U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

52–625 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

S. HRG. 105–819

ESTUARY RESTORATION AND COASTAL WATER

CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 9, 1998

ON

S. 1222

A BILL TO CATALYZE RESTORATION OF ESTUARY HABITAT THROUGH

MORE EFFICIENT FINANCING OF PROJECTS AND ENHANCED COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL RESTORATION PROGRAMS,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

S. 1321

A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO

PERMIT GRANTS FOR THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM TO BE

USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, TO

REAUTHORIZE APPROPROPRIATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAM,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 2207

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

CONCERNING A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A DEEP OCEAN OUTFALL

OFF THE COAST OF MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

JIMMIE POWELL, Staff Director

J. THOMAS SLITER, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

JULY 9, 1998

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 1

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........... 2

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 5

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 4

WITNESSES

Breaux, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

Burkholder, Joann R., Research Coordinator, Botany Department, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC ............................................................. 22, 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98

Davis, Hon. Michael L., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Department of the Army ................................................................................................. 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86

Reponse to additional question from Senator Chafee .................................... 88

Faircloth, Hon. Lauch, U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ............. 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

Martı ́nez-Cruzado, Juan C., Past President, Mayagu ̈ezanos for Health and

Environment, Inc. ................................................................................................ 34

Letter, followup to testimony ........................................................................... 123

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 138

Milon, J. Walter, Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL ...................................................................... 26

Appendices: Estimated value of the Indian River Lagoon ................ 104, 113, 121

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103

Response to additional questions from Senator Chafee ................................ 123

Morton, Ted, Counsel, Coastal Protection Program, American Oceans Campaign ...................................................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123

Rodriquez, Hon. Charles A., President, Senate of Puerto Rico ............................ 38

Romeu, Xavier, Executive Director, Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration ........................................................................................................................ 32

Prepared statement of Perfecto Ocasio, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer

Authority ....................................................................................................... 117

Spalding, H. Curtis, Executive Director, Save the Bay, Providence, RI ............. 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89

Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee ............................... 97

Torricelli, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Wayland, Robert H., III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80

Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee ............................... 84
Page

IV

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Bills:

S. 1222, A bill to catalyze restoration of estuary habitat through more

efficient financing of projects and enhanced coordination of Federal

and non-Federal restoration programs, and for other purposes ............... 40

S. 1321, A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control act to

permit grants for the national estuary program to be used for the

development and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and

management plan, to reauthorize appropropriations to carry out the

program, and for other purposes ................................................................. 66

H.R. 2207, An Act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

concerning a proposal to construct a deep ocean outfall off the coast

of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico ............................................................................. 70

Letters:

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico ...... 133

Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc. ............................................ 140

Rosello, Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico ......................................................... 140

Statements:

Association of National Estuary Programs .................................................... 141

Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ................. 78

Mills, David R., Sarasota, Florida ................................................................... 144

Ocasio, Perfecto, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority ...................... 134

Restore America’s Estuaries ............................................................................ 142
(1)

ESTUARY RESTORATION AND COASTAL

WATER CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m. in room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding. Present: Senators Chafee, Allard, Sessions, Lautenberg, and Lieberman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. The committee will come to order.

I would like to welcome everyone and thank all the witnesses for appearing here this morning. The purpose of this hearing is to learn more about three bills pending before the committee that pertain to the quality of the Nation’s estuaries and other coastal waters.

Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, we’ve made

great progress in cleaning up the waters in our lakes and rivers

and streams and the coastal waters of the U.S. It’s really been remarkable. It hasn’t just been the Federal Government, it’s been the

wonderful cooperation of industry and, obviously, the municipalities have been deeply involved with it likewise.

Despite the marked success of the last 25 years, we still face

many challenges. Two of the bills before us today, S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, and S. 1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act, are dedicated to protecting and

restoring estuaries in our coastal communities.

Now, what are estuaries? Estuaries are bays and gulfs and inlets

and sounds where fresh water meets and mixes with salt water

from the ocean. They are some of our most valuable natural resources. Regrettably, in recent years millions of acres of estuarine

habitat have been destroyed and degraded by pollution, development, or overuse.

The good news is that estuaries can be brought back to life. I had

the opportunity to visit an effort in connection with that in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island last Monday, where I saw the planting of eel grass that is taking place there. It’s a small start, but

it’s a start.

S. 1222, which I introduced in September of last year, will help

rebuild degraded estuarine habitat by providing real incentives for
2

communities to carry out estuarine restoration projects. That bill

creates strong and lasting partnerships between public and private

sectors and among all levels of Government to restore, hopefully,

a million acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010, which isn’t

so far away, that’s only 12 years from now. To ensure that restoration efforts buildupon past successes, S. 1222 brings together the

existing Federal, State, and local restoration plans, programs, and

studies.

S. 1321, which was introduced by Senator Torricelli last year,

would reauthorize the National Estuary Program under Section

320 of the Clean Water Act. Since the establishment of the National Estuary Program, which is part of the Clean Water Act, in

1987, 28 estuaries of national significance have been designated to

receive funds for the development of conservation and management

plans. Senator Torricelli’s bill would allow these plans to be set in

motion.

In addition to the two estuary bills, the committee will receive

testimony on H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act, which

the House passed last year. H.R. 2207 would allow the Puerto Rico

Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, better known as PRASA, to apply

to the EPA under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act for a waiver of its secondary treatment requirements for waste water. The

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been involved in a 15 year dispute with EPA over its failure to meet secondary treatment requirements under the Clean Water Act.

The condition of estuaries and other coastal waters is an important national priority. I look forward to hearing our witnesses’

views on the bills before us and their suggestions for what we can

do to improve the quality of the Nation’s estuaries and other coastal waters.

Senator CHAFEE. I see our esteemed colleague is here. Senator

Lieberman, if you have some comments, this would be a good

chance.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this hearing. I would like to speak about two of the bills that

we’re considering this morning, S. 1222, of which you were the

principal sponsor of, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership

Act, and S. 1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act.

These are especially important to the State of Connecticut and

to our region. I’m very pleased to be a cosponsor of both of the bills.

I particularly thank you for your leadership on them.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that we share the view that our estuaries

are national treasures which are often not adequately appreciated.

Without a healthy and productive Long Island Sound, and might

I add as well Narragansett Bay, the quality of life in our States

would be greatly diminished.

As John Atkin, the executive director of our Save the Sound, has

said, ‘‘Not only is Long Island Sound an invaluable economic and

recreational resource, it is also a provider of immeasurable pleasure and happiness for tens of thousands of residents and visitors

alike.’’ I’m pleased to note that John is with us today. He came
3

down to show his strong support for this legislation, and I thank

him for the work that he has done.

The water surface of Long Island Sound is an example. It measures 1,320 square miles. It is located in one of the most densely

populated and developed areas of our country; 15 million people

live within 50 miles of its shores. Despite years of heavy industrial

use, Long Island Sound is still known for its distinctive habitat

types, including tidal wetlands, tidal flats, beaches, dunes, bluffs,

rocky tidal areas, eel grass, kelp beds, and natural and artificial

reefs, and its shellfish and finfish production is extraordinary. The

shellfish industry alone is a $70 million industry annually. And the

Sound is actually the leading producer of oysters along the entire

East Coast.

The Sound supports more than $5 billion a year in water qualitydependent uses——a remarkable number——which includes beaches, swimming, and boating, but does not include the more difficult

to quantify assessments of the importance of good water quality,

the nature habitats, and near shore residential property values.

Unfortunately, pollution has had an immediate impact on the quality of life and the economic benefits from Long Island Sound, which

was described by one observer as an ‘‘urban sea under siege.’’ It is

to turn back this siege and defeat it that I think these two pieces

of legislation before us are devoted.

The State of Connecticut itself has had an aggressive effort to restore the Sound which has certainly helped the Long Island Sound

program, one of the most successful efforts under the National Estuary Program. After years of study and public participation, which

has mirrored the public interest in the Sound, it has produced a

comprehensive plan for action and, in fact, implementation is underway.

Real progress is being made. In 1997, water quality monitoring

results were among the best conditions ever observed. Of course,

this is only a start. There is a lot more to be done. In February,

the program adopted two critical elements of the clean up and restoration phase; a Phase III nitrogen reduction plan which calls for

a 60 percent cut in nitrogen loadings over the next 15 years, and

a habitat restoration plan. The effort is expected to cost New York

and Connecticut $650 million, of which Connecticut has already

pledged $100 million of its Clean Water State funds to implement

the Phase III program.

This is where I come to your bill, Mr. Chairman, because it will

go a long way toward helping Connecticut meet the second goal of

its Phase III program for Long Island Sound, which is habitat restoration. By making Federal funding available in partnership with

local Government and private sector contributions, this bill can

help meet the Long Island Sound Study Committee’s goal of restoring more than 2,000 acres of critically important tidal wetlands

and 100 miles of streams in Connecticut and New York.

The fact is that Long Island Sound has already lost almost 70

percent of its original wetlands, with far reaching impacts on the

biological diversity of not just the Sound, but the region and, certainly, the water quality of the estuary. I’m very pleased that a

major habitat restoration project is already underway in the Sound

with grant money from the Long Island Sound program office
4

which this committee, in its wisdom, established in 1990. Funding

from your bill would greatly enhance those efforts.

S. 1222 is based on I think a very sensible concept of communitybased restoration efforts. It would leverage up to $10 of on-theground restoration work for every $1 in Federal funding, and would

create market-based incentives for the private sector to work with

community-based organizations and local Governments on restoration efforts.

Mr. Chairman, the second bill, very briefly, we’re considering

today, the National Estuary Conservation Act, is also critical to our

efforts to clean up Long Island Sound because the cost of implementing the Sound’s comprehensive management plan is high; it

cannot be met without Federal grants for implementation. S. 1321

would, to make a long story short, ensure that the funding is available.

So these are two very important bills for the Sound, for the region, and I think ultimately for the country. I thank you for your

leadership on them, and I hope we can move forward with them

in this Congress. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Sessions, we’re delighted you are here. If you’ve got some

comments, this would be a good chance.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator SESSIONS. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your

leadership on this issue. I had the opportunity earlier this spring

to tour the Mobile Bay Estuary program. We travelled in boats

through the delta and observed what was going on there. I met the

people who had been working on it.

I am very favorably impressed with this concept of how to deal

with environmental problems on an area like an estuary. What I

have observed over the years is that the problem is complicated by

so many different governmental agencies and private institutions

that are involved. You may have two or three counties, several

cities, regional boards and planning agencies, as well as Federal,

State agencies involved.

This estuarine program provides a way to have an inventory and

an analysis and evaluation of the problems, what is causing them,

and how to go about fixing them. I think it is a real good concept.

I would like to see it continue, and I appreciate your leadership in

this regard. It’s a volunteer program. The only thing I think that

would threaten it would be that if our program becomes some sort

of management or directing agency rather than a community coordinating effort, because these are non-elected people, in effect,

unaccountable to the public.

So if we can create a way in which all the leadership in the

whole estuary area can come together to identify the problems that

are the primary threats to the estuary and develop a voluntary

plan with some support from the Federal Government to help fix

it, I think we can achieve great results and maintain harmony and

maintain the voluntary support of the local governments and private industries. I think it is a very attractive program, and I appreciate your leadership.
5

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Lautenberg, we’re just about to start. Do you have a

comment that you want to make at this time?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’m pleased to have a chance to participate

in today’s hearing on two important bills before the committee,

both of which I’m happy to cosponsor, one drafted by the chairman,

Senator Chafee, and the other by my New Jersey colleague, Senator Torricelli. They both address the vital need to protect and restore America’s estuaries. They recognize that the problem is a national one, not just State or local concerns.

The health of our estuaries is threatened from a variety of

sources. In my own State of New Jersey, for instances, the most

densely populated State in the Union, estuaries are coming under

increasing pressure from exploding population growth. The 673

coastal counties in the United States contain 53 percent of our population. More people want to live in coastal States. Especially as

the baby-boomers begin retirement, we’ve got to focus more than

ever on the protection of these estuaries.

The Barnegat Bay Estuary, located off New Jersey’s Ocean County toward the southern coast of our State, is an extremely delicate

ecosystem that deserves increased protection. Despite tremendous

population growth, the Bay continues to host a variety of life——

plants, crabs, shrimp, minnows, wheatfish, bluefish, also some interesting bird life from herons to egrets. Yet, agricultural runoff,

increased recreational activities, and a booming homebuilding industry continue to threaten the Bay.

New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary, a major shipping

channel, which is also home, despite the competition from industry,

to a great array of wildlife, faces a problem of contaminated sediments. This important watershed was recently identified by EPA

as an area of probable concern due to the abundance of toxins such

as PCBs, mercury, and dioxin.

Both pieces of legislation before us recognize that the Federal

Government cannot protect and restore estuaries all by itself.

We’ve got to work in partnership with States, localities, regional

authorities, and dedicated citizens to restore these invaluable

ecosystems. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses before us

on how we can best maximize the resource of all these partners.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow committee members, for

your indulgence.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

Now, we have a distinguished colleague from North Carolina,

Senator Faircloth. Senator Faircloth, why don’t you just sit right

here at the table. We’re going to get right to you. We welcome you

here.

STATEMENT OF HON. LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Sessions, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Lieberman. I thank you for giving me the chance to be here.
6

Two years ago, the North Carolina Coastal Federation asked me

to support what is now Senate Bill 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Act. I understand that Melvin Shepard, the president of

the Coastal Federation is here today, and I hope he is.

Although I have spent a good part of my life in and around the

coastal sounds and rivers of Eastern North Carolina where I was

reared, until I started looking at this bill and what it could do, I

really had never realized the full importance of these waters to the

State and to the Nation. We have over 2.2 million acres of estuary

in North Carolina. The commercial and recreational fishing industry is dependent upon these waters, and that is big industry at

home. More than 90 percent of North Carolina’s commercially important species of fish and shellfish spend part of their lives in

North Carolina estuaries.

Now, Senator Chafee and Senator Lautenberg and Senator

Lieberman, 50 percent of the fish that you catch off the coast of

Rhode Island, New Jersey, or Connecticut were spawned in North

Carolina waters.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you.

[Laughter.]

Senator FAIRCLOTH. We send them to you.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Could you add a little salt.

[Laughter.]

Senator FAIRCLOTH. We were thinking about putting a fee on it,

but we haven’t gotten around to it yet.

[Laughter.]

Senator FAIRCLOTH. But, in short, our ability to have seafood in

this Nation depends upon maintaining healthy and productive

coastal waters. This bill will enable communities to work restoring

degraded estuaries across the country. And as Senator Sessions

says, it is going to do it in a very productive and forthright manner.

It is vital that we target needed resources to restore and preserve our Nation’s estuaries. The goal of the bill is ambitious; a

million acres to be restored by the year 2010, and North Carolina

is figuring on restoring 100,000 acres alone. So a tenth of the goal

would be in North Carolina alone for the next several years. S.

1222 sets a new and innovative way of making this happen. It will

help the communities to restore habitat critical to preserving the

Nation’s estuaries.

The bill is also important because it sets out a new way of building a genuine partnership between our communities and the States

and the Federal Government. This is maybe the most important

part of it. It makes sure that we listen to the citizens, build from

what we know, and coordinate and streamline the programs that

are already there.

The level of support the bill has received speaks well of the potential value of the legislation to so many American coastal communities and says a great deal about the stature of Senator

Chafee, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee, and his work on behalf of the committee. I am committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to move the bill this year.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we move the estuary

bill as part of the Water Resources Development Act Reauthoriza-
7

tion to ensure that it gets done this year. I believe this would make

good sense since the estuary bill makes the Army Corps of Engineers the lead agency in the restoration of the estuaries. We need

to make sure that S. 1222 is a part of reauthorization. If we don’t,

a good bill, and one that builds bipartisan bridges as it restores the

estuaries, could get devoured and bogged down in the much larger

and more charged debate that we’re going to have on the Clean

Water Act next year.

Last, I want to welcome a distinguished North Carolinian who

will be testifying later today, Dr. Joann Burkholder. Dr.

Burkholder is well-known as one of the Nation’s leading research

scientists and one of the discoverers of Pfiesteria, the microbe that

has raised so much havoc among all costal waters, and Maryland

and North Carolina have particularly been hit hard with it. She

will be testifying to the serious consequences which can come from

degraded estuaries.

Dr. Burkholder, it’s nice to have you with us today.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator. I think there

are several good points you made there in your testimony. I think

it is important for us to realize that, as you said, 90 percent of the

commercial fish caught by North Carolina fishermen had spent a

portion of their lives in the estuaries. That’s true in the Gulf, for

example, likewise. So, these estuaries are of extraordinary importance.

Second, your suggestion about combining the bill with the other

legislation that we will be considering later on is a thoughtful one.

Let me think about that because the other legislation, the Water

Resources Development Reauthorization, does look as though that’s

going to go somewhere, and I think your point is a good one. Let’s

think about that.

And third, I would note that we have 26 cosponsors of this legislation, not only each of the Senators who are here today, but others

likewise. So we’re very optimistic on this legislation.

Thank you for your help, Senator Faircloth.

Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. It’s my understanding that Senator Torricelli is

going to drop by at some point, and we will take him when he

comes by.

But meanwhile, why don’t we have Mr. Wayland, Director of the

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, U.S. Department of Army, come up.

We will start with Mr. Wayland. Why don’t you proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. WAYLAND III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. WAYLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members of the committee. You have a great sense of timing.

This hearing occurs during the International Year of the Ocean and

the Nation is examining its stewardship responsibilities toward our

coastal waters. Very recently at the National Oceans Conference in

Monterey, the President committed to a series of actions in recogni-
8

tion of those responsibilities and again pledged the Administration

to implement, with assistance from Congress, a Clean Water Action

Plan. That plan, undertaken in recognition of the progress made

and challenges remaining after a quarter of a century——

Senator CHAFEE. I wonder if you could hold 1 minute. I didn’t see

Senator Allard come in. I’m sorry. Did you have any comment to

make?

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any comments. I

appreciate the chair recognizing me. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. I apologize for not catching you.

All right, Mr. Wayland, why don’t you proceed.

Mr. WAYLAND. As I was saying, the Clean Water Action Plan,

which the Administration has developed, recognizes the many challenges and the significant progress made since the Clean Water Act

was first authorized a quarter of a century ago. It contains numerous actions directed to marine and estuarine protection and restoration. Those actions have been significantly influenced by our

experience over the last decade in implementing the National Estuary Program.

