programs, which the
research supported by this legislation will hopefully help solve, is
the lack of real time information on water quality health risks. There
is frequently a time lag between water quality sampling, testing and
communicating health risks to the public. The delay between sampling
and testing may be as much as 72 hours, during which time the quality
of a water body can change dramatically. In fact, such changes can
occur within minutes of taking a sample if a significant rainfall event
occurs.
S. 522 requires states to adopt water quality criteria consistent
with federal water quality criteria for coastal recreational water
quality, and for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt
regulations for the monitoring of coastal recreational waters by
states. The legislation should contain a clear directive to EPA to
accommodate the variability in coastal waters and their use. The
legislation should also provide states with flexibility in structuring
monitoring.and notification programs. While the objective of the
legislation is to obtain a consistent standard for protection, there is
a need for flexibility in how that standard is obtained.
The criteria and sampling requirements for a beach with a summer
water temperature of 57 degrees in Maine, will not be appropriate for
the tropical waters of the Florida Keys. The need for and means of
monitoring waters along Maryland's crowded ocean beaches may not be the
most appropriate for Maryland's sluggish tidal creeks. Variances in
salinity, water temperature and flow rate may require the use of
different indicators for pathogens and sampling techniques. Because
water quality impairments are often associated with rainfall, regional
differences in rainfall patterns should also be taken into account.
States do not support uniform monitoring and notification
requirements. Such requirements would not anticipate the great
diversity in bathing waters among and within states, and would likely
lead to requirements for monitoring in situations where there is little
or any benefit to protecting public health. In establishing a national
coastal recreation water quality monitoring program, Congress needs to
make it clear to EPA that the program shall not require monitoring for
the sake of monitoring. The purpose of the monitoring program is to
protect human health, and the only monitoring that should be required
is that known to be effective for that purpose. The effectiveness of
state programs in protecting public health is the basis upon which they
should be measured. How states achieve this objective will vary.
In order to be effective, a monitoring program needs to be both
practical and affordable. The legislation should emphasize EPA's role
in minimizing, the costs associated with developing criteria and
monitoring so that states and communities can afford to implement the
programs. The objectives of the legislation need to be balanced with a
recognition that states and communities do not and will not have the
resources to monitor every entry point into coastal waters. H.R. 999
recognizes that states must be allowed to prioritize areas for
monitoring based on available resources and other factors. CSO supports
these provisions. The geographic scope of application for monitoring
requirements should be further limited to designated bathing areas
beaches that are publicly owned and maintained.
While H.R. 999 does not require EPA to specify monitoring and
notification requirements by regulation, there is still not a clear
delineation of who has the primary responsibility for the design of
monitoring programs. This concern arises from the provision which
requires EPA to develop ``performance criteria'' for assessing state
monitoring and notification programs. The term is too vague to
ascertain the degree of uniformity EPA will require of state programs
for approval.
The evaluation of the adequacy of state monitoring programs should
be based on the likelihood of the state's program meeting the objective
of protecting public health. CSO proposes that EPA's role be to
facilitate the attainment of that objective with guidance on the means
of attainment. State programs which have equivalent standards of
protection should meet EPA approval regardless of their conformity with
the EPA guidance.
States should be able to satisfy the public notification objectives
of the bills with whatever means are most practical. A uniform
requirement to post signs to notify the public of current water quality
conditions would be impractical in many situations. Acceptable means of
notification should include permanent signs, 1-800 phone numbers, web
sites, radio announcements, newspaper alerts and other means of
notification through which members of the public can readily obtain the
latest information available on water quality conditions.
Rather than a strict open/closed rule for waters, Congress should
allow the use grading systems for health risks, combined with public
education campaigns to inform the public about the varying degrees of
water quality. Risk can vary by age group and individual. We also note
that, to a certain extent, risk is a matter of personal choice with
some persons more willing to assume a certain level of risk than
others.
The bills require EPA to develop a database on bathing water
quality. States should have a role in the design of the proposed EPA
database on bathing water quality to assure that it is compatible with
state systems and contains valid data, and does not result in
misleading and contradictory information on local water quality
conditions.
If funded at or near the proposed authorization level of $30
million annually, H.R. 999's proposed financial assistance to states
could greatly further the progress being made by states in improving
the monitoring of bathing waters but only if funding provided for this
program is not at the expense of other environmental programs. With
states already burdened with under-funded and unfunded mandates for
water quality programs, there is concern that new programs will only
increase the burden and diminish the allocation of resources among
programs. Members are urged to give careful consideration to costs and
likelihood of funding for new programs.