That program was established by Congress in 1987 to demonstrate a new framework to address serious environmental problems faced by these valuable ecosystems. Estuaries are particularly

vulnerable because they often serve as sinks for pollutants originating upstream within the watersheds and the airsheds overlying

them. In addition, estuaries are directly impacted by human activity. Well over half the people in this country live, work, or play

near the coast. The NEP seeks to protect and restore the health of

estuaries and their living resources, and in so doing, the recreation,

fishing, and other economic activities that take place in or depend

on healthy estuaries.

Just a few indications of how valuable these resources are:

Coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54 billion

in goods and services every year. The coastal recreation and tourism industry is the second largest employer in the Nation, serving

180 million Americans visiting the coast each year. And the commercial fish and shellfish industry contributes $45 billion to the

economy every year, while recreational fishing contributes $30 billion to the U.S. economy annally.

A recent national assessment concluded that the most common

problems NEPs are dealing with are nutrient over- enrichment,

pathogen contamination, toxic chemicals, alteration of freshwater

flows, the loss of habitat, and declines in fish and wildlife as well

as the introduction of invasive species. We have every reason to believe that these problems are common to most coastal watersheds

throughout the United States. And the impacts are serious. Pathogens cause shellfish bed closures, nutrient over-enrichment contributes to——

Senator CHAFEE. What is a pathogen?

Mr. WAYLAND. Pathogens are microscopic organisms that are destructive to other living organisms; it may be fish, it may be

human beings.

Introduction of invasive species adversely affects native species.

Many of you are familiar, of course, with the zebra mussel which
9

is a freshwater invasive species. Our coasts are afflicted with

invasive species transported in ballast water.

Changes in land use and the introduction of pollutants and toxic

chemicals results in habitat loss and declines in water quality and

ecosystem health overall. And we’re all familiar with the impacts

of harmful algae blooms. Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred in several tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina rivers

in recent years resulting in fish kills, fish lesions, and suspected

human impacts. The death and decay of algae blooms can lead to

partial oxygen depletion, known as hypoxia, or total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the water, resulting in widespread mortality of fish, shellfish, and invertebrates.

There’s evidence that associates these algae blooms with nutrient

pollution, excess nitrogen and phosphorous in the water. The

source of these pollutants varies widely from one location to another. However, in general, we see three significant sources: human

waste from septic systems and sewage treatment plants; agricultural runoff, including fertilizer and manure from agricultural operations; and air deposition of nitrogen and toxic pollutants from

motor vehicles and electric utilities.

Unlike early approaches to environmental protection that targeted specific pollutants or categories of discharges, the NEP acknowledges that the problems affecting our estuaries are exacerbated by combined and cumulative impacts of many individual activities and that the significance of these activities varies greatly

from watershed to watershed. The principal cause of nutrient overenrichment in Albemarle- Pamlico NEP, for example, is agricultural, while in Long Island Sound nutrient loadings come principally from domestic wastewater.

In order to address watershed wide concerns, the NEP encourages the use of a combination of traditional and non- traditional

water quality control measures and resource management techniques. The NEP has strongly influenced our evolution toward watershed management more broadly in clean water programs.

A cornerstone of the National Estuary Program is that management decisions are made through an inclusive process involving

multiple stakeholders, as Senator Sessions observed earlier. This

emphasis on public participation not only ensures a balanced approach to resource problems, but encourages local communities to

take the lead in determining the future of their own estuaries, thus

bolstering the program’s success through community support. At

the present time, 17 of the 28 NEPs are in the implementation

stage, 1 additional program is scheduled to have an approved plan

by the end of 1998, and the 10 remaining programs should have

their management plans completed in 1999.

The National Estuary Program has been very successful and several of those successes are presented in my full statement. EPA is

working actively to ensure that we use what we’ve learned from

these programs to protect and improve the health of coastal

ecosystems overall.

With respect to the legislation that is the topic of this hearing,

I would like to emphasize the Administration’s position supporting

comprehensive amendments to the Clean Water Act that would

strengthen the protection of the Nation’s waters, a position recently
10

reiterated by the President when he announced the Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan.

That having been said, let me comment briefly on S. 1321, S.

1222, and H.R. 2207.

First, the National Estuary Conservation Act and also a provi- sion of H.R. 2207. Both of these bills would amend Section 320(g)

of the Clean Water Act and increase the authorization of the National Estuary Program. EPA supports the flexibility that would be

provided by giving us the authority to allow grantees to use Section

320 funds for managing the implementation of CCMPs as well as

for developing them.

We believe it is important, however, that State and local Governments take primary responsibility for implementing CCMP actions,

and that consistent with the current law, grants authorized by Section 320 not be seen as the primary source of implementation

funds. EPA and its other water quality programs have an important role in implementation.

Section 320 provides that the management plans, once approved

by the Administrator, can be implemented using funds from the

State Water Revolving Loan Fund or the nonpoint source grants.

Many CCMP implementation actions are appropriate for such funding. These programs should continue to be the primary source of

implementation funds authorized under the Clean Water Act. The

Administration has recently proposed to increase Section 319 grant

funds to $200 million.

EPA also supports an increase in authorizations over the original

$12 million given the increased number of estuarine programs

since the program was last authorized.

With respect to S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, we believe that the goals and purposes of this bill are

laudable——a national goal of restoring a million acres of estuarine

habitat by 2010. Many of our National Estuary Programs have

identified the need to actively restore degraded habitats consistent

with the Clean Water Act’s broad goal to restore and maintain the

physical, chemical, and biological integrity of our Nation’s water.

S. 1222 would compliment other provisions of the Clean Water

Act and move us in a direction of implementation provisions more

attuned to restoration and physical integrity aspects of the Clean

Water Act’s goal. Chemical and physical improvements are needed

to restore the conditions under which aquatic species can thrive in

our estuaries.

We look forward to the opportunity to work with the committee

as you continue your deliberations on this bill.

With respect to H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act,

I need to stress that much of the progress toward our Clean Water

Act goals has been realized through the investment of the private

sector and local governments in achieving near universal compliance with the baseline of technology-driven pollution control and

prevention requirements. That’s best available technology for industry and secondary treatment for municipalities.

Secondary treatment isn’t sufficient, however, to achieve nutrient

control needs for such water bodies as Long Island Sound and the

Chesapeake Bay where relatively shallow, poorly mixed waters are

sensitive to nutrient inputs. In these instances, and many others,
11

municipal treatment facilities are using advanced wastewater

treatment technology or biological nutrient removal.

Congress provided for a narrow waiver from the general require- ment in Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act for cases where a

community discharging to ocean waters could demonstrate, among

other things, that less than secondary treatment would not have

significant adverse consequences. Few municipalities were eligible

for this waiver by its very terms. Fewer still sought the waiver.

And even fewer were able to make the necessary showings and

were approved. The waiver provision required municipalities to

apply by December 29, 1982, and didn’t provide for reapplication

in the event of a final denial.

H.R. 2207 would reopen the window for an application for a deep

ocean outfall serving Mayagu ̈ez, Puerto Rico, but would require

EPA to apply the same substantive standards for considering such

a waiver that had applied to previous timely applicants.

The Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewage Authority first sought a

waiver for the Mayagu ̈ez wastewater treatment plant to discharge

into Mayagu ̈ez Bay, not a deep ocean site, in September 1979. EPA

tentatively denied the application in 1984 and again in 1986. A

final determination denying the application was issued in 1991.

The applicant pursued appeals which culminated in the Supreme

Court upholding EPA’s decision in February 1995.

In a Consent Agreement to resolve process violations of, among

other things, the effluent discharge limits on the existing plant, the

Federal Government recognized PRASA’s intent to seek this legislation but made no commitment regarding our position on the legislation.

Mayagu ̈ez Bay, in general, and the coral reefs, in particular, are

severely stressed. Conditions may be such that PRASA may be able

to provide information to support a decision that, based on construction of a deep ocean outfall, it can meet the nine part test established in Section 301(h). However, EPA neither endorses nor opposes H.R. 2207. We’re generally opposed, however, to reopening

the opportunity to seek 301(h) waivers given the widespread benefits of secondary treatment and the need to do more, not less, to

control nutrients in many coastal areas.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working

with you and your staff as you continue your work on these bills.

I’d be pleased to respond to questions.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Wayland.

Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works,

Department of the Army.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am

Michael Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. I’m

also very pleased to be here today to present the Department of the

Army’s views on S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. With your permission, I will summarize my statement

that I have submitted for the record.

Senator CHAFEE. We’ve never denied anybody the opportunity to

summarize their statements.
12

[Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. I’ll try to be brief. For over 200 years the Nation has

called upon the Army Corps of Engineers to solve many of its water

resources problems. Historically, the Corps has emphasized its

flood damage reduction and navigation missions. In recent years,

however, pursuant to Water Resources Development Acts, we have

elevated our environmental restoration and protection mission to a

level equal to our more traditional missions.

The Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real

estate, and environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and protection problems throughout the Nation and the

world. The Corps has a powerful tool kit of standing authorities

and programs that can be brought to bear to help solve environmental problems.

Over the last decade alone, the Corps has helped to restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, benefiting hundreds of fish

and wildlife species. Examples include 28,000 of habitat restored

for the Upper Mississippi River, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored in Louisiana, 35,000 acres of flood plain and wetlands restoration underway along the Kissimmee River in Florida,

and hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored by beneficially

using dredged material.

If enacted, S. 1222 would add to the Corps’ environmental portfolio. Specifically, S. 1222 would allow the Corps to use its unique

skills to restore and protect estuarine habitat and help achieve an

economically and environmentally sustainable future for the Nation

and the world.

Throughout the world estuarine and coastal areas serve as focal

points for human use and development. These same areas also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective, providing

habitat and food for myriad fish and wildlife species. There is an

urgent need to protect and restore these fragile ecosystems, recognizing the economic, social, and environmental benefits they provide.

As with many environmental issues, future generations depend

upon our actions today. In this regard, we applaud the cosponsors

of S. 1222 for their vision and leadership in this area.

The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance coordination and efficiently financed environmental restoration and protection projects. The goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine

habitat by the year 2010 is consistent with the President’s Clean

Water Action Plan and the goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands annually beginning in the year 2005.

The proposed national framework, our national estuarine habitat

restoration strategy should help partners identify and integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and identify

processes to develop new plans where they are needed. This framework document could help us maximize incentives for participation,

leverage limited Federal resources, and minimize duplications of efforts.

The legislation is also consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation, Protection, and Restoration Act, also known as the

Breaux Act. This legislation has created a unique multi Federal

and State agency partnership which is working to restore and pro-
13

tect approximately 73,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana

over the next 20 years.

Thus, with a relatively few minor but important changes, the Department of the Army would be pleased to support S. 1222. I will

note a few of the changes and clarifications that we would recommend.

First, it is unclear which, if any, agency is to lead the collaborative council. The language implies a lead role for the Department

of the Army and directs the Secretary to convene meetings. Funds

are also authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the

Army to implement estuarine restoration and protection projects.

While S. 1222 does not explicitly state your intent, Department

of the Army is prepared to take a leadership role if that is the desire of the committee and the Congress.

In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I recommend that the bill’s cost-sharing provision be amended to a 65

percent Federal cost share in accordance with WRDA 1986 and

WRDA 1996. This is especially important since the bill states that

estuarine restoration projects could be implemented under our

aquatic ecosystem restoration authority pursuant to Section 206 of

WRDA 1996.

We are concerned that S. 1222 deviates from the basic cost-sharing policies established in the Water Resources Development Acts

for environmental restoration projects, and that the variation and

range of the possible Federal cost- shares from 25 to 65 percent

could cause confusion and reduce non-Federal participation.

Section (d)(1) of S. 1222 states that the collaborative council shall

not select an estuarine habitat restoration project until each nonFederal interest has entered into a written cooperation agreement

in accordance with Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970.

Our experience is that while the need to meet Section 221 requirements are still valid for most civil works projects, there are situations where these requirements eliminate potential non-Federal

sponsors from consideration and reduce opportunities for environmental projects. For example, certain well-known and established

environmental organizations could not serve as sponsors for environmental restoration projects under S. 1222 as introduced.

The Corps has put policies in place to enable consideration of

nongovernmental organizations for Section 1135 projects, and our

WRDA 1998 proposal contains provisions that would amend Section 206 of WRDA 1996 and Section 204 of WRDA 1992 to allow

the Corps to consider where appropriate nongovernmental organizations as sponsors for environmental restoration and protection

projects. Because of the similarities between these environmental

authorities, we recommend revising S. 1222 to allow NGO’s to

sponsor estuarine habitat restoration projects.

Turning to the factors to be taken into account in establishing

criteria for determining project eligibility, we recommend that the

legislation require consideration of quality and quantity of habitat

restored in relation to overall project costs. This will help with

benchmark performance reviews and provide a context for providing trade- off decisions amongst various alternatives.

Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches are

new, and when dealing with natural systems there is a need to test
14

new ideas, learn from successful projects, and learn from those that

are not successful, and manage adaptively to adjust to ever-changing conditions. Adding a requirement for non-Federal sponsors to

manage adaptively would encourage the partners to try out new

ideas and learn more about how to restore and protect estuarine

and coastal areas.

In conclusion, the Corps has been increasingly involved in recent

years with efforts to protect and restore our estuaries. We are especially proud of our efforts in conjunction with Coastal America initiatives, such as a restoration of a coastal salt marsh area in the

Galilee Bird Sanctuary in the chairman’s home State of Rhode Island, the restoration of tidal wetlands in California’s Sonoma Bay

lands, and the Sagamore Salt Marsh restoration project in Massachusetts. Our fiscal year 1999 budget request includes study funds

for ten potential projects directed at protecting or restoring the important functions of estuaries, as well as funding for many other

activities that would be beneficial to the environment in or adjacent to our estuaries.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the Corps is serious about its environmental responsibilities and its environmental mission. With just a

few minor modifications, S. 1222, if enacted, would add an important new tool to help us all protect and restore the Nation’s estuaries.

My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff on

S. 1222 and other legislation before your committee, including our

Water Resources Development Act proposal for 1998. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work on this important legislation continues.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased

to answer any questions you or the committee may have.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

What we’ll do now, I see Senator Torricelli is here, we will proceed with his comments and then we will get back to some questions to Mr. Wayland and Mr. Davis.

Senator WE WELCOME YOU.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator TORRICELLI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Rarely have I given testimony on legislation where I felt more confident,

noting that I’m here to testify on S. 1321 and my two cosponsors

are the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and the Senator

from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. So I feel assured of fairly

supportive commentary. I would also like to note that S. 1321 is

cosponsored by Senators Moynihan, Graham, Lieberman, and

Boxer.

Mr. Chairman, dealing generally first with the issue of our coastal maintenance and protection, let me offer both my support and

congratulations for the committee in dealing under difficult circumstances. It is time in our country to recognize that our beaches

and coastal areas are national resources, as important to our infrastructure as roads and schools and other items that we depend

upon for commerce and our quality of life. Indeed, since the 1930’s

the Federal Government has recognized this with the creation of
15

the Beach and Erosion Board. And yet in recent years, it is becoming increasingly more difficult.

The current funding formula set by the 1986 Water Resources

Development Act established the Federal contribution for beach replenishment at 65 percent. This is being threatened by an Administration proposal to have a Federal share of 35 percent. Let me

make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, in the State of New Jersey, to

which Senator Lautenberg will attest, the economic life of the State

of New Jersey and the quality of life of our people is directly related to the maintenance of our beaches. Our beaches are important

to the economic life of New Jersey, as the Pennsylvania Turnpike

is for the economy of its State, or the New York Throughway is for

the people who live in that State. It is used for commerce, it is used

for our massive tourist industry, and for our quality of life. This

kind of declining Federal contribution would be a direct threat to

many coastal communities.

I am, however, here for a related subject, and that is the maintenance of our threatened estuaries. Estuaries of our States, Mr.

Chairman, from which Rhode Island is centered, are an important

part not only of our tourist industry but also our fishing industry—

75 percent of commercial fishing in the United States rely on estuaries—in New Jersey this is particularly true with the Raritan

Bay, the Delaware Bay, and Barnegat Bay. In our country today,

14.5 million jobs and 10 percent of our GDP is related directly to

these coastal centers. My State of New Jersey has a $25 billion

tourist industry, including boating and fishing industries that rely

on these areas.

The size of these estuaries and the pressure upon them by development is extraordinary. To take one example, the Barnegat Bay

in New Jersey, 400,000 people live on this precious environmental

resource. The same things that have attracted clam and fish populations to be in these protected waters also attract people to develop their lands and use them for tourist purposes. In the summer, that 400,000 population doubles to 800,000 people. This very

precious resource is also shared with 116 marinas and boatramps,

a third of all boats in the State of New Jersey are registered in this

one small estuary.

As one would imagine, this causes considerable pollution threats.

Barnegat Bay alone in 1995, 1997, and as recently as last month

has had problems with brown tide algae blooms caused, in part, by

stormwater runoff. Another example of pollution threats, as I’m

sure you’ve experienced in Rhode Island, is in the New York-New

Jersey Harbor——we found 730 combined sewage overflows in that

Harbor alone. It would take $2 to $6 billion to correct them.

Mr. Chairman, as I am certain you and I know Senator Lautenberg are aware, the single largest water pollution problem remaining in the United States are the combined sewage overflows. This

is a major problem of these estuaries. It is the reason for the compromise of the water quality, the continued destruction of our fisheries, and the unavailability of some of these waters for tourist

purposes.

In 1987 the Clean Water Act Amendments established a National Estuary Program. That was an important beginning in saving these estuaries. Over the years, 28 estuaries were designated,
16

3 alone in the State of New Jersey. The plan was the Federal Government would provide funds to the State and local governments

to develop plans to save these endangered estuaries. Seventeen of

the 28 estuarine plans have now been completed. The NEP has not

been reauthorized since 1991 and today States cannot receive any

Federal funding to implement their plans.

Our legislation, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. We have designed

17 of these plans to protect the estuaries, the Congress for two decades has recognized these plans as a priority, now it’s time to actually begin the work. Under our legislation, we would begin authorizing $50 million to the State and local Governments to start implementing their plans. These plans obviously rely heavily on doing

something with combined sewage overflow.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply time to begin to act. We know what

needs to be done. We understand the science, we understand the

engineering, and we know the threat. I believe $50 million is a

modest beginning, but in some estuaries somewhere in the country

we will at least begin to prove that these valuable resources can

be saved. It is better now to begin in a modest method rather than

not to begin at all.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if we prove by these modest amounts

that a few estuaries can be saved, fish populations will begin to return, tourists will enjoy the benefit of improvements to water quality, then we can begin to mount the kind of political coalition that

will help us do this on a larger scale.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate

your thoughts.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I just want to thank Senator Torricelli for

his interest in protecting our estuaries, as evidenced by this legislation. I think that he is absolutely right. We have done a sufficient

amount of planning and I think now getting the funds, getting

some assistance for the implementation of these programs is important. I once again salute the effort and will work hard with you to

try to get it into place in New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the comparisons between our States

go beyond size. We have a lot of coastline for a relatively small

land mass. Our problems are not different. We invite habitation,

we invite tourism, but that brings problems along with it. As Senator Torricelli aptly pointed out, sewage overflow occurs. I’m not

sure which gets the prize for being the worst source for pollution—

agricultural runoff, combined sewer overflows, or nonpoint source

pollution. We know one thing—we see the constant degradation of

fish population, damage to our recreational use, and the loss of an

important asset. It does compare very favorably with basic infrastructure in our States and in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome Senator Torricelli’s comments and his

active interest on the issue.

Senator CHAFEE. I think it was you, Senator Lautenberg, who

mentioned in your opening statement that something to the effect

that 55 percent of the population in the United States lives in

coastal areas.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right.
17

Senator CHAFEE. I suspect that percentage is growing, not declining. So it’s a tremendous challenge.

Well, thank you very much, Senator Torricelli.

Senator TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, if I could just note in response to Senator Lautenberg’s comments, as difficult as this problem is, there is reason to be hopeful. Last year, in visiting in the

Barnegat Bay, after years in our State of dealing with industrial

sources of pollution successfully, the fish populations were increasing. Crabs and clams were seen in areas where they had not been

recognized for years. Nature is resilient if we give it a chance.

Senator CHAFEE. But we’ve got to give it the chance.

Senator TORRICELLI. You have to give it the chance. And that’s

all we’re asking, some modest resources now to deal with these remaining threats to these estuaries. Nature will come back if we

will do our parts.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the clams that were such

an important marine crop in New Jersey now get put into a natural washing machine. They’re taken out of beds where there may

be some pollution and put into other clean water areas and left

there for a bit and nature takes care of it. So nature is working

right along side of us and we have to just give her a little boost.

Senator CHAFEE. Right. Thank you very much, Senator.

Now, Mr. Davis, in your testimony, you outline some of the areas

of success. Over the last decade the Corps has helped to restore

hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, 28,000 acres of habitat

restored for the upper Mississippi, hundreds of acres of coastal, and

so forth. What principally have you done to do that restoration?

What steps have you taken? And what constitutes restoration?

Mr. DAVIS. Restoration, let me answer that part of the question

first. Let’s look at wetlands restoration, I think that will put it in

the right context. If you look in the Southeast, hundreds of thousands of acres that have been diked off and drained. Former wetlands are now crop lands. You can go into these areas and plug up

some of those ditches, knock down some of these little dikes, and

restore the hydrology in that area, thus restoring what was formerly a wetland area versus creation, which is going into an area

that was never a wetland and trying to do it there.

Senator CHAFEE. You mention invasive species. We’re certainly

seeing that up in my section of the country. We’ve got something

called ‘‘phragmites’’ which, in my judgment, is overpowering many

brackish ponds. What do you know about phragmites? Have you

got a cure?

Mr. DAVIS. I’ve seen phragmites. I’ve seen a lot of it.

Senator CHAFEE. Oh, I’ve seen it, too. But that’s not a qualification.

Mr. DAVIS. It is a problem. We’ve spent a fair amount of time

just recently up in the Hackensack Meadowlands, which is a large

wetlands complex that essentially has been overtaken by

phragmites, and we’re looking at ways to restore that area to the

proper hydrologies and salinities that would preclude phragmites

from growing and allow the native vegetation to return. It can be

a problem. It is very much an invasive species.

There are a lot of invasive species. It’s an issue we’ve got to deal

with. Recently I looked at the Kenilworth Marsh restoration project
18

that we did here on the Anacostia River using dredged material.

We have a problem there with the plant the purple lustrife which

is also an invasive species. It’s an issue we’re grappling with. I

think in some cases we have made some progress but we’ve got a

lot of work to do.

Senator CHAFEE. Any thoughts, Mr. Wayland?

Mr. WAYLAND. I just wanted to supplement that. Mr. Davis referred to Coastal America, and one of the Coastal America projects

that I participated in helping to launch in Senator Lieberman’s

State was actually being facilitated with ISTEA funds. I think that

the work that you and this committee did on the new TEA-21 legislation is going to continue some of the opportunities.

Senator CHAFEE. Better keep it a secret that we’re using the

highway trust fund money to fight phragmites.

Mr. WAYLAND. Well, what happened in that instance was the

phragmites was very much encouraged by the railbed that had

been laid in the Northeast corridor without any opportunity for

tidal flushing. No culverts, so that you walled off the tidal flushing

and the fresh water areas.

By the Corps of Engineers designing appropriate placement of

culverts and the use of ISTEA money to place those culverts, the

hydrologic regime was restored such that the natural marsh

grasses could come back and once again occupy that habitat rather

than phragmites. And that’s certainly appropriate.

Senator CHAFEE. Are you saying that if you can get a tidal flow

in an area where phragmites is, that will kill it off?

Mr. WAYLAND. In some cases, there has to be more active management than that. In some cases there has to be hand removal.

I’m not a big believer in herbicide use to try to restore the balance

of nature, but in some cases that’s been employed to help the process along. But if you don’t do something to improve the salinity regime, you’re probably going to be back where you were. That’s why

some of these measures like the one that we looked at in Connecticut are extremely important. And that’s part of the plan for the

Hackensack as well, to open up channels of flowing water to help

reduce the problem.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. Let me just ask this question of both of

you. One, I appreciate your support for S. 1222. The bill as drafted

would, as you know, require EPA, the Corps, and other relevant

Federal agencies, for example Fish and Wildlife or NOAA, to develop an estuarine habitat restoration strategy. Do you think it’s

possible for all of these Federal agencies to develop a strategy within the parameters of the bill?

What do you say to that, Mr. Wayland?

Mr. WAYLAND. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that we’ve got

a history of cooperating in a number of cases on smaller scale efforts. I think this is an opportunity to try to look comprehensively

at needs and opportunities to try to buildupon the smaller scale efforts that may have been undertaken in the context of a particular

estuary. I think the agencies have a good track record of working

together through Coastal America and other collaborative approaches.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Davis, what do you say?
19

Mr. DAVIS. I agree completely with that. I think the bill brings

together the right mix of agencies, each of which can come to the

table with kind of a unique perspective and unique tools and talents.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, Mr. Wayland, you commented on the

Puerto Rico bill. If we pass that and EPA denied the application

for a waiver, what is your best estimate for the expected time period for the construction and operation of a secondary treatment

plant?

Mr. WAYLAND. The deadline that is specified in the Consent

Agreement that the Government reached with PRASA is that there

would be a secondary treatment facility on line by December 31,

2001. That’s a pretty ambitious timeframe in which to site, construct, and operate a secondary plant.

Senator CHAFEE. You did make a point in your testimony, I’m

not sure I can put my finger on it right now, where you pointed

out that where the waivers have been granted in the past, I guess

you’re thinking of San Diego, it is an deep ocean outflow as opposed to this.

Mr. WAYLAND. San Diego was another legislative exception to the

general requirements of the Clean Water Act that we grappled

with after the standard window had closed. But there are many

other waivers that were entertained under Section 301(h) and some

were approved, many were denied, several were withdrawn.

In instances where those waivers were approved, we generally

are finding deep water, a lot of mixing as a result of currents,

and——

Senator CHAFEE. It seems to me that was the San Diego situation. It was a deep ocean.

Mr. WAYLAND. Yes. I believe the outfall is at 300 feet. The locations of the outfall that are being studied at least with respect to

Mayagu ̈ez I understand would be on the order of 600 feet of water.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. Fine. Thank you very much gentlemen.

Now, we’ll have the next panel. We have now four witnesses.

There are liable to be some votes which will interrupt this, but let’s

get started.

We will start with Mr. Spalding, executive director of Save the

Bay. Mr. Spalding, we welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF H. CURTIS SPALDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SAVE THE BAY, PROVIDENCE, RI

Mr. SPALDING. Thank you, Senator Chafee. I have a chart I

would like to put up here. As long as we brought it all the way

from Rhode Island, I thought I better show it.

I gave the committee a longer statement, and I have some brief

comments I would like to make now.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine.

Mr. SPALDING. On behalf of Save the Bay and Restore America’s

Estuaries, I would like to thank Senator Chafee and the committee

for the opportunity to present testimony in support of S. 1222, the

Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Save the Bay is a

member-supported nonprofit organization with 20,000 members.

Our mission is to restore and protect Narragansett Bay and its watershed. Restore America’s Estuaries is a coalition of 11 regional
20

coastal community-based environmental organizations, with a combined membership of over 250,000. Restore America’s Estuaries’

mission is to save and restore America’s estuaries and coastal heritage for our children before it disappears.

Five years ago, over 20 estuary advocacy organizations met to

discuss the future challenges of our Nation’s estuaries and to set

a course of action to meet these challenges. Many of our coastal

areas were beginning to reap the benefits of the Clean Water Act.

In Narragansett Bay, harbor seals and oysters were starting to return after decades of absence due to polluted water. Despite similar

limited recoveries in many of our Nation’s estuaries, we shared a

deep concern that many species of fish, birds, and other animals

were not recovering as we had expected. Also troubling, some of

coastal areas not previously affected by water pollution were now

in serious decline.

After months of inquiry and discussion, we saw that the problem

with the health of our estuaries was no longer simply grossly polluted water, but the ongoing loss of habitat for fish, birds, shellfish,

and plants along our shorelines and in our watersheds. Thus, in

late 1994, Restore America’s Estuaries was formed. It is a current

partnership of 11 nonprofit organizations, from Seattle to Galveston to Maine, that compose Restore America’s Estuaries. Over

the past 4 years, each organization has identified and targeted the

habitat resources in its own estuarine and coastal environment

that are threatened and in need of restoration. Restore America’s

Estuaries has pledged collectively to restore one million acres of

habitat in our Nation’s estuaries by the year 2010.

The need is great. In coastal States, 55 million acres of wetlands

have been destroyed. We need to turn the tide on this devastating

trend and actually foster the rebirth of our estuaries and their critical wetlands.

In the estuary I know best, the need is especially critical. Narragansett Bay’s natural systems contain eelgrass beds, salt marshes,

and fish runs which allow it function healthily, but they are severely damaged or disappearing. The chart I brought down describes the percentage of salt marshes affected by different activities. Invasive plants, cutting/mowing, tidal restrictions, filling,

ditching, and inadequate buffer zones are causing the decline. As

you can see, all these impacts generally exceed 50 percent in our

salt marshes. We only have 100 acres of eelgrass left in the Bay

which once supported thousands of acres. Eelgrass prevents shoreline erosion, filters pollution, and provide clean water, food, shelter,

and nurseries and breeding grounds for fish, shellfish, juvenile lobsters, and young fish.

We have a problem with fish runs, too. To survive, many fish

must be able to get to the fresh water up the rivers to spawn. One

of our Bay’s greatest historic fisheries, the Atlantic Salmon, can

now only be read about in books due to the destruction of their fish

runs.

The Bay is much like the human body; the decline in our

eelgrass, salt marshes, and fish runs are warning signs not so different from changes in a person’s vital signs. We would not ignore

a loved one’s complaint of chest pains, shortness of breath, or

numbness in their arms and legs because these are signs of poten-
21

tially deadly heart attack or damaging stroke. Likewise, we cannot

ignore these symptoms in our estuaries.

If eelgrass, salt marshes, and fish runs continue to decline and

disappear, the Bay will be little more than an empty body of water.

The quantity of Bay life that depends on these areas——the lobster, shellfish, birds, fish, plants——will diminish. Many people

who make their livelihoods off the Bay will have to find other work.

This is not the kind of Bay we would want or should leave to our

children.

Narragansett Bay is not alone in this health crisis. Although

each estuary is unique, they all suffer from habitat loss. In San

Francisco Bay, 95 percent of the Bay’s original wetlands have been

destroyed. Galveston Bay in Texas has lost 85 percent of its

seagrass meadows. Louisiana loses 25,000 acres of coastal salt

marshes——that’s an area the size of Washington, DC——every

year. In Chesapeake Bay, the oyster harvest crashed from 25 million pounds in 1959 to only 1 million pounds in 1989, and of course

the Pfiesteria crisis is well known to everyone down here. These

losses have dire consequences for our environment, our economy,

and our way of life.

On September 22, 1997, Senator Chafee, the chairman of this

committee, came to a small boatyard in Narragansett Bay to announce the introduction of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, S. 1222. This legislation is a vital component of our

efforts to bring back healthy conditions not only in Narragansett

Bay, but in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and

many of the other vital estuaries in the United States. At that

press conference, Senator Chafee said ‘‘Narragansett Bay is good

for the soul.’’ No truer words have ever been spoken about the

meaning of Narragansett Bay to all Rhode Islanders and no one in

Rhode Island’s history has more credibility to say these words.

Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from its

shore, it is part of what makes Rhode Island special. The Bay is

our lifeline, it nourishes our environment, strengthens our economy, enhances our leisure time, protects our children’s futures. We

need to care for the Bay and invest today in its health and very

survival. The investment will help ensure a secure future for Rhode

Island and all the Nation’s estuaries.

In the interest of time, I’m going to jump to the end of my comments, Senator Chafee, and talk somewhat about the connection to

the WRDA Act.

Despite all that’s been done, as I’ve said, Narragansett Bay and

most of our estuaries remain in crisis. The migration of millions of

people to the shores of estuaries has had its impact. Rhode Island

and many other regions have only a limited time to take action and

reverse the situation. If we do not markedly increase our effort to

restore America’s estuaries soon, more species of fish, plants, birds

may become memories just like the Atlantic salmon and Bay scallops have become in Narragansett Bay. Without action now, jobs

will be lost and the quality of life will suffer.

We applaud you for your leadership on this critical issue, and we

applaud the support of Senator Faircloth and now the support of

the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. Not only has Senator
22

Faircloth come to the issue, but 26 colleagues from both sides of

the aisle understand the situation and have cosigned as sponsors.

If we truly want to preserve our coastal heritage, we must give

our Federal Government agencies the opportunity to actually help

with this task, not just with more funding, but with tools to break

down the barriers of bureaucracy and to build partnerships with

local community efforts. The coordinated community-based approach prescribed in S. 1222 will set a powerful example for solving

the more complicated environmental challenges ahead in the next

century. It will also help refocus the Army Corps on the restoration

of natural systems, just as is intended in the current draft of the

Water Resources Development Act that is currently under consideration.

Because S. 1222 affects the Army Corps’ mission and purpose,

and because the health of America’s estuaries cannot afford years

of delay, we respectfully urge immediate consideration of S. 1222

as part of the WRDA reauthorization. We know this is a tall order

but we believe strongly that the need justifies the request.

Your attention to my remarks today is appreciated very much.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my perspective

on why estuarine habitat restoration is so important for Narragansett Bay and the estuaries throughout the country that add so

much to our coastal environment and heritage.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Spalding. We appreciate that.

And now Dr. Burkholder. They have started this vote and I’ll

have to leave in about seven or 8 minutes, but we can get started.

Why don’t you proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOANN R. BURKHOLDER, RESEARCH COORDINATOR, BOTANY DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE

UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC

Ms. BURKHOLDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor

to be invited to speak before your committee. I would like to tell

you that personally I have very much admired you for a long time

and all your efforts.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, that’s fine. Did everybody hear that?

[Laughter.]

Ms. BURKHOLDER. The litany of all the enormous values of our

Nation’s estuaries is familiar to many people of all ages. There are

three basic reasons for my testifying here today. First, as a scientist knowledgeable in technical aspects of estuarine degradation,

I am pleased to testify on behalf of these valuable resources and

their enormous importance to all of us in this country. I’ve stressed

to you the need to strengthen our understanding not only of obvious impacts from human influences, many of us know about floating garbage, but, of greater importance, the more insidious chronic

impacts of our actions in degrading our estuaries.

Research from every coast of this country has shown, for example, that fish suffer higher incidents of bleeding sores, malignant

tumors, loss of reproductive ability, and immune system suppression in estuarine waters near urban centers.

Senator CHAFEE. Dr. Burkholder, I’m afraid they have now gone

to the last part. So we’re going to recess for a few minutes. I’m not
23

sure, there may be a couple of votes back to back. But as soon as

I get back, we will continue with you.

The committee will be in recess for a few minutes here.

[Recess.]

Senator CHAFEE. The committee will return to order.

I notice Senator Breaux is here. Senator Breaux has been deeply

interested in these issues for many years. Senator, if you have

some comments you would like to make, now is the chance.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the witnesses at the table for allowing me just to make a comment or two.

First, I thought it was important to come and say congratulations

to you for this effort. You’ve been a leader in this area as long as

I have been around the Congress and working in these particular

areas. I think this legislation, which I am very proud to be a cosponsor of, is extremely important.

When some people in the country think of estuarine areas, they

think of marsh lands or wetlands and they don’t really understand

the productivity of these areas and how valuable they are, from two

standpoints. They are valuable because they’re part of our country

and esoteric beauty that is found in estuarine areas is incredible

and it is extremely important. Second, and equally as important,

is the economic value of these areas. They are extremely valuable.

Most of Louisiana is an estuarine area, my entire State practically.

About 40 percent of the Nation’s wetlands are found in my State,

one State. We’re also losing about 80 percent of all the wetlands

in all of North America in my one State. So any legislation dealing

with estuarine areas and wetland areas is incredibly important.

Just as a note for the record, the economic value of these areas

in my own State of Louisiana is extremely significant. Wildlife and

resources are estimated to bring almost $6 billion annually to the

economy of my State. That’s because we produce over 15 percent

of the Nation’s commercial fish harvest out of Louisiana. Without

the estuarine areas, this could not happen. These are the breeding

grounds for all of the fish resources——fin fish and shellfish——

and things that are produced that ultimately end up in the Gulf

of Mexico and ultimately end up all over the world. So without the

estuarine areas as these nurseries, all of this would not occur.