The legislation should also include an authorization for a well-
funded technical assistance program to enable states to develop
appropriate criteria, identify monitoring sites, develop predictive
models and devise effective monitoring strategies.
In discussing these bills, a final point needs to be emphasized,
i.e., fixing the problem. Monitoring is only one element of an
effective water quality program. It is both the first and last step in
the loop of water quality assessment, improvement and protection. A
great deal more effort and federal funding are needed to support state
and local efforts to address the causes of coastal water pollution--
polluted runoff, storm water discharges, and combined sewer overflows.
the estuary habitat restoration partnership act (s. 835)
The comparatively narrow band which the coast comprises is home to
53 percent of the Nation's population. It is not surprising, therefore,
that the greatest historical losses and projected future pressure on
sensitive coastal ecosystems are along our nation's coasts.
In trying to restore resources, there is much still to learn as to
what makes for successful restoration. We learn by doing and sharing.
The effort to achieve environmental restoration goals needs to be
collective, collaborative, cooperative and sustained.
We commend Sen. Chafee for his efforts to develop a strategic
approach to estuary habitat restoration. In addition to providing
increased funding and technical support to implement coastal resource
protection and restoration plans, the legislation before the Committee
will foster greater coordination among federal agencies to achieve a
more effective, and overall less expensive, strategic approach to
resource protection and restoration.
S. 835 would:
Establish a measurable objective of restoring one million
acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. One million acres may seem like a
lot, and it is; however, ambitious estuary habitat restoration plans
are already underway. For example, the State of Maryland has
established an objective of restoring 57,000 acres of submerged aquatic
vegetation by the year 2005; 60,000 acres of wetlands; and 600 miles of
stream buffers by 2010;
Bring together the Corps, EPA, NOAA, Fish & Wildlife
Service to develop of a strategy for habitat restoration. We will not
achieve our restoration objectives without a comprehensive and
coordinated strategy for restoration projects;
Recognize the importance of the private sector and non-
governmental organizations in achieving restoration objectives. One of
the most significant changes over the past 10 years in coastal
environmental protection and restoration is the increased involvement
and financial commitment of non-governmental organizations and the
private sector in designing and implementing restoration projects; and
Establish a program to monitor and report on the
effectiveness of restoration projects. There is still much to be
learned about how to do restoration. The restoration strategy needs to
be regularly reviewed and revised to take into account feedback on the
success of projects, new information of species and ecosystems, and new
techniques and methodologies for restoration.
We suggest that the objectives of S. 835 and project eligibility be
expanded and funding increased to include the Great Lakes and Insular
Territories which are also part of the ecological complex many
estuarine species rely on at some point during their life cycle. In
addition, we suggest that the Committee take a look at H.R. 1775 which
has been introduced in the House by Rep. Wayne Gilchrest. H.R. 1775
provides states with an active voice on the federal interagency Estuary
Habitat Restoration Council in the development of the national
strategy. H.R. 1775 would also establish regional restoration councils
comprised of states to maximize the coordination between State and
Federal activities. To the extent possible, project priorities should
be selected at the state and regional level.
The task of restoring habitat is not as simple as just putting
things back to the way they were before. Remember the movie ``Field of
Dreams'' and the voice from nowhere which spoke to Kevin Costner saying
``If you build it, they will come.'' While habitat restoration
projects-may be building fields of dreams, just reconstructing a
landscape will not ensure that ``they,'' i.e., fish and wildlife, will
come. Habitats are livhlg communities where species are as dependent on
each other as they are on the physical attributes of the site. Putting
the pieces back together requires a longterm commitment, including
monitoring and maintenance. With the need for long-term commitments to
habitat restoration projects, the key to success of restoration is
local citizen involvement and support. Despite our best intentions, we
are not going to achieve our restoration objectives without a concerted
and strategic effort by states, communities, the federal agencies and
private citizens.
moving the nep forward--s. 878
CSO supports the objectives of the Torricelli bill, S. 878, to
provide funding to implement plans developed to restore and protect
water quality and habitat in estuaries within the National Estuary
Program (NEP). The lack of a Federal commitment to the implementation
of these nationally significant estuaries is a substantial shortcoming
of the program.