So your Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, which is

now before your committee, is extremely important. It is a very

positive step, and 1 day, hopefully, we will be able to look back at

this legislation as a key to ensuring the continued viability of these

very important areas. I commend you for your action.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator Breaux. I want to reciprocate by expressing our appreciation for your long work in this

area because you’ve been a stalwart. We look forward to your continued support. Thank you.

Now, Dr. Burkholder, if you would be good enough to continue.

I don’t think there are going to be any more interruptions. Now

that’s said with not great certitude as far as votes go. I don’t know,

I think that we’re good for a while anyway. So go to it.
24

STATEMENT OF JOANN R. BURKHOLDER, RESEARCH COORDINATOR, BOTANY DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE

UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC—CONTINUED

Ms. BURKHOLDER. Thank you. There are three basic reasons for my testifying here today, as I mentioned. First, as a scientist, I

would like to stress to you the need of strengthening our understanding not only of obvious impacts of human influences on our

estuaries, but, of greater importance I think, more insidious and

chronic impacts of our actions in degrading our estuaries. As I was beginning to say earlier, research from every coast of this country has shown that fish suffer higher incidents of bleeding

sores, malignant tumors, loss of reproductive ability, and immune

system suppression in estuarine waters near urban centers. Such

subtle and chronic impacts are likely much more serious to fish

than an obvious fish kill that usually affects only a small number

of fish relative to the total population size.

The chronic effects of our actions in degrading estuaries also ex- tend beyond fish to our own health, as shown by the story of

Pfiesteria. This microscopic toxic creature thrives in waters that

are over-enriched from sewage, animal waste, lawn and cropland

fertilizer, and other sources. People who breath the airborne toxins

from Pfiesteria over waters where it is attacking fish can suffer

from severe learning disabilities and memory loss for months afterwards. This provides just one example of the fact that estuarine

water quality, fish health, and human health impacts can be

strongly linked. My second reason for speaking here today is to state my strong support for S. 1222 and also S. 1321. As a citizen who has been

involved in policy recommendations about strengthening wise use

of estuarine resources, I believe that the partnership cost-sharing

approach that is outlined in S. 1222 will be highly constructive in

bringing all stakeholders together, from industries and municipalities to individual citizens, in working to achieve major restoration

of our estuaries.

Within this context, I envision four goals. First, we should accelerate river and watershed cleanup through a strong incentive program which is encouraged by S. 1222. This program should encompass both point and nonpoint source contributors. This effort must

also target reestablishment of more natural flow patterns in watersheds to enhance pollutant filtering and breakdown rather than the

ditching and channelization that deliver pollutants more directly to

our rivers.

Development of strong water reuse programs will also help combat both pollution and salt imbalances created by coastal aquifer

depletion. The phragmites problem and others are related to that.

And we should work to expand coastal reserves in order to increase

protection of fish nursery grounds.

The second goal that I envision is that we will need to improve

and update resource inventories, hence my strong support for S.

1321 as well as S. 1222. This will really help us to establish baselines where they’re not available so that we can mark our progress.

For example, accurate maps of submersed aquatic vegetation, wetlands, shellfish beds, fish nursery and spawning grounds are needed in many regions.
25

Achievement of major estuarine restoration will also require additional tools that must be provided by research. For example, we

need to develop improved indicators of chronic impacts of pollutants on key species in estuarine food webs, including young as well

as adult stages. We will need improved techniques for increasing

natural functions of both constructed and restored wetlands and

seagrass meadows. We must improve our ability to create valueadded products from our wastes rather than viewing them as materials to be discarded. And I think especially, and it is often overlooked, we need strengthened research in natural resource economics so that the full benefits of all the goods and services provided

by estuaries can be both accurately valued and imparted to our citizens.

The third goal that I see is that we should work to strengthen

enforcement of existing laws for estuarine resource conservation or

wise use. Again, this needs to be accomplished hand-in-hand with

development of strong incentive programs and also provision of

support through development of innovative fundraising programs.

We also need to work to improve upon some legislation. For example, land use plans under the Coastal Area Management Act

should be strengthened to require consideration of the ability of adjacent waters to handle the wastes that accompany our increasing

coastal population growth. Currently, these land use plans do not

contain that provision.

And fourth, we should work to promote development of comprehensive environmental education and outreach programs about

the importance of good water quality and healthy habitats, such as

wetlands and seagrass beds, both in estuaries and upstream in the

watersheds that drain into them. These programs should begin in

preschool, extend to high school and college, and continue to touch

all citizens throughout their lives.

My third and final reason for speaking for to you is much simpler

than the others——to help fishermen and other coastal folk who

are a big part of my State and our country’s heritage and also for

our children in the battle for estuarine restoration and wise resource maintenance.

I am also very pleased to join you and especially to join my Senator, Senator Faircloth, on this issue. This committee and he have

shown strong depth of caring for our estuaries and for all of us who

depend upon them in our State and country in support of these

bills. Thank you again for the privilege of addressing this Senate

committee on this important issue.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Dr. Burkholder. We appreciate that. I’m impressed by the number of papers that you’ve

written and had a part in writing, as shown in the back of your

testimony. Congratulations.

Ms. BURKHOLDER. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Dr. Milon, professor, food and resource economics department, University of Florida, Gainesville. Welcome, Doctor.
26

STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON, PROFESSOR, FOOD AND

RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF

FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE, FL

Mr. MILON. Thank you very much, Chairman Chafee. I thank you for the opportunity to present a brief summary of some research on the economic value of the Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance and part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s existing National Estuary Program. I come to you not

so much as an advocate of any particular legislation, but more as,

if you will, a reporter from the academic community about some research that this particular NEP program conducted and to give you

some insights from that research. This information is derived from a study I coordinated as part of a team organized by Apogee Research Inc., a nationally recognized

leader in environmental and natural resource economics. This

study was sponsored by the Indian River National Estuary Program and the St. Johns Water Management District, the State

sponsor for the Indian River NEP. The study is presented as one

documented example of the value of estuaries nationwide.

The Indian River Lagoon, one of the Nation’s most biologically di- verse estuaries, stretches 156 miles along Florida’s east coast spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties. These five counties are home to more than 1 million residents

and host more than 6 million visitors each year. The number of

visitors in the five counties of the Lagoon is expected to increase

from 1.25 million to almost 1.5 million between 1995 and 2005.

In developing estimates of the economic value of an environ- mental resource such as an estuary, it is important to consider the

scope and extent of human activity related to that resource. I offer

to you the accompanying Table 2–4 which is condensed from a

much larger report which I’ve included as different addendums as

part of my testimony here. That Table 2–4 is on page 16 of Addendum A, if you have an opportunity to look at that. The table shows

the scope of activities which are considered in the Indian River Lagoon study. These activities range from traditional economic uses

such as the value of commercial and recreational harvests from the

Lagoon to more intangible economic values such as the enhancement of land values adjacent to the resource and individuals’ values for preserving the resource. The full report, as I mentioned,

presents the valuation methodologies and data collection used in

the study, so I’m not going to describe those here.

These results that are summarized in Table 2–4 show the importance of the Lagoon to the economy of the region in 1995. Recreational fishing by residents and tourists was estimated to contribute approximately $340 million to the regional economy, swimming, boating, water sports, and nature observation activities

around the Lagoon contributed another $287 million. Commercial

harvesting of shellfish such as clams, oysters, and crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually. In addition, residential land values were enhanced by the presence of the Lagoon in the amount

of approximately $825 million which can be expressed as an

annualized value of about $33 million. Collectively, the direct values associated with the Lagoon on an annual basis amounted to

more than $725 million.
27

The Lagoon-dependent activities create additional indirect impacts on the regional economy. Businesses related to recreation,

tourism, and fisheries generate nearly $4 billion, or about 17 percent of total output within the region. And again, for this information I refer you to Addendum B, additional information that’s provided in there. I’ll leave that to whoever is interested in digging out

the individual details on that. Resident and tourist spending for

Lagoon-related activities accounted for more than 19,000 jobs in

the region.

These measures of the economic contribution of the Indian River

Lagoon can be compared to the costs of implementing the comprehensive conservation and management plan developed as part of

the Indian River NEP. This comprehensive plan includes recommendations to maintain and restore the Lagoon through water

quality management and habitat protection. These costs are estimated to be less than $18 million annually, indicating that the

costs of sustaining the activities dependent on the Lagoon are modest relative to their economic contribution within the region.

Properly designed funding plans could spread these costs equitably so that the average citizen in the region would pay no more

than $10 per year. In addition, public surveys conducted for this

study showed that residents would be willing to pay more than

three times the estimated annual cost to implement CCMP.

The results of the study, while limited to a single estuary, help

to illustrate the economic importance of estuaries in regional economies and the linkage between environmental quality and economic

development. The economy of the Indian River Lagoon region depends upon the ecosystem services provided by the estuary and future development within the region will be linked to adequate

maintenance of the health of this ecosystem.

Studies such as the one I am reporting to you are an integral

link in helping citizens and public officials understand the linkage

between the health of the estuaries and local economies. On this

score I refer you to a letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District which, as I mentioned, is the State sponsor for

the Indian River NEP. In that letter they discuss their own

thoughts on the legislation before you and also reiterate this point

about the importance of studies dealing with the economic value of

these resources. And as you and other members of the committee

have pointed out, this kind of information is extremely important

in building local support and local understanding of the role of

these estuaries in the region, and for building political support,

they are absolutely vital to the local citizenry.

I hope this information will be useful to the committee. I will

gladly provide you with any details about this study or any other

information about economic valuation of environmental resources

that would assist the committee in its deliberations. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Dr. Milon. I think what’s

helpful to the others is the methodology that you used in arriving

at your conclusions. I must say, it seems to me that you were modest and cautious in the land value figure you used, because certainly in our State there’s a whale of a difference between somebody whose got an ocean or an estuary view from their property

and someone who doesn’t in the value of his or her land.
28

Mr. MILON. Yes. Part of what we were trying to do, as I mentioned, was to build this local support and, if you will, local credibility. We wanted in the study to use as many conservative assumptions as we could so that these valuation estimates, if you

will, could not be challenged on the grounds that they were excessive. That in part led to some of that conservatism. But you’re correct, the ratios are enormous between residential property in particular on waterfront which is obviously highly valuable relative to

non-waterfront property, but also there’s a difference between those

areas that have very high water quality and those that have degraded water quality.

Senator CHAFEE. No question about that.

All right, Mr. Morton, counsel, Coastal and Ocean Program,

American Oceans Campaign. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF TED MORTON, COUNSEL, COASTAL

PROTECTION PROGRAM, AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN

Mr. MORTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ted

Morton. I am the Coastal Protection Program counsel for American

Oceans Campaign which is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing our Nation’s oceans and coastal

resources. On behalf of my organization and its members, I wish

to express my thanks to Senators Chafee and Baucus and to the

other members of the committee for inviting me to testify on legislative proposals to improve estuarine protections.

As you know, last year marked the 25th anniversary of the Nation’s premier water quality law——the Clean Water Act. Across

the Nation, communities used the anniversary to assess the condition of their lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal waters. Many communities discovered that significant progress had been achieved.

However, 25 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, we

will have not achieved one of the Act’s principal goals——to make

all waters swimmable and fishable. Coastal waters are particularly

troubled. A recent EPA report disclosed that about 38 percent of

the Nation’s surveyed estuaries are not clean enough to support

basic uses such as fishing and swimming. In addition, estuarine

habitat is threatened by unwise development, sedimentation, destructive fishing practices, and other threats.

In order to improve the state of estuaries, it is imperative to develop and follow a comprehensive national strategy that addresses

water quality improvements, habitat restoration, public education

efforts, and greater investments. I believe that a combination of

Senator Chafee’s Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, S.

1222, and Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays’ Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act, H.R. 2374, provides a

significant start to ensure that a comprehensive national strategy

for estuarine protection is put in place.

The American Oceans Campaign joins other leading estuarine

protection organizations across the Nation in support of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, the bill that Curtis Spalding has so eloquently discussed today. The bill would greatly improve efforts to restore estuarine habitats. In particular, I am very

supportive of the call for the creation of a collaborative council that

will direct a national estuarine habitat restoration strategy.
29

Rather than echo the comments of Senators, Curt, and others, I

would like to spend much of my time discussing the National Estuary Program and H.R. 2374. Since the creation of the NEP in 1987,

28 nationally significant estuaries have been the focus of intense

study and planning. Community leaders in these particular estuaries have collaboratively crafted comprehensive estuarine management plans, called CCMPs, that are designed to restore their local

estuary. Seventeen of the twenty-eight estuaries have approved

CCMPs and local communities are hard at work to implement their

plans. However, most communities are finding implementation a

challenge.

H.R. 2374, the Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill, corrects the most

glaring weakness of the National Estuary Program——the lack of

consistent, adequate Federal funds to assist States and localities in

implementing approved estuary plans. This bill is very similar to

bills introduced in the Senate in previous years by Senators

Lieberman, Moynihan, D’Amato, and Dodd.

The Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill will strengthen protections for

estuaries by requiring implementation of approved estuarine management plans. It assures a more sizable and dependable Federal

funding source for NEP implementation activities. The bill increases authorization levels for the Clean Water State Revolving

Loan Fund to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998, gradually increasing

this level to $4 billion in fiscal year 2004. The bill requires that

States with approved estuarine plans set aside a percentage of the

SRF increases for implementing approved plans.

To be part of the National Estuary Program an estuary is determined to be nationally significant. It should therefore be in the national interest to ensure that plans to restore these waters are fully

implemented. The Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill, by establishing a

dependable source of Federal funds to help States implement

CCMPs, substantially advances efforts to clean estuaries and restore estuarine habitat.

The NEP is also the focus of the National Estuary Conservation

Act, S. 1321, introduced by Senator Torricelli. S. 1321 allows NEP

grants to be used to develop and implement CCMPs and increases

authorized levels for the NEP to $50 million a year. Senator

Torricelli’s bill is a stride in the right direction. However, the bill

could potentially create additional hurdles for the NEP. First, the

annual Federal allocation of $50 million to be divided among 28

programs for both planning and implementation purposes is not a

sufficient level to ensure substantial progress in implementing priority actions of CCMPs.

Second, the bill could create conflicts between newer programs

still developing their CCMPs and older programs needing funds for

implementation. Just as current authorizations for the NEP are

routinely targeted for earmarks, it is highly likely that the additional funds will also be earmarked for special estuarine projects,

thereby squeezing dollars from programs still developing their

plans.

Finally, I’m concerned that with additional NEP grant dollars

available, EPA might succumb to pressure to use portions of the increased authorizations to add new local programs rather than fund

implementation of existing ones.
30

In conclusion, it is time for the United States to establish a comprehensive national strategy for estuarine protection. The beginnings of a strategy are already in place. Local estuarine programs

of the NEP have identified numerous priority actions needed for

cleaning estuaries and restoring habitats. In addition, coastal communities, States, and nonprofits like Save the Bay and Chesapeake

Bay Foundation have initiated successful estuarine habitat restoration projects and have identified several more projects needing immediate attention.

I encourage this committee to mark up a comprehensive estuarine protection bill that includes both the Chafee and the Lowey,

DeLauro, Shays bill. This comprehensive bill would foster beneficial estuarine habitat restoration activities, augment efforts to

minimize water quality impairment from both polluted runoff and

point sources, encourage broad-scale meaningful public participation, and increase Federal financial contributions to ensure estuaries will remain special productive places in the future.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to

your questions. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Morton.

One of the problems that comes up constantly is nonpoint source

pollution, particularly with agricultural runoff, which I think you

touched on, Dr. Burkholder, and others have likewise. What can we

do about that, Dr. Burkholder? We don’t want to get in a conflict

with the farmers and yet there’s no question but the agricultural

runoff is a very serious thing. I think Mr. Spalding touched on it,

too. Got any suggestions?

Ms. BURKHOLDER. I think that we should develop some very

strong incentive programs we have not developed in the past, and

also we need to enforce the legislation we already have in place to

try to control nonpoint pollution. Often when we try to enforce it,

we find that we haven’t really given the polluters the recourse to

be able to follow best management practices or the existing laws.

So, as I mentioned earlier, I think we need not only to enforce

the legislation that we have, but also to develop much better incentive programs that are backed by appropriate funding for, for example, the little farmers in the middle of a concentrated animal operation situation to be able to do better in handling waste.

Senator CHAFEE. I think handling the waste is one thing. In

other words, you talked about incentives. I suppose a form of incentive would be to help contribute to the farmers to build some holding ponds of some type. That’s OK for the waste to attempt to control the waste. But what do you do with the fertilizer that they put

on their fields, the pesticides and so forth, plus the manure that

they scatter on their fields which they done from time immemorial?

Ms. BURKHOLDER. Again, there are a lot of things that are being

tried right now in my own State. One is to do much better in trying

to figure out how to make value-added products of the wastes so,

instead of spraying them or putting them on fields, we can market

them in some way. The current practices that we have, for all their

best intentions, often still treat wastes just as wastes, so there has

to be somewhere to put them, somewhere to get rid of them and

waters have always been a repository.
31

So we need much, much more innovative methods to turn these

into value-added products. Some of those technique applications

and research efforts are being tried but they need a lot more support. A lot of the research that I talked about I don’t even do, so

it’s certainly not anything that would benefit my laboratory but it

is research that would benefit the country because we have such

a burgeoning problem with animal wastes in certain areas and

with urban runoff as well.

There should be other incentives that we can try. Tax incentives

are commonly done and there are some innovative funding things

that we could do that. For instance in my State, we don’t even have

an environmental license plate like some States do. So, some very

easy things that would really help to get some funding into these

sorts of programs could be done.

Senator CHAFEE. Any thoughts, Mr. Spalding?

Mr. SPALDING. Yes, I do, Senator. One of the best examples of an

approach for dealing with nonpoint source pollution comes from

your home State, in fact in a city you’re familiar with. The city of

Warwick ran something called the Greenwich Bay Initiative.

Greenwich Bay was suffering severely from nonpoint pollution——

failing septic systems, farms, those sorts of things——and through

a comprehensive watershed approach, they’ve done great things. It

was demonstrated this past month. We’ve had this unbelievable

amount of rain in Rhode Island, as you know, and nonpoint pollution closed the beaches all the way down the Bay. Well, Greenwich

Bay’s beaches came back much faster than people thought and I

think in large part because of the work that had been done there

on a watershed basis.

Buffer zones can be built. Restoration of marshes can be part of

that strategy in the long run, because marshes have the capacity

to filter pollutants coming off of farms and open spaces such as golf

courses and parks. In our Rhode Island context, we don’t have

nearly the farmland they have in North Carolina. So with a watershed approach that is accountable——it’s very important for all of

us to remember we’ve got to meet the goals and objectives. You

can’t say let’s just plan, plan, plan and not get things done.

Senator CHAFEE. I think one of the things they did in that

Greenwich Bay was also to provide assistance to those who had

poor septic systems, didn’t they?

Mr. SPALDING. Absolutely right. Several innovative ideas such as

wastewater management districts. In fact, we used some EPA support to connect people to existing interceptors. In that situation you

had sewer lines that people were not connecting to. So there’s a

number of opportunities.

The big solution though was that there was a farm that was a

problem. They pinpointed it and gave assistance to the farmer;

dealt with some waste management problems, and also worked on

a long term acquisition strategy with this farmer so that his land

can stay open but also be better managed.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. Thank you all very, very much. Dr. Milon,

I’m familiar with your area. My father-in-law for years and years

sent us oranges from Indian River.

Mr. MILON. Indian River Lagoon. Yes, that’s the same one.
32

Senator CHAFEE. Indian River Orchards. So I look on Indian

River with great favorability.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you all very much.

Now we’ll have Panel III, Mr. Xavier Romeu and Dr. Juan

Martı ́nez-Cruzado.

Mr. Romeu, welcome. And I believe you have the Majority Leader

of the Senate with you.

Mr. ROMEU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Majority Leader

of the Senate of Puerto Rico to accompany me.

Senator CHAFEE. Maybe you could just introduce him.

Mr. ROMEU. Charles Rodriquez is the President of the Senate of

Puerto Rico who has travelled here specifically on the particular

legislation before the committee.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine. Thank you. Glad you’re here. I understand that you had to go to particular effort to get here because

of the strike you’re having down there in Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMEU. Everything is under control, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. Good. OK. Proceed, if you would.

STATEMENT OF XAVIER ROMEU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PUERTO RICO FEDERAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION, ON BEHALF OF PERFECTO OCASIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTHORITY, SAN JUAN, PR;

ACCOMPANIED BY: HON. CHARLES A. RODRIQUEZ, PRESIDENT, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO AND HAGUB SHAHABIAN,

ENGINEER

Mr. ROMEU. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. My name is Xavier Romeu. I am the executive director

of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, essentially

known as the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico in the continental United States. I appear before you today on behalf of the Puerto

Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, better known as PRASA, the

public corporation that serves almost all of the 3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico with portable water and wastewater

services. PRASA’s executive director, Perfecto Ocasio, as has been

noted, was unable to travel last night. Please excuse his unforeseen

unavoidable absence from this important hearing.

We appreciate your understanding and willingness to consider

our views. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment

on the need for this legislation which would benefit the environment and the economy of Puerto Rico. Also with me is Dr. Hagub

Shahabian, a distinguished engineer with an expertise in hydrology

and wastewater treatment issues.

First, I would like to present to the committee a letter from Governor Pedro Rossello urging quick Senate action on H.R. 2207, as

a matter of urgent importance to the people of Puerto Rico. I understand also that Congressman Romero- Barcelo has submitted a

letter of support for the record. As you know, Congressman Barcelo

was instrumental in passing this legislation in the House. He could

not attend the hearing today due to prior engagements which required his presence also in Puerto Rico.

Under Section 301(h) of the 1977 Clean Water Act, coastal communities, including islands, were given the opportunity to apply for
33

an alternative to the requirements of secondary treatment for

ocean discharges that met stringent environmental equivalency requirements. All applications were initially required to be submitted

to the EPA by December 31, 1982. PRASA submitted seven applications. Of those seven, six were tentatively approved; only one, the

Mayagu ̈ez treatment plant outfall, was denied finally in 1994. The

application was rejected because of the location of the outfall in the

sensitive coral environment of Mayagu ̈ez Bay.

H.R. 2207, passed by the House last October, would allow Puerto Rico to apply to the EPA for authority under Section 301(h) of the

Clean Water Act to construct a new, state-of-the-art deep ocean

outfall at a location that avoids this sensitive coral environment of

Mayagu ̈ez Bay. This would be an alternative to secondary treatment at the current outfall location in Mayagu ̈

ez Bay.

This option is specifically embodied, as was noted before, in a recent Consent Decree between the EPA and PRASA, which resolves

essentially a 15 year old legal dispute. The Consent Decree, supported by EPA and PRASA, requires PRASA to meet a detailed

schedule for the construction of facilities necessary to achieve compliance with all of the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

As is known, the Decree provides two alternatives. One is the

construction of a traditional secondary treatment plant, at a high

cost and energy consumption, which will continue to discharge

effluents into the Mayagu ̈ez Bay. The second alternative, illustrated in the accompanying chart, is the construction of a deep

water ocean outfall sending primary treated effluents several miles

offshore into deep ocean currents, thus relieving the stress on the

Bay and its sensitive coral ecosystems. The deep water outfall

would be less expensive to build and much less expensive to operate than a secondary treatment plant. EPA would determine

whether the deep ocean outfall meets all Clean Water standards.

However, because of the urgent need for a solution, the Consent

Decree permits EPA consideration of the outfall alternative only if

Congress authorizes the approach by August 1, 1998. Therefore

time is of the essence.

The current legislation provides Puerto Rico the same opportunity that Congress has given other coastal communities in

unique situations to implement Section 301(h). The bill does not in

any way change any applicable standards of the Clean Water Act.

Without authority to submit a waiver application to the EPA,

PRASA may be required to spend millions of dollars for a secondary treatment plant that will have no beneficial effect on the

stressed marine environment of Mayagu ̈ez Bay. These funds could

be used for the renovation and upgrade of Puerto Rico’s water facilities infrastructure and other water supply treatment and

wastewater projects urgently needed in the island of Puerto Rico.

Indeed, just last month, the President issued an Executive Order

on Coral Reef Protection. The legislation also provides Congress

and the EPA with an early opportunity to further the goals of this

initiative. That order which is designed to protect and preserve

coral reef ecosystems requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to reduce impact on affected environments from pollution

and sedimentation. H.R. 2207 will allow EPA the opportunity to determine whether a deep ocean outfall can protect the Bay.
34

Without this bill, EPA and PRASA have no options except an immediate and inordinately expensive one, a course of action that

would continue pollution and sedimentation of the coral ecosystem.

This bill does not authorize construction of a deep ocean outfall. It

will simply allow us to conclude the necessary studies and complete

an application for EPA review.

Indeed, PRASA is already proceeding to ensure a thorough environmental review of all options under Law No. 9, Puerto Rico’s

local equivalent of the National Environment Policy Act. PRASA

and the Puerto Rico Environment Quality Board are preparing an

environmental impact statement. A draft EIS was completed in

April recommending a deep ocean outfall as environmentally preferable. A copy of the EIS is being submitted to the committee. The

entire EIS record will be available to EPA as it considers the strict

standards of Section 301(h).

There are precedents for limited amendment to Section 301(h).

The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant amendments of 1981 included a provision that specifically permitted the

city of Avalon, California to file. The 1981 provision concluded,

‘‘Failure to broaden eligibility risks requiring treatment for treatment’s sake involving the expenditure of funds which would better

be used to achieve additional water quality benefits elsewhere.’’

This bill does not grant variances. It simply allows variances to be

sought with the burden on the applicant to make his case on environmental grounds.

The Water Quality Act of 1987 also included a specific provision

for the Irvine Ranch Water District, a California public agency,

that permitted the district to file for a Section 301(h) waiver. More

recently, in 1994, Congress passed H.R. 5176, which allowed the

city of San Diego to apply for a waiver under Section 301(h) within

180 days of enactment. This action precisely parallels the provision

here.

The Government of Puerto Rico urges the committee to act quickly. A legislative solution must be in place before August 1, 1998.

This will allow us to put to rest years of litigation and focus our

energies and capital resources on implementing an environmentally

sound solution for Mayagu ̈ez and other urgent priorities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you for your

time and consideration of this important issue for Puerto Rico.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much for that testimony.

Now, Dr. Juan Martı ́nez-Cruzado.

STATEMENT OF JUAN C. MARTINEZ-CRUZADO, PAST PRESIDENT, MAYAGUEZANOS FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,

INC., ON BEHALF OF ROBERTO PEREZ-COLON, PRESIDENT,

MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY OF MAYAGUEZ, MAYAGUEZ, PR

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Good morning.

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. I am Dr. Juan Carlos Martı ́nezCruzado, former president of and spokesperson for Mayagu ̈

ezanos

for Health and Environment. We thank this committee very much

for this opportunity to express our views to you even though we are

not constituents of any of you. I am giving my testimony on behalf

of the Mayor of the city of Mayagu ̈ez, Mayagu ̈ezanos for Health
35

and Environment, and a Legal Cologica de Rincon. We prepared

one copy of this package for each member of this committee. It includes our testimonies, a letter of support from most of the major

environmental groups here on the mainland, and other important

materials. My statement will differ a little bit from the written testimony.

In Mayagu ̈ez, we hold our Bay in very high regard and dream

of the day in which we may be able again to swim in it without

skin rashes, ear infections, and other ailments. We must stress for

the record that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the Virgin

Islands is categorized by indifference and negligence and a much

less pro-environmental position than is generally the case on the

mainland. The agency’s handling of 301(h) waivers is a very good

example.

Since that provision was——

Senator CHAFEE. Doctor, could I hold up 1 minute here. I want

to make certain I have your testimony. I lost you there. Are you

speaking from this testimony that you submitted?

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. I submitted that testimony on behalf of

Mayagu ̈ezanos for Health and Environment. The problem is that

Victor Negrone, from the Council of the city of Mayagu ̈ez——

Senator CHAFEE. Yes, I’ve got a copy of the Mayor’s letter here.

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. I am speaking on behalf of both.

Senator CHAFEE. But I was just trying to get what you were

working from. OK. I think I have it here. Go ahead, please.

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. Thank you. We must address for the

record that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is characterized by indifference and negligence and a much

less pro-environmental position than is generally the case on the

mainland. The agency’s handling of 301(h) waivers is a very good

example. Since that provision was first added to the Act in 1977,

more than 200 applications for waivers were submitted. EPA has

made its final determinations on all but seven of those applications. Not coincidentally, the remaining seven are all in Puerto

Rico or the Virgin Islands. In the meantime, partially treated sewage continues to be dumped into the Caribbean and the Atlantic.

As Hispanics, we are very aware of discrimination by EPA. So we

were very pleased that President Clinton signed an Executive

Order on Environmental Justice in 1993. However, the problem remains a very real one for us. After all, we do not believe that there

has ever been any other Consent Decree but that of Mayagu ̈ez in

which EPA agrees to sit on the law for 1 year explicitly to give the

defendant a chance to weaken the law that EPA is called on to enforce. We cannot, and we do not, trust EPA.

Because of the Mayagu ̈ez sewage treatment plant’s noncompliance, EPA has imposed a moratorium on new sewer hookups. This

is depressing our economy. There is a deficit of new housing that

has been built in Mayagu ̈ez since 1993. Because of this, there is

a dire need for low and middle income housing in our municipality.

Many persons have moved away to nearby towns, thereby affecting

our economy.

Even though EPA concluded 7 years ago——seven years ago——

that the water of Mayagu ̈ez Bay was already so stressed and no

further impairment could be tolerated, PRASA is still discharging
36

the same barely treated wastewater at the same site and causing

the same effects on our beaches and corals. Tourism along the entire Bay coastline is the lowest in 10 years. No seaside recreational

development has occurred in the past 10 years. The city’s own

plans to develop a promenade along the beachfront have been postponed due to the water’s dirty appearance and foul smell. This has

stymied our efforts to replace decreasing industrial employment opportunities with tourist related jobs.

And here we are now considering turning the clock back to 1979 and giving PRASA another opportunity to engage in a long 301(h)

waiver application procedure. The people of Mayagu ̈ez, who are

sick of waiting for action, can only regard this bill as an excuse to

keep doing nothing about the sewage in Mayagu ̈ez, and an attempt

to condemn our city and our corals to a slow death.

The people’s desire for a quick solution to this discharge is so

great that even the Governor of Puerto Rico went out of his way

in October 1996 1 month before the general elections to promise to

the people of Mayagu ̈ez the start of the construction of a secondary

treatment plant by July last year. That promise, however, proved

to be an empty one.

Last May PRASA prepared an environmental impact statement

for the deep ocean outfall. PRASA put in writing and on the map

the proposed point and depth of discharge. The depth is 400 feet,

not 600, and it is within, not under, the pignocline, suggesting that

the wastewaters will float to the surface rather than stay in the

depths.

Hence, the proposed discharge will impact the beaches of Rincon

and Anyasco to the North, well known as tourists spots for the

surfing activities, as well as a major coral reef that will be located

a mile from the point of discharge. The discharge will be very close

to the point where the continental shelf drops off. This area provides critical habitat to massive populations of fish larvae and is

thus a cornerstone of the local fishery. As a result, opposition to

this bill is quickly growing in all sections of society in the neighboring municipalities of Anyasco and Rincon.

The statement made by EPA that they believe that a discharge

will occur at a depth of 600 feet threatens our belief that this application will eventually be denied. Twelve years of sewer hook-up

moratorium and almost raw sewage being discharged within our

Bay so that this mediocre solution may be considered smells like

very bad business for Mayagu ̈ez.

On the other hand, an engineering company has made public a

proposal for secondary treatment followed with discharge to existing wetlands for natural tertiary treatment. Land application of

secondarily treated wastewater will be less expensive than deep

ocean disposal and will remove all discharges from the sea.

It is crystal clear that the deep ocean outfall is the worst possible

solution to a fairly straightforward problem. When Congress structured its 301(h) waiver opportunity in 1977, they did it so with the

clear understanding that the opportunity to seek such waiver

would expire in 5 years. In other words, even where a sewage plant

operator can persuade EPA that it complies with all of the criteria

found in the law, no application for such a waiver could be accepted

after December 31, 1982. On that day, the door closed. Why? Be-
37

cause Congress recognized that there is something profoundly

wrong with dumping barely treated waste into the sea. On this, the

92d Congress’ idea turns out to be right. The 105th Congress will

make a grave mistake by reopening that door.

If the bill is not enacted, secondary treatment will be in operation by 2001 according to the terms of the Consent Decree. Even

though secondary treatment may not provide full relief to corals, it

is a step toward a tertiary treatment which will provide adequate

protection for the reefs. More importantly, it will permit lifting of

the sewer hook-up moratorium that is depressing the economy of

Mayagu ̈ez.

We urge you please to let H.R. 2207 die. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much, Doctor.

Now as I understand, Dr. Martı ́nez-Cruzado, what Mr. Romeu

and others are saying is that they just want the opportunity to

apply for the waiver to EPA. If I understood correctly, that seemed

to be what the proposition was. Now what’s the matter with that,

just letting PRASA make the application?

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. The main problem is time. It took EPA

12 years to deny PRASA’s application for Mayagu ̈ez, from 1979 to

1991. If this bill is approved, if this application goes through, we

may very well expect 12 more years of the application procedure.

Those are 12 more years there will be the moratorium on the sewer

hook-up and 12 more years of this sewage being discharged right

in front of our corals with barely treated sewage. That is totally unacceptable for us. It is really a matter of time. We understand a

secondary treatment will make it much better and will be a right

step to our tertiary treatment which will provide adequate protection for the corals.

Senator CHAFEE. I will put in the record here the letter from the

mayor, Mayor Rodriguez, written July 6, addressed to me. And

then he had some testimony that he submitted and we’ll put that

in the record, too.

[The referenced letter and testimony of Mayor Rodriguez follow:]

Senator CHAFEE. Now, isn’t there a Consent Decree that PRASA

is meant to go to a secondary treatment by 2001, Doctor?

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. That is unless this bill passes. If this

bill passes, it opens the door for a 301(h) waiver application, and

in that case it does not have to construct the secondary treatment

plant by October 31. And I was very distressed to see in the written testimony of EPA today, they didn’t read it but it is in the written testimony, that they are very short of resources to look at this

301(h) waiver application, if this bill is approved. They recognize

there are corals off the Bay and that they will have to analyze it

in light of the recent Clinton Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection. So that is telling us they are already giving excuses for how

long they will take to analyze this proposal which, in fact, we find

has quite a few weaknesses.

So we are very worried that this application, if it ever happens,

will take very easily 12 more years. And we are not willing to wait

for that long. Our economy is depressed. We are losing millions of

dollars, and I speak at this time for the city of Mayagu ̈ez, and we

are not willing to go through that again.

Mr. ROMEU. Senator?
38

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Romeu, what do you say to the argument

that Dr. Martı ́nez-Cruzado has made that this is a delaying action?

As I understand, you’ve applied twice before for waivers and have

been turned down both times. And now you want to get special permission to try again. What’s the answer to that?

Mr. ROMEU. Senator, the Government of Puerto Rico expects to

move expeditiously in this area. In fact, the legislature of Puerto

Rico has passed a concurrent resolution which I believe has been

furnished to the members of the committee.

Also, I would like to make two quick comments. There are at

least two assumptions in the testimony of my colleague. One is that

the secondary treatment plant will be a much better situation than

the one that we are proposing. And we propose that it is for the

EPA to make that decision, not for the committee, very respectfully. The other one is that the secondary treatment plant will be

built by December 2001. There is no guarantee of that and, in fact,

the testimony of an EPA official before me seemed to cast doubt on

the feasibility of that.

So on both counts, on the quality of the alternative, and the

timeliness of what the Government of Puerto Rico intends to do, I

believe that my colleague is incorrect. In any event, I believe that

that is a determination to be made by the EPA which will review

the waiver application fully and will make a determination.

Senator CHAFEE. If I understand, his arguments are that this

thing can be dragged out forever. I guess your colleague mentioned

a 12 year period that this has gone on.

Mr. ROMEU. We have no such intention. And as a good faith

show that we do not have that intention, we have already prepared

an environmental impact statement, as I mentioned previously in

my testimony.

With the Senator’s permission, can the Senator of the Senate of

Puerto Rico make a brief statement for the record?

Senator CHAFEE. Sure. But it has to be rather brief. If he would

like to, fine. Step right up to the table.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT,

SENATE OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

very much. For the record, my name is Charles Rodriguez. I am the

President of the Senate of Puerto Rico.