One of the greatest strengths of the National Estuary Program is
that it brings together a broad range of stakeholders to develop
comprehensive plans. Most of those plans have been completed. These
plans usually contain hundreds of action items at the state and local
level. While parts of the plans are being implemented, many actions
remain to be undertaken. For example, while many funding commitments
have been secured to implement many of the Action items in the
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) recently submitted
for Maryland's Coastal Bays NEP, there is still $1.1 million in unmet
needs for the coming year and approximately $5.2 million is needed for
the balance of its 15-year implementation plan. The shortfall in
implementation funding is also a problem at the other 27 NEP sites.
Federal assistance for implementation will be necessary if the
investment in the NEP is to mature to fruition and to fully realize the
benefits of protecting and restoring our nation's most significant
estuaries.
conclusion
CSO thanks the Committee for its attention to coastal issues and
consideration of the views of the states. CSO will work with the
Committee to address the concerns raised in our testimony to ensure
that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled by the most practical
and effective achievable means.
______
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC., September 28, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of the Interior supports S. 835,
the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999 and recognizes
its importance in restoring our Nation's critical estuarine habitats.
We do have a suggestion to further strengthen the legislation. We
request that the Committee enter this letter into the official hearing
record. An identical letter has been sent to the Honorable Max Baucus,
Ranking Member.
Estuaries are the site of some of the most ecologically and
economically important habitats in the United States. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has long recognized their value and maintains at least
178 National Wildlife Refuges in coastal areas. Estuaries host an
extensive variety of migratory songbirds, fishery resources, threatened
and endangered species, and wintering waterfowl. Even so, these
essential habitats and the ecosystems they represent are being severely
threatened by habitat alteration, eutrophication, toxic contamination,
declines in fish habitat, sea level rise, and invasive species.
The grants program created by S. 835 will complement many of the
Service's current programs. The Service's Coastal Program works to
conserve healthy coastal habitats for the benefit of fish, wildlife,
and people. It does this by forming cooperative partnerships to protect
and restore coastal habitats and providing technical and financial
assistance to Federal and State agencies, local and tribal governments,
businesses, private landowners, and conservation organizations, such as
local land trusts and watershed councils. The Service's Coastal Program
has worked since 1991 to develop a solid network of partnerships with
local organizations in 11 priority watersheds throughout the Nation.
These connections, combined with program expertise in priority habitat
identification and coastal restoration techniques, facilitate the
efficient transfer of funds to on-the-ground projects with tangible
results.
Over the past 5 years, the Service's Coastal Program partnerships
have protected over 97,000 acres through conservation easements,
reopened 1,955 miles of coastal streams for anadromous fish passage,
restored 28,700 acres of coastal wetlands, restored 15,852 acres of
coastal upland habitat, and restored 235 miles of riparian coastal
habitat. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999 and
the Service's Coastal Program are sure to augment one another and
further their mutual goals of estuary restoration and protection.
The Service also administers two grants programs pursuant to the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990: the
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program for coastal State
agencies, and the Coastal Grants portion of the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, established by the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA).
Under the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program, the
Service provides matching grants to State conservation agencies for
acquisition, restoration, management and enhancement of coastal
wetlands. Currently, close to $10 million in grants are awarded
annually through a nationwide competitive process. To date, $62.6
million in funding has been awarded to 24 coastal States and one U.S.
Territory, and more than 87,000 acres of coastal wetlands have, or will
be acquired, protected, or restored.
Under the NAWCA, the coastal grant portion of the Fund is provided
to support projects in coastal States but can be awarded to any person,
organization, or agency providing a 1:1 match and fulfilling both the
criteria of NAWCA and its nine-member Council. These funds are closely
linked to fulfilling the purposes of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, which is served by 10 Joint Venture partnerships
located in critical habitat regions throughout the country. We
encourage you to recognize the opportunity that exists for the council
established under S. 835 to work with the Joint Ventures and the NAWCA
Council on estuary restoration projects. NAWCA is an excellent model
for a partnership-driven approach to a Federal grants program. In
fiscal year 1999, $10 million in grants were awarded through the
competitive grants program for coastal and estuary restoration
projects. Since its inception in 1990, the program has awarded over $65
million in funding in 26 coastal States and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
representing over 308,000 acres of protected or restored habitat.
The Service believes that the legislation would be strengthened if
it included State and regional representation in an advisory capacity
on the council to ensure that a bottom-up approach to estuary
restoration is achieved.
The Service would like to thank the co-sponsors of S. 835, the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999, for their vision
and leadership in introducing this important legislation, and the full
Committee for having an informative hearing on the bill. We look
forward to working with you and your staff to enact legislation to
restore our Nation's estuaries this year.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincer
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.