Senator CHAFEE. We welcome a fellow Senator. Who can keep a

fellow Senator from making a few remarks.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Senate of

Puerto Rico, we are very much concerned with the situation that

is occurring in the West Coast of Puerto Rico. The city of

Mayagu ̈ez, the municipalities of Ormegueros, Cabal Rojo, and

Anyasco have their economic rebuilding totally in halt because of

this problem we have with the water treatment plant. That is the

reason we have been supporting this alternative before you in this

legislation, because we believe that at least it gives the opportunity

to submit to the EPA this alternative which they will have to review, and they will review it to see that it will satisfy the environmental requirements that EPA will obviously be seeking for it to

be implemented with this alternative.
39

We want to see this passed through because we in the Puerto

Rican Senate are going to be overseeing our local public corporation

to see that, if this is approved and the EPA goes on to approve this

alternative also of the deep water ocean outfall, we will be obviously overseeing the process. We are willing even to be submitted

to a timetable that EPA may well introduce in its authorization of

the construction of this alternative. And we will see that it is complied with.

So I must say that, as the U.S. Senate does and the other senates of the 50 States, the Senate of the Territory of Puerto Rico will

be overseeing this and looking to see that the construction of this

project becomes a reality, because we have to deal with the problem of the West Coast of Puerto Rico and we have this pledge to

the people of that part of the island.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine. All right, concluding statement. Go ahead,

Dr. Martı ́nez-Cruzado.

Mr. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO. Well, as has been said, this will depend

on how fast EPA analyzes this. And EPA has said that it is short

of resources. I really don’t want to put EPA in a position where it

will be pressed to approve a proposal that puts the discharge in the

pignocline where it may surface. We are very much concerned that

this either would take a long, long time, or that it will take some

time and bring to a solution that is unacceptable and that the discharge treated will float and impact the corals.

So we are really getting into a box here that it is not good at all.

We understand that there is already a Consent Decree in the Federal court and it says there has to be the secondary treatment

plant operational by December 31, 2001. Operational. There are

fines to be put in place if it is not. But that goes only if this bill

dies.

Senator CHAFEE. All right. Fine. Thank you all very much. We

appreciate your coming all the way up from Puerto Rico. We’ll try

to move quickly on this.

That concludes the hearing.

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[The texts of S. 1222, S. 1321, H.R. 2207, and statements submitted for the record follow:]
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

STATEMENT OF HON. LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

S. 1222, THE ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION ACT

Two years ago, the North Carolina Coastal Federation asked me to support what is now S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Act. I understand that Melvin

Shepard, the president of the Coastal Federation is here today. Melvin, I hope you’ll

let the folks back in Nor& Carolina know what I’m about to say. Although I have spent a good part of my life in and around the coastal sounds and rivers of North Carolina, until I started looking at the merits of this bill I did

not fully realize just how important these waters are to my State and the nation. We’ve got 2.2 million acres of estuaries in North Carolina. Our commercial and recreational fishing industry is dependent upon these waters. More than 90 percent

of North Carolina’s commercially important species of fish and shellfish spend part

of their lives in the state’s estuaries.

I’m also proud to say that nearly 50 percent of the seafood caught on the east coast of the United States depends on North Carolina’s estuaries. In short, our ability to have seafood in this nation depends upon main healthy and productive coastal

waters.

This bill will enable communities to get to work restoring degraded estuaries across this country. It is vital that we target needed resources to restore and preserve our Nation’s estuaries. The goal of the bill is ambitious—to restore one million acres of estuarine

habitat by the year 2010. We want to restore 100,000 acres in North Carolina alone. S. 1222 sets out new, innovative ways of making this happen. It will help our communities restore habitat critical to preserving our nation’s estuaries. The bill also is important because it sets out a new way of building genuine part- nerships between our communities, our states and the Federal Government.

It makes sure that we listen to our citizens; build from what we know; coordinate

and streamline existing programs; and most important, target limited resources in

a cost-effective manner.

The level of support the bill has received speaks well of the potential value of the

legislation to so many American coastal communities, and says a great deal about

the stature of Senator Chafee, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public

Works Committee, and of his work on behalf of the environment.

I am committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and fel- low cosponsors to move S. 1222 this year. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that we move this estuary bill as a

part of the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization, to ensure that it gets

done this year.

I believe this would make sense since the estuary bill makes the Army Corps of

Engineers the lead agency in estuary restoration.

We need to make sure S. 1222 is a part of the reauthorization. If we don’t, a good

bill—one that builds bipartisan bridges as it restores our estuaries—will get devoured in the larger and much more charged debate about the Clean Water Act next

year.

Lastly, I wish to welcome Dr. Joann Burkholder of N.C. State University, who will

be testifying here today. Dr. Burkholder is well known to most of you as one of the

nation’s leading research scientists, and is one of the discoverers of the Pfiesteria

microbe. She will be testifying to the serious consequences which can flow from degraded estuaries. Joann, it’s good to have you here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

I’d like to thank the Chairman of the committee, Senator John Chafee, for this

opportunity to address the committee and I am pleased to join him at today’s hearing on the ‘‘Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997.’’ I want to commend him for his leadership on this issue. I also appreciate the 25 other Senators

who have joined us as co-sponsors of this bill so that we may draw national attention to the significant value of the Nation’s estuaries and the need to restore them.

This bill seeks to create a voluntary, community driven, incentive-based program

which builds partnerships between Federal, state and local governments and the

private sector to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration

projects.

Some relevant and eye-opening statistics about estuaries which have been published include:
78

• 75 percent of commercial fish and shellfish which are harvested in the U.S. and

80–90 percent of the recreational fish catch depend upon estuary habitat at some

life stage. • The rapid and significant loss of estuary habitat, reaching over 90 percent in some areas, threatens the commercial and sport fishing industries, tourism, recreation, and other industries. These industries provide jobs to about 28 million U.S.

citizens. Fishing alone contributes $111 billion to the U.S. economy per year. • In my own State of Louisiana, fish and wildlife resources are estimated to bring $5.7 billion into the economy yearly. Louisiana’s coast produces 16 percent of the

commercial harvest fisheries in the U.S. • 40 percent of the wild fur harvest in the U.S. comes from Louisiana’s wetlands.

With estuaries and coastal regions being home to about half of the U.S. popu- lation, and with coastal counties growing 3 times faster than counties elsewhere, it

is obvious that the ecological and economic impact of estuary losses must be taken

seriously and must be addressed. In Louisiana, our estuaries, such as the Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and

Vermilion Bay systems are vital to the culture and economy of local communities.

When the Acadian people migrated to Louisiana in the 1700’s, they settled there

because of the abundance of natural resources along its coastal wetlands. The lifestyle and jobs of many Louisianians continues to be centered around these resources, which are as much a part of its culture as its economy. I am proud:

• that Louisiana has been at the forefront of the movement to recognize the im- portance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them, in particular the

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. • that the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary is one of 28 estuaries in the National

Estuary Program. • of the advanced level of the work Louisiana is conducting in its coastal areas, including the development and implementation of a federally approved coastal wetlands conservation plan.

It is time now for Congress to implement a strategy whereby public and private partnerships may be used to ensure that estuaries remain ecologically and economically vibrant for future generations through restoration projects. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I again want to thank you for your leadership and look forward to working with you and other Senators on this critical piece of environmental legislation. Because estuaries are an important national resource, bringing real dollars to our economy and affecting the lives, the safety, and the well-being

of people all over this nation, I am hopeful that the Congress will move in a timely

manner to authorize an effective estuary restoration program which will result in

healthy and viable ecosystems.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

LOUISIANA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to comment today on an important measure before the Committee on Environment and Public Works—S.

1222, ‘‘The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997.’’ This significant legislation recognizes the cultural and economic importance of es- tuary habitats as a natural resource. We have learned from the past that protective

measures are not enough. In addition to protection we must emphasize the education and restoration of estuary habitats. By creating Federal/State partnership

programs I believe this bill is a major step in the right direction toward ensuring

a sustainable resource base for the future.

In Louisiana alone we are home to one of the nation’s largest productive estuaries, the Barataria/Terrebonne estuary, which covers over four million acres. Estuaries

are the building blocks for the coastal areas of my State. From a wildlife and fisheries standpoint estuaries contribute nearly $6 billion to Louisiana’s economy. In addition, they provide nursery grounds for fisheries across the Gulf of Mexico. Finally,

estuaries are the basis for a growing industry, ecotourism. For these and other reasons coordinated efforts are vital to the continued viability of our nation’s coastlines.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

NEW JERSEY

Thank you Chairman Chafee for the opportunity to appear before the committee

and for your cosponsorship of S. 1321. I would also like to thank Senators Lauten-
79

berg, Moynihan, Graham, Lieberman, and Boxer for their cosponsorship of the bill

as well.

Today we stand at a crossroads in our national coastal policy. After years of Fed- eral involvement, we are becoming lax in maintaining a consistent level of investment in our nation’s coastlines.

Our coasts are an integral part of our national infrastructure. As we approach the next century, we must treat them like our roads, schools, and technology, as the

foundation of economic development, job creation, and current prosperity. Since the creation of the Beach and Erosion Board in the 1 930’s the Federal Government has taken an active role in preserving our beaches. Yet the Administration sees things differently and has even ignored the intent of Congress on the Federal role established 12 years ago. Even though the 1986 Water Resources Development Act established the current funding format where the Federal Government pays 65 percent of beach replenishment projects, the Administration’s 1998 proposal turned the relationship on its

head by reducing the Federal share to 35 percent of the renourishment phase

(which is typically 80–85 percent of the project cost.) Beach replenishment is but one example of the lapse of the Federal commitment

to our coastline. I trust the Committee, with the help of the senior Senator from

New Jersey, will rectify this issue as they consider the Water Resources Development Act.

However, at this hearing we are examining another equally important issue—our

nation’s estuaries.

Estuaries are important to the economy for their fish and wildlife habitat as well as providing centers for boating and recreational activity. Seventy-five percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on estuaries.

New Jersey is the leading supplier of surf clams in the Nation with one of our most productive clam grounds located in Barnegat Bay estuary. Our nation’s coasts are also a central element of the tourism industry which na- tionally employs 14.4 million people and contributes over 10 percent to our GDP,

making it the second-largest sector in the economy. In New Jersey, fishing, boating, and outdoor recreation are important components of our $25 billion tourist economy. A million fishermen participate in New Jersey’s’s marine recreational fishery.

With all this economic activity, in addition to land development and associated activities it is obvious that, our estuaries are heavily used resources under severe

environmental pressures.

Over 400,000 people live in the Barnegat Bay estuary; in the summer that num- ber doubles to 800,000.

There are 1 16 marinas and boat launching sites in the Barnegat Bay estuary where one third of New Jersey’s boats are registered.

The popularity of Barnegat Bay has caused non-point source pollution from runoff

and storm water discharges resulting in blooms of brown tide algae in 1995, 1997,

and as recently as last month.

In other estuaries, intense urban development has resulted in major pollution

sources. There are 730 Combined Sewage Overflows in New York-New Jersey Harbor that will take $2–6 billion to correct.

With all of these pressures, Congress recognized the importance of developing a

program that would help states and localities plan for their protection and restoration.

The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments established the National Estuary Program (NEP) which created a Federal partnership with state and local governments

to prepare comprehensive management plans for estuaries of national significance

threatened by pollution.

Over the years 28 estuaries were designated with 3 in New Jersey.

The Federal Government would provide funds while the state and local governments developed the plans.

Seventeen of the 28 designated estuaries have completed plans.

However, the NEP has not been reauthorized since 1991, and today the states

cannot receive Federal funding to implement their plans.

The premise behind S. 1321 is simple: the Federal Government must continue to

support those who have developed plans but are no longer eligible for Federal assistance.

In reauthorizing the NEP at $50 million annually, S. 1321 also includes the authority to make grants for plan implementation so those with completed plans can

receive assistance as well as those who are still developing them.

S. 1321 would insure that the Federal Government lives up to its commitment to

make investments to protect our nationally significant estuaries.
80

Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you for your cosponsorship of S. 1321 as well as for your sponsorship of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.

Your support of these bills as well as the Committee’s efforts in holding hearings today on coastal pollution reduction and estuary conservation demonstrate your

commitment to solving these problems. I look forward to working with you and the

Committee on these important legislative initiatives.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. WAYLAND III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS

AND WATERSHEDS, OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning, I am Robert H. Wayland, Director of the Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

These hearings come at a propitious time. The United States is observing the International Year of the Ocean and examining our responsibilities as stewards of ocean

and coastal resources. At the recent National Oceans Conference in Monterey, the

President committed to a series of actions in recognition of those responsibilities and

again pledged the Administration to implement, with assistance from the Congress,

a Clean Water Action Plan. This Plan, undertaken in recognition of the progress

made and challenges remaining after a quarter century of implementing the Clean

Water Act, contains numerous actions directed to marine and estuarine protection

and restoration. These actions have been significantly influenced by our experience

over the last decade in implementing the National Estuary Program.

The National Estuary Program, modeled after the Chesapeake Bay and Great

Lakes Programs, was established by Congress in 1987 to demonstrate a new framework to address serious environmental problems faced by these valuable ecosystems.

Estuaries are particularly vulnerable because they often serve as ‘‘sinks’’ for pollutants originating upstream within the watersheds and the airsheds overlying them.

In addition, estuaries are directly impacted by human activity—well over half the

people in this country live, work, or play near the coast.

The NEP seeks to protect and restore the health of estuaries and their living resources, and in so doing, the recreation, fishing, and other economic activities that

take place in or depend on healthy estuaries. Just how valuable these activities are

is highlighted by these facts and figures:

• Coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54 billion in goods and

services every year.

• The coastal recreation and tourism industry is the second largest employer in

the nation, serving 180 million Americans visiting the coasts every year.

• The commercial fish and shellfish industry is also very important, contributing

$45 billion to the economy every year, while recreational fishing contributes $30 billion to the U.S. economy annually.

• 39.6 percent of the Nation’s classified marine shellfish areas are in NEP estuaries. 53.4 percent of those have limits on harvesting.

• 15 percent of the population of the continental US resides within NEP coastal

watersheds.

• 26 percent of the 2.23 million square miles of watershed area of the US drains

into NEP estuaries.

• Surface water covers 27,858,000 square miles of the Nation. NEPs cover 45 percent of that total, or 12,516,00 square miles.

Although each of the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program is unique,

many face several common environmental problems and challenges. A recent national assessment undertaken by numerous stakeholders from each local NEP (including scientists, citizens, resource managers, policymakers, and business groups)

concluded that the most common problems NEPs are dealing with are: 1) nutrient

overenrichment; 2) pathogen contamination; 3) toxic chemicals; 4) alteration of

freshwater flow; 5) loss of habitat; 6) declines in fish and wildlife; and 7) introduction of invasive species. We have every reason to believe that these problems are

common to most coastal watersheds throughout the United States.

The impacts of these problems are serious. Pathogens cause shellfish bed closures.

Nutrient-overenrichment contributes to lower dissolved oxygen levels, loss of

seagrass and coral habitats, and declines in ecosystem health. Introduction of

invasive species adversely affects native species. Changes in land use and the introduction of pollutants and toxic chemicals result in habitat loss and declines in water

quality and overall ecosystem health.

The latest data from the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress

(305 (b) Report) shows that as of 1996, almost 40 percent of the nation’s surveyed

estuarine waters are too polluted for basic uses, such as fishing and swimming. This
81

information, obtained by the States, indicates that serious water quality problems

persist nationwide.

We are all familiar with the impacts of harmful algal blooms. Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred in several tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina rivers in recent years, resulting in fish kills, fish lesions, and suspected human impacts. The death and decay of algal blooms can lead to partial oxygen depletion

known as hypoxia, or total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the water, resulting in widespread mortality of fish, shellfish, and invertebrates. There is evidence that associates these algal blooms with nutrient pollution—ex- cess nitrogen and phosphorus—in the water. The sources of these pollutants vary

widely from one geographic location to another. However, in general, we see three

significant sources: human waste from septic systems and sewage treatment plants;

agricultural runoff, including fertilizer and animal waste from agricultural operations; and air deposition of nitrogen and toxic pollutants from motor vehicles and

electric utility facilities. In some cases nutrient overenrichment of coastal waters leads to hypoxia. Hy- poxia occurs in many parts of the world, as well as several parts of the United

States, including the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico.

For example, on the Gulf of Mexico’s Texas-Louisiana Shelf, an area of hypoxia

forms during the summer months covering 6,000 to 7,000 square miles, an area that

has doubled in size since 1993. This condition is believed to be caused by several

factors, including: a complex interaction of excessive nutrients transported to the

Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River; physical changes to the river, such as channelization and loss of natural wetlands and vegetation along the banks; and the

interaction of freshwater from the river with saltwater from the Gulf.

Unlike early approaches to environmental protection that target specific pollut- ants or categories of dischargers, the NEP acknowledges that problems affecting our

nation’s estuaries are exacerbated by combined and cumulative impacts of many individual activities and that the significance of these activities vary greatly from watershed to watershed. The principal causes of nutrient over-enrichment in the Albemarle-Pamlico NEP, for example, are agricultural, while in Long Island Sound nutrient loadings come from domestic wastewater. In order to address watershed-wide

concerns, the NEP encourages the use of a combination of traditional and nontraditional water quality control measures and resource management techniques available through Federal, State and local authorities as well as private sector initiatives. The NEP has strongly influenced our evolution toward watershed management more broadly. Currently, 28 National Estuary Programs in 18 States and Puerto Rico are dem- onstrating practical and innovative ways to revitalize and protect their estuaries.

For example: • A Heritage Trail System was established by the Sarasota NEP to enhance recreational opportunities and increase awareness of Sarasota Bay and related cultural, historical, and natural resources. The trail provides a tapestry of recreational

areas (greenways), historical places, cultural and art centers, and scenic waterway

systems.

• The creation of an island in the San Jose Lagoon, which is habitat to numerous

birds in San Juan Bay, was made possible by coordination among the San Juan Bay

NEP, the Corps of Engineers, and citizens. The project used debris from a recently

constructed bridge.

• The New York/New Jersey Harbor NEP, in coordination with the New York

City Parks Department, is using funds from the Exxon Valdez settlement to re-vegetate park areas and reduce sedimentation and erosive runoff in some parks where

steep slopes drain into the Hudson River.

• The Narragansett Bay Project worked with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, the city of Warwick, and Save The Bay to reduce bacterial pollution so that Greenwich Bay could be re-opened to recreational and commercial shellfishing.

• The Indian River Lagoon NEP is developing and implementing pollutant-loadings reduction goals based on the requirements of its seagrass ecosystem.

• The Lower Columbia River NEP (OR, WA) is supporting a project to develop

a stormwater pollution prevention manual and associated training program focused

on voluntary reduction of pollutants from stormwater sources under the direct control of the municipality.

• Using the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan as a guidance document, the Los

Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board approved a new, basin-wide municipal stormwater NPDES permit. A large stakeholder committee was formed to develop permit language and numerous public meetings were held, involving many

more people than is typically the case with an NPDES permit renewal.
82

• In Tampa Bay, Florida, 4,000 acres of seagrass and 400 acres of wetlands have been restored. • The Long Island Sound Study tested two innovative wastewater treatment tech- nologies which resulted in a reduction of nitrogen loadings into the Sound by 83 percent from one treatment plant and 73 percent from another plant.

One of the cornerstones of the NEP is that management decisions are made through an inclusive process involving multiple stakeholders. This emphasis on public participation not only ensures a balanced approach to resource problems, but encourages local communities to take the lead in determining the future of their own

estuaries, thus bolstering program success through community support. At this time, 17 of the 28 NEPs are in the implementation stage. One additional program is scheduled to have an approved plan by the end of 1998; the approval

of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans (CCMPs) for the 10 remaining

programs should occur in 1999. (See Attachment 1) The NEP approach has been very successful. EPA is working actively to ensure that we use what we have learned in these 28 estuaries to protect and improve the

health of all coastal ecosystems.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

With respect to legislative changes, I would like to emphasize the Administra- tion’s position supporting comprehensive amendments to the Clean Water Act that

would strengthen protection of our nation’s waters. That having been said, I would like to turn now to comment briefly on S. 1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act; S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration

Partnership Act; and H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act.

S. 1321—The National Estuary Conservation Act and H.R. 2207, Section 3

We note that both S. 1321 and H.R. 2207, Section 3, would amend Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act and increase the authorization of the NEP program. Although the language of the two bills differs, I would like to address them together.

We would be happy to work with committee staff on particular language. EPA supports the flexibility that would be provided by giving EPA the authority to allow grantees to use Section 320 funds for implementation of CCMPs as well

as for developing them. We believe it is important, however, that State and local

governments take primary responsibility for implementing CCMP actions, and that,

consistent with the current law, grants authorized by section 320 not be used as

the primary source of implementation funds.

EPA should and does have a role in implementation. Section 320 provides that

CCMPs, once approved by the Administrator, can be implemented using funds from

other existing Clean Water Act programs (notably State Revolving Funds and nonpoint source grants). Many CCMP implementation actions are appropriate for such

funding. These programs should continue to be the primary source of implementation funds authorized under the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Action

Plan, the Administration has proposed to increase Section 319 grant funds to $200

million.

The process by which the NEPs have achieved success in development of the

CCMPs has always emphasized public and stakeholder involvement and commitment to implementation. EPA guidance provides that the implementation action

plan specifically state the cost of all actions and the parties committed to fund them.

Therefore, we support a cost-sharing type of requirement. We would welcome the

opportunity to work with you on the precise language of such a provision that is

clear and that protects the principle that CCMP implementation is primarily funded

by sources other than Section 320 grant funds.

EPA also supports an increase in authorizations over the original $12 million,

given the increased number of NEPs since the program was last authorized (17 programs in FY91 to 28 programs in FY98) and given the Administration’s budget request of approximately $17 million for the program in FY99.

S. 1222—The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act

We believe the goals and purposes of S. 1222 are laudable: a national goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010; better coordination of estuary

habitat restoration efforts; better leveraging of funds for restoration; linkage of restoration efforts to broader ecosystem planning; and followup monitoring of restoration projects. Many NEPs have identified the need to actively restore degraded habitats, consistent with the CWA’s broad goal to ‘‘restore and maintain the physical,

chemical and biological integrity of our Nation’s waters.’’ And, many NEPs have successfully demonstrated habitat restoration techniques. In addition, EPA has gained

valuable insights in restoration from the experience we and our partners have had
83

on the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (Breaux Bill)

Task Force.

However, the operational provisions of the Clean Water Act currently provide few mechanisms through which to pursue restoration—the emphasis is on pollution control. Many waterbodies which fail to meet their water quality standards do so because of physical alterations to the shoreline or streambed, because wetlands have

been filled or drained, as a result of once cobbled streambeds silting-in, or because

past pollution has killed off submerged bay grasses. Pollution inputs have often

been or will be sufficiently controlled so that these areas can once again realize full

biological productivity—but only if we give nature a hand by re-vegetating the

shoreline, or bay bottom, removing accumulated silt where appropriate, and re-creating habitat for spawning, feeding, and shelter. Many of these bio-engineering

practices can also help reduce storm surges and flood damage potential. S. 1222

would complement other provisions of the Clean Water Act and move us in the direction of implementation provisions more attuned to the restoration and physical

integrity aspects of the Clean Water Act goal. Chemical and physical improvements

are needed to restore the conditions under which aquatic species can thrive.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee staff on specific provisions of this bill.

H.R. 2207—The Coastal Pollution Reduction Act

Much of our progress toward the CWA goals has been realized through the investment of the private sector and local governments in achieving near universal compliance with the baseline of technology-driven pollution control and prevention requirements: ‘‘Best Available Technology’’ for industry and ‘‘Secondary Treatment’’

for municipalities. In the case of the latter these requirements were initially supported through the Construction Grant Program and now are eligible for loans supported by State Revolving Funds. About $74 billion in Federal assistance has helped

support a wastewater infrastructure with a significantly higher replacement value.

Since 1972, the population served by secondary or better wastewater treatment has

increased from 75 million to 170 million. Secondary treatment is not sufficient, however, to achieve the nutrient control needs for such waterbodies as Long Island

Sound and the Chesapeake Bay where relatively shallow, poorly mixed waters are

sensitive to nutrient inputs from whatever source: wastewater treatment, agricultural run-off, lawn fertilizers, or septic systems. Many municipal treatment facilities

discharging to these and other nutrient-impaired waterbodies employ advanced

wastewater treatment technology or biological nutrient removal.

It may seem ironic, in light of these circumstances, to be discussing an exception

to the requirements met by so many communities many years ago. However, Congress provided for a narrow waiver from the general requirement in section 301(h)

for cases where a community discharging to ocean waters could demonstrate among

other things that less-than-secondary treatment would not have significant adverse

environmental consequences. Few municipalities were eligible for this waiver by its

very terms. Fewer still sought the waiver. And even fewer were able to make the

necessary showings and were approved.

The waiver provision required municipalities to apply by 12/29/82 and did not provide for reapplication in the event of final denial. The CWA provides that application for and pendancy of a waiver application does not relieve a discharger from the

otherwise applicable secondary treatment requirement.

H.R. 2207 would re-open the window for an application for a deep ocean outfall,

but would require EPA to apply the same substantive standards for considering a

waiver that had applied to previous applicants (including the Puerto Rico Aqueduct

and Sewerage Authority (PRASA)) to the owner/operator of the Mayagu ̈ez Puerto

Rico wastewater facility (PRASA). H.R. 2207 would also require PRASA to make a

financial contribution to a watershed initiative intended to stem run-off to the nearshore area.

PRASA first sought a waiver for the Mayagu ̈ez wastewater treatment plant to discharge into Mayagu ̈

ez Bay (not a deep ocean site) in September 1979. EPA tentatively denied the application in 1984 and 1986. A final denial was issued in 1991.

The applicant pursued appeals which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding

EPA’s decision in February 1995.

In a Consent Agreement to resolve PRASA’s violations of, among other things, effluent discharge limits, the Federal Government recognized PRASA’s intent to seek

this legislation but made no committment regarding our position on the legislation.

While EPA Region II has had to increase its resources on waiver issues, nationally

we have substantantially reduced our resources for evaluating waivers and renewals

because the application window closed in 12/82. Further, there are several coral

reefs off Mayagu ̈ez, and it is important to note that any outfall ultimately approved
84

by EPA will be consistent with new Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection,

announced last month by the President at the National Oceans Conference.

However, we must also note that Mayagu ̈ez Bay in general, and the coral reefs

in particular, are severely stressed. Conditions may be such that PRASA may be

able to provide information to support a decision that, based on construction of a

deep ocean outfall, it has met the nine part test established in section 301(h). In

light of this, and given that H.R. 2207 is limited to the Mayagu ̈ez wastewater treatment plant, includes specific environmental protection requirements, and is consistent with the terms of the Mayagu ̈

ez Consent Decree, which gives PRASA until August 1, 1998, to obtain legislation allowing it to submit a new Section 301(h) application, EPA neither endorses nor opposes H.R. 2207. EPA is generally opposed, however, to re-opening the opportunity to seek Section 301(h) waivers, given the widespread benefits of secondary treatment and the need to do more to control nutrients

in many coastal areas.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these proposed measures

and on EPA efforts to protect our Nation’s estuaries and coastal resources. This concludes my remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

ATTACHMENT 1

Status of National Estuary Programs

Programs with approved CCMP’s:

Program Approval Date:

Puget Sound—May 1991

Buzzards Bay—April 1992

Narragansett Bay—January 1993

San Francisco Bay—December 1993

Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds—November 1994

Long Island Sound—November 1994

Galveston Bay—March 1995

Santa Monica Bay—March 1995

Delaware Inland Bays—June 1995

Sarasota Bay—October 1995

Delaware Estuary—September 1996

Massachusetts Bay—September 1996

Casco Bay—October 1996

Indian River Lagoon—November 1996

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuaries—December 1996

Tampa Bay—March 1997

New York/New Jersey Harbor—March 1997

Programs developing CCMPs:

Program Expected Submittal Date:

Tier 4:

Peconic Estuary—June 1999

Tillamook Bay—February 1999

Corpus Christi Bay—September 1998

San Juan Bay—July 1999

Tier 5:

Morro Bay—June 1999

Barnegat Bay—December 1999

Lower Columbia River—June 1999

Maryland Coastal Bays—June 1999

New Hampshire Estuaries—July 1999

Charlotte Harbor—September 1999

Mobile Bay—September 1999

RESPONSES BY MR. WAYLAND TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CHAFEE

Question 1: One of the principal goals of the legislation I introduced, S. 1222, is

to create partnerships between all of the federal agencies that oversee estuaries;

among federal, state, local governments; and between the public and private sectors.

Often, the notion of ‘‘partnership’’ is easier to develop in theory than to execute in

practice. Do you have any recommendations for what we could do to ensure that

a true partnership is carried out at all levels?
85

Response. EPA supports the goal of improving partnerships between federal,

State, and local agencies, and other organizations. We have been working cooperatively with many federal agencies in supporting estuarine management and protection of coastal and estuarine waters and resources for a number of years. In particular, EPA’s National Estuary Program and NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management Program and National Estuarine Research Reserve System have significant experience

in working together with State and local governments and other organizations to

enhance our Nation’s estuaries and coasts.

There are a number of lessons from the National Estuary Program (NEP) that

can be applied to partnership efforts more broadly. In general, we know that partnerships need time and commitment to develop, as well as continued nurturing to

maintain these partnerships over time. It takes time for groups to build strong partnerships and develop the trust to collectively reach decisions, and to ensure buyin on these decisions. It is also important to ensure that all of the right players are

involved in a decision that may affect them, and that they are involved in early

stages of an effort. For example, we have seen the importance of involving groups

that have not always been a part of coastal discussions, such as oil and gas interests, and the housing and development sector. It would be difficult to legislate these

ingredients of success.

As an indication of how important it is to EPA that successful partnerships be

established and maintained, I would call the Committee’s attention to the Top 10

Lessons Learned document, developed by EPA in partnership with over 100 watershed practitioners and their supporters throughout the Nation. One of the top 10

lessons learned is on partnerships (Partnerships Equals Power). This document describes how focusing on common interests, respecting each participant’s view point,

thanking each other, being willing to learn about others’ needs and positions, and

building trust make strong and long lasting partnerships. The other lessons learned

are:

• The Best Plans Have Clear Visions, Goals, and Action Items

• Good Leaders are Committed and Empower Others

• Having A Coordinator at the Watershed Level is Desirable

• Environmental, Economic and Social Goals are Compatible

• Plans Only Succeed if Implemented

• Good Tools Are Available

• Measure, Communicate and Account for Progress

• Education and Involvement Drive Action

• Build on Small Successes.

The Top 10 Lessons Learned document is available at our website (www.epa.gov/

owow/lessons) or by calling the National Center for Environments. Publications and

Information (1–800–490–9198).

Question 2: You mention the common environmental problems of estuaries in the

U.S., such as nutrient overenrichment, toxic chemicals and habitat loss. Is there

much interaction between the 28 member estuaries of the NEP to develop common

solutions to address these problems? Would S. 1222 help elevate the discussion to

a national level?

Response. Yes, there is considerable interaction among the 28 NEPs. We believe

that S. 1222 could greatly assist efforts to elevate the discussion and interaction on

these issues at a higher level, particularly regarding habitat restoration. In fact, the

expertise developed by the NEPs could be used by the Collaborative Council in developing the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy proposed by S. 1222.

Technical transfer and assistance is a key component of the NEP approach. Collectively, the NEPs have created a significant knowledge base and wealth of experience dealing with the problems that threaten the health of virtually all estuaries,

including nutrient overenrichment, toxic chemicals, and habitat loss. EPA believes

that an important role of our coastal management program is to facilitate the exchange of information among NEPs and between them and other coastal communities.

In addition, there is considerable interaction among the estuaries in NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserves and the State coastal zone management programs as well as interaction between EPA and NOAA where we share information

on coastal management. S. 1222 would provide additional support for the coordination we are engaged in with those programs, too.
86

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR

CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am here today to present the Department of the Army’s views on S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.

Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Mission

For over 200 years the Nation has called upon the Army Corps of Engineers to solve many of its water resources problems. Historically, the Corps has emphasized

its flood damage reduction and navigation missions. In recent years, however, pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 and subsequent

WRDAs, the Corps has elevated its environmental restoration and protection mission to a status equal to its flood damage reduction and navigation missions. The

Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate, and environmental

expertise to address environmental restoration and protection opportunities. The

Corps environmental mission has been expanding over time with major changes in

environmental law and policy, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, which requires each Federal agency to assess fully its actions affecting the environment, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly called

the Clean Water Act) in which the Corps was given a major responsibility for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into all of our Nation’s waters, including wetlands. Subsequent WRDAs have expanded further the environmental

protection and restoration mission of the Corps of Engineers.

The Corps has a powerful toolkit of standing authorities and programs that can

be brought to bear to help solve environmental problems. Over the last decade alone

the Corps has helped to restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat of many

types, and which benefit thousands of fish and wildlife species. Examples include:

28,000 acres of habitat restored for the Upper Mississippi River (98,000 projected

by 2005); hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored in Louisiana; 35,000 acres

of restored flood plain under construction for the Kissimmee River Restoration

Project in the Florida; and, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored under authorities which authorize the Corps to beneficially use dredged material for ecosystem restoration.

If enacted, S. 1222 would add to the Corps environmental portfolio. Specifically,

S. 1222 would allow the Corps to use its unique skills to restore and protect estuary

habitat and help achieve an economically and environmentally sustainable future

for the Nation and the world.

Significance of Estuarine and Coastal Areas

Throughout the world, estuarine and coastal areas serve as focal points for human

use and development. These same areas also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective, providing habitat and food for myriad fish and wildlife species.

Estuaries are unique in that they serve as a transition zone between inland freshwater systems and uplands, and ocean marine systems. There is an urgent need to

protect and restore these ecosystems recognizing the economic, social, and environmental benefits they provide. As with many environmental issues, future generations depend upon our actions today. In this regard, we applaud the co-sponsors of

S. 1222 for their vision and leadership in this area.

S. 1222

The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance coordination and efficiently finance environmental restoration and protection projects. The goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010 is in consonance with the

President’s Clean Water Action Plan and the goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands, annually, beginning in the year 2005. We also agree with the philosophical

basis for the legislation, that estuaries and coastal areas are being degraded rapidly,

and that there is an urgent need to attain self-sustaining, ecologically based systems

that are integrated into surrounding landscapes. The proposed national framework,

or national estuary habitat restoration strategy, to be completed at the end of the

first year, should help partners identify and integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and identify processes to develop new plans where they

are needed. This framework document could help us maximize incentives for participation, leverage Federal resources, and minimize duplication of efforts. We support

the requirement to publish the draft strategy in the Federal Register for review and

comment to enhance public involvement. We believe that the legislation is consist-
87

ent with the National Estuary Program (NEP) which was established to manage

and protect aquatic ecosystems in coastal watersheds. The NEP strives to protect

and restore habitat through consensus and initiatives which are community-based.

The legislation also is consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation Protection

and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), or Breaux Bill, a unique multi-Federal and State

agency partnership which is working to restore and protect approximately 73,000

acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana over a 20 year period. Thus, with a few important changes, the Department of the Army could support S. 1222. First, it is unclear which, if any, agency is to lead the Collaborative Council. This language implies a lead role for the Department of the Army and directs

the Secretary to convene meetings. In addition, funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Army for administration and operation of the Collaborative Council. Funds also are authorized to be appropriated to the Department

of the Army to implement estuary restoration and protection projects. While S. 1222

does not explicitly state the intent of Congress, the Department of the Army is prepared to take a leadership role if that is the desire of the Congress. In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I strongly recommend that the legislation be amended to 65 percent Federal cost sharing in accordance with

WRDA 1986, as amended, especially since the bill states that estuary restoration

projects could be implemented under section 206 of WRDA 1996 on Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. As noted in the legislation, successful implementation of estuary habitat restoration projects will depend upon partnerships. At the heart of partnerships are the beneficiary pay reforms, especially cost sharing, which were first

included in WRDA 1986, and expanded upon in subsequent WRDAs. These reforms

allowed local sponsors the opportunity to be active participants in the water resources development process, thereby revitalizing the Army civil works program.

Cost sharing serves as a market test of a project’s merits, ensures active participation by project sponsors and beneficiaries, and ensures project cost effectiveness. We

have found it to be an eminently successful policy. We are concerned that S. 1222

deviates from the basic cost sharing policies established in the WRDAs for environmental restoration projects, and that the variation in range of possible Federal cost

shares, from 25 to 65 percent, could cause confusion amongst the public. Section (d)(1) of S. 1222 states that the Collaborative Council shall not select an

estuary habitat restoration project until each non-Federal interest has entered into

a written cooperation agreement in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control

Act of 1970. This requirement was developed with flood damage reduction projects

in mind, and provided the Federal Government with some measure of certainty that

non-Federal sponsors were fully recognized public bodies empowered to act on the

behalf of constituencies, and to assume certain financial and legal obligations. Our

experience is that while the need to meet section 221 requirements are still valid

for most civil works projects, there are situations where these requirements eliminate very good potential non-Federal sponsors from consideration. For example, certain well-known and established environmental organizations could serve as sponsors for environmental restoration projects envisioned by this legislation. Environmental projects often differ significantly from flood damage reduction projects in

that structural measures are kept to a minimum. These projects are formulated to

simulate natural functions and values and often result in projects with minimal or

no operations and maintenance requirements. Finally, many environmental restoration projects are located in areas where project operations pose no threat to human

life or property. For all of these reasons, the Corps has put policies in place to enable consideration of non-governmental organizations for section 1135 projects

(Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment), and our WRDA 1998

proposal contains a provision that would amend section 206 of WRDA 1996, Aquatic

Ecosystem Restoration, and a provision that would amend section 204 of WRDA

1992, Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials, to also allow the Corps to consider,

where appropriate, non-governmental organizations (NGO) as sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects. Because of the similarities between these

environmental authorities, we recommend revising S. 1222 to allow NGO’s to sponsor estuary habitat restoration projects. Further, we recommend that the Collaborative Council make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on case-by-case

bases.

Turning to the factors to be taken into account in establishing criteria for determining project eligibility, we recommend that the legislation require a consideration

of the quality and quantity of habitat restored in relation to overall project cost. For

environmental restoration projects implemented by the Corps, decision criteria of

this kind tend to force a discipline to into the plan formulation and benefit analysis

process that facilitates achieving optimal project designs. The criteria help benchmark performance reviews, and stand as a context for describing tradeoff decisions.
88

A requirement to address both quality and quantity of habitat restored would provide that information required to evaluate performance, at both the project and program levels, and facilitate production of bi-annual reports tied to the national estuary restoration strategy. Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches are new, and when dealing with natural systems, there is a need to test new ideas, learn from successful projects and not so successful projects, and manage adaptively to adjust to everchanging conditions. Adding a demonstration component with a cost share that is

consistent with the rest of the program, and a requirement for non-Federal sponsors

to manage adaptively, would encourage the partners to try out new ideas, and learn

more about how to restore and protect estuary and coastal areas. Environmental

restoration efforts for the Florida Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River System

Environmental Management Program, and the Breaux Bill, all acknowledge, to

varying degrees, the value of demonstration projects and adaptive management approaches.

The Army Civil Works program plays a critical role in providing and maintaining water resources infrastructure to meet future needs in consonance with other national priorities and a balanced budget. We try to avoid creating false hope by not

authorizing projects that we cannot reasonably expect to fund or complete within

a reasonable timeframes. In light of the $20 billion backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, and other authorized projects awaiting construction, the dollar

magnitude for new projects and programs in the Administration’s proposal for

WRDA 1998 was constrained. Thus, while we could support being involved in a program to restore and protect estuaries and coastal areas, we are concerned that this

new program could negatively impact other new and ongoing projects and programs

which have been carefully prioritized and evaluated for phased implementation over

a period of years. We are committed to a sustainable long-term construction program and more timely project delivery to non-Federal sponsors. The Administration’s proposal for a new harbor services fee is one means to help address these

funding constraints.

CONCLUSION

The Corps has been increasingly involved in recent years with efforts to protect and restore the benefits of estuaries and their surrounding habitat. We are especially proud of our efforts in conjunction with the Coastal America initiatives. Some

examples of actions where the Corps, using its available programs, was in the lead

for multi-agency, multi-level efforts (Federal, state, local and private) include restoration of a coastal salt marsh area in the Galilee Bird Sanctuary, Rhode Island;

the initial demonstration area for restoration of tidal wetlands in the Sonoma

Baylands, California; and, the Sagamore Salt Marsh Restoration, Massachusetts.

Our fiscal year 1999 budget request includes study funds for 10 potential projects

directed at protecting or restoring the benefits of estuaries, as well as funding for

many other activities that would be beneficial to the environment in or adjacent to

our Nation’s estuaries.

My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff on S. 1222 and other

legislation before your committee, including a 1998 WRDA. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work on this important legislation continues. The Department of the Army is looking forward to working with the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, and Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to restore and protect our nation’s aquatic resources as outlined in

the President’s Clean Water Action Plan. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may have.

RESPONSE BY MICHAEL DAVIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR CHAFEE

Question. One of the principal goals of the legislation I introduced, S. 1222, is to

create partnerships between all of the federal agencies that oversee estuaries;

among federal, state and local governments; and between the public and private sectors. Often, the notion of ‘‘partnership’’ is easier to develop in theory than to execute

in practice. Do you have any recommendations for what we could do to ensure that

a true partnership is carried out at all levels?

Answer. The Army would approach implementation of S. 1222 in accordance with

policies and procedures which grew out of the Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) of 1986, subsequent WRDAs, and long-standing partnership and public involvement practices. We would recommend looking to models of successful partnerships established for the Florida Everglades, coastal Louisiana, San Francisco

(CALFED Bay Delta), the Upper Mississippi River, to name a few, and adapting as-
89

pects of those models when implementing of S. 1222. You can be assured that Army

Civil Works is committed to making partnerships work, and that the cost sharing

principles established in WRDAs enhance greatly the effectiveness of partnerships

for water resources projects.

STATEMENT OF H. CURTIS SPALDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SAVE THE BAY, INC.

PROVIDENCE, RI

On behalf of Save The Bay’s 20,000 members, I would like to thank Senator

Chafee and the Committee for this opportunity to present testimony in support of

S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Save The Bay is a member-supported nonprofit organization. Our mission is to restore and protect Narragansett Bay and its watershed.

Five years ago, over 20 nonprofit organizations met to discuss the future challenges for our nation’s estuaries and to set a course of action to meet those challenges. Many of our coastal areas were beginning to reap the benefits of the Clean

Water Act. In Narragansett Bay, harbor seals and oysters were starting to return

after decades of absence due to polluted water. Despite similar limited recoveries

in many of our nation’s estuaries, we shared a deep concern that many species of

fish, birds and other animals were not recovering as we had expected. Also troubling, some coastal areas not previously affected by water pollution were now in serious decline.

After months of inquiry and discussion, we saw that the problem with the health

of our estuaries was no longer grossly polluted water, but the ongoing loss of habitat

for fish, birds, shellfish and plants along our shorelines and in our watersheds. Thus

in late 1994, Restore America’s Estuaries was formed. It is a current partnership

of 11 nonprofit organizations from Seattle to Galveston to the Gulf of Maine. Over

the past 4 years, each organization has identified and targeted the habitat resources

in its own estuary and coastal environment that are threatened and in need of restoration. Restore America’s Estuaries has pledged collectively to restore one million

acres of habitat to our nation’s estuaries by the year 2010.

How the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act Will Restore America’s Estuaries

An important word in the title of this legislation is ‘‘partnership.’’ It is a lesson

we have learned well in Narragansett Bay communities. Over the past 3 years we

have provided technical assistance to many neighborhood associations, conservation

commissions, golf course managers and land trusts to help them restore their local

salt marshes or eelgrass beds, which are Narragansett Bay’s most threatened habitat resources. People care so much that they are volunteering their time and energy

to restore these areas. Save The Bay trained these volunteers to research the Bay’s

salt marshes. Local community groups have adopted local salt marshes and eelgrass

beds. We connected them with the other groups and agencies that could help them

accomplish their restoration goals. We have helped these groups get things done by

educating them about coastal restoration and helping them apply for and win funding from existing government grant programs. The measure of our success, although

in its beginning stages, is our willingness to be a true partner with these local activists. These are not ‘‘Save The Bay’’ habitat restoration projects, they belong to the

community.

The one barrier to greater success is the lack of a coordinated and unified program at the Federal level to help facilitate and fund community based restoration

projects. And there are limited resources on all levels of government. In Portsmouth,

Rhode Island, a neighborhood association struggled for 5 years through a maze of

regulation, amassing funds from several government and private programs and

overcoming government inertia to help restore five acres of salt marsh. A similar

restoration effort in Narragansett took 8 years. Unfortunately, the current agency

structures do not encourage habitat restoration and in fact are an active deterrent.

The only encouraging point on local restoration projects in Rhode Island is that

these efforts have been rewarded. Rarely seen wildlife and healthy coastal and estuarine habitats are returning to Rhode Island’s coastline. But the struggle to design,

fund and coordinate these projects is too long and too costly for most volunteer organizations and community groups to sustain.

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act can change this situation by

making effective use of limited resources. The bill will help coordinate many overlapping plans and programs and bring down the barriers to habitat restoration. The

bill places a strong emphasis on moving on-the-ground restoration projects forward
90

quickly, as opposed to funding more plans and studies that tend to be collect dust

in government libraries.

The Situation in Narragansett Bay

Why do we need this bill to become law as soon as possible? Because the founda- tion of life in Narragansett Bay is in critical condition. The Bay’s natural systems

its eelgrass beds, salt marshes and fish runs which allow it to function healthfully,

are severely damaged or disappearing. For example, we have only about 100 acres

of eelgrass left in the Bay, which once supported thousands of acres. Eelgrass prevents shoreline erosion, filters pollution, and provides clear water, food, shelter,

nurseries and breeding grounds to shellfish, juvenile lobsters, and young fish. About

half of our salt marshes have been lost. What we have left is degraded and getting

worse. Salt marshes are nurseries for many species, help prevent erosion and filter

toxins from our water. Flounder, striped bass, mussels, scallops, fiddler crabs and

scores of birds rely on salt marshes for some or all of their lives. We have only 15

functioning fish runs left in Rhode Island. To survive, many fish must be able to

get to fresh water to spawn. One of our Bay’s greatest fisheries the Atlantic salmon

now can only be read about in books, due to the destruction of their fish runs. We

must turn the tide soon, and begin to repair decades of damage and neglect or it

may be too late. Narragansett Bay is not just a place where the fresh water of the rivers meets the salt water of the ocean. It is a place that shelters and nurtures a complex web

of life. From the smallest creatures living in its mud to the seals that migrate here

for the winter, the Bay is home to hundreds of species. Plants and animals including

humans depend on each other and form what we call the ‘‘web of life’’ in Narragansett Bay. We can compare Narragansett Bay to the human body. The decline in our eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs are warning signs, not so different from

changes in a person’s vital signs. We would not ignore a loved one’s complaint of

chest pains, shortness of breath or numbness in their arms and legs because these

are signs of a potentially deadly heart attack or damaging stroke. Likewise, we cannot ignore the Bay’s symptoms. If eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs continue to

decline and disappear, the Bay will be little more than an empty body of water. The

Bay life that depends on these areas the lobster, shellfish, birds, fish and plants will

disappear. Necessarily, many people who make their livelihoods off the Bay will

have to find other work. This is not the kind of Bay we want or should leave for

our children.

Crashing Fish Stocks

The most evident sign that the Bay’s web of life is unraveling is the near collapse of many Narragansett Bay fisheries in the past twenty years. Many fish populations

are in decline despite improvements made to control toxins and water pollution. Despite stricter management of commercial fishing, fish populations have not recovered.

Although much of the decline in Bay fisheries can be attributed to over-fishing, the loss of eelgrass beds and salt marshes is preventing any significant recovery of

fish stocks. Eelgrass beds critical to thriving Bay fisheries have dwindled to only

100 acres remaining in Narragansett Bay. A 1988 report by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) estimated that between 1965

and 1982, Rhode Island lost over 850 acres of coastal salt marshes about 20 percent

of the marsh we had in 1965. We are now feeling the pain of ongoing habitat loss. Save The Bay has focused our attention on three critical habitats in Narragansett Bay which are most in jeopardy underwater eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs.

Restoring these critical habitats is essential if we are to sustain the myriad of Bay

creatures that depend on them.

Eelgrass Beds A Flagship for Life in Our Bay

Eelgrass is:

• an underwater marine plant; • a primary source of food for hundreds of Bay plants and animals; • a critical nursery and shelter for shellfish and finfish; • a supplier of clear water; and, • a guard against shoreline erosion by dampening waves and currents. (Batiuk et al 1992, Thayer et al 1975, Short and Short 1984).

Eelgrass, one of 50 kinds of seagrass, is a marine plant that lives completely underwater. Eelgrass is one of the most diverse and productive underwater habitats

found in the United States and Europe. Eelgrass can form large meadows or small

separate beds, which range in size from many acres to just a yard across

(Burkholder and Doheny, 1968). The largest remaining meadow in Narragansett
91

Bay borders the eastern shore of Jamestown and covers about 25 acres. Found in

depths from 3 feet to 20 feet, eelgrass growth and survival is dependent on clear

water and strong sunlight. Eighty species of worms, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, fishes, reptiles, and birds depend on eelgrass as a food source (McRoy and Helfferich 1980; Thayer et

al. 1984). This list of dependent species includes economically important finfish and

shellfish species such as summer and winter flounder, weakfish, blue crabs, rainbow

smelt, bay scallops, blue mussels and spotted seatrout. Research has demonstrated

that eelgrass provides higher survival rates for juvenile American lobster than rock

or mud habitat types (Barshaw and Bryant-Rich 1988). Eelgrass loss can have devastating consequences. Eelgrass decline led to the ex- tinction of the eelgrass limpet (a type of snail) in the 1930’s, one of the few marine

species extinction known in this century. Our disappearing eelgrass has been a primary cause of the collapse of brant geese populations in the Bay. Brant geese depend on eelgrass as a primary food source. Eelgrass loss also has dire economic consequences. The loss of eelgrass in Narra- gansett Bay led to the collapse of the bay scallop fishery in Rhode Island. The bay

scallop fishery has been nonexistent in Rhode Island since 1957, primarily due to

the loss of eelgrass beds. The bay scallop needs eelgrass as a settling area and as

a refuge for mature scallops (Pohle et al. 1991). There is a neighborhood in Warwick

along Greenwich Bay that used to be known as ‘‘Scalloptown’’ because so many scallop fishermen lived and worked there. Greenwich Bay and other northern locations

in Narragansett Bay once supported hundreds of acres of eelgrass and healthy bay

scallop populations. Eelgrass restoration in Narragansett Bay could contribute to

the revival of the once thriving commercial bay scallop fishery. Eelgrass restoration

can also help rebuild other commercially important fisheries. More than 20 types

of commercially valuable fish feed in the eelgrass beds of Narragansett Bay at some

point in their lives including winter and summer flounder, lobsters and tautog.

Restoration is possible. Efforts to re-establish eelgrass have taken place over the

last three decades. The National Marine Fisheries Service believes Narragansett

Bay has a high potential for eelgrass restoration, based on its historical distribution

and a concentration of scientific and academic resources in the region (Fonseca, et

al, NMFS, 1994). Active restoration through transplanting began in Narragansett

Bay in 1994. Both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the University of

Rhode Island have identified and transplanted eelgrass in sixteen separate sites in

the Bay. While these efforts have had limited success due to a variety of factors including predators grazing the transplanted stock, storm damage and the relative

low density of transplanted eelgrass, research and experiments with improved methods of restoration should continue.

Although poor water clarity poses the greatest problem for eelgrass restoration,

we can take steps to correct this problem. The eelgrass beds which remain in the

Bay offer hope that areas of the Bay may be able to host transplants. But, taking

no action is not acceptable. The clear water that is necessary for restoration is also

critical to saving the eelgrass remnants still clinging to Narragansett Bay. Ultimately, we must improve the conditions for eelgrass immediately if we are to save

this vital thread in the Bay’s web of life.

Salt Marshes A Place of Bountiful Plants & Creatures

A salt marsh is:

• a nursery and spawning ground for two-thirds of the United States’ major commercial fish;

• the largest producer of basic food per acre anywhere on earth;

• a nursery for 63 species of fish in Narragansett Bay; and,

• a shoreline stabilizer and shield against coastal storms.

(Lieth, 1975; Teal & Teal, 1969; McHugh, 1966; Dept. of Interior, 1989; Knudson

et al, 1982)

Salt marshes provide enormous economic and environmental benefits. Approximately two-thirds of the United States’ major commercial fish depend on estuaries

and salt marshes for nursery or spawning grounds (McHugh 1966). Among the more

familiar salt marsh-dependent fishes are menhaden, bluefish, flounder, sea trout,

mullet, croaker, striped bass and drum. At least 63 fish species use Narragansett

Bay as a nursery, with the highest use in the fall (Department of the Interior,

1989). Salt marshes are also important for shellfish including bay scallops, soft-shell

clams, grass shrimp, blue crabs, oysters, quahogs and other clams. Blue crabs and

grass shrimp are especially abundant in the tidal creeks that feed salt marshes. Salt

marshes produce more basic food energy per acre than any other known ecosystem

including tropical rainforests, freshwater wetlands or agriculture fields (Lieth, 1975

and Teal & Teal, 1969).
92

Salt marshes protect private property by shielding coastal shorelines from storms and by dampening the power of waves, which stabilizes the shoreline (Knudson, et

al. 1982). While most wetland plants require calm or sheltered waters, established

salt marsh grasses are effective against erosion (Kaldec & Wentz, 1974; Garbisch,

1977).

Restoration of salt marshes may help protect our health as well. Rhode Island is home to 42 different mosquito species. The salt marsh mosquito, along with three

other species, is known to carry the Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus and transmit

it to humans, horses and other mammals. Large populations of these mosquitoes

can present an increased health threat to humans. To breed and develop, mosquitoes need standing water. In the 1930’s ditches were dug through many of Rhode

Island’s salt marshes in a vain attempt to eliminate standing water on the marshes.

Not only did the ditches fill in with debris creating larger mosquito breeding areas,

but also restricted nature’s best mosquito control larvae eating minnows and other

fish from reaching the mosquito breeding grounds. Ditching, in most cases, created

a larger problem than previously existed. Old mosquito ditches are affecting most

of the Bay’s salt marshes. Restoration is necessary to remove the ditches and help

nature control mosquito populations and the Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus.

Despite all of these important benefits, we recruited over 80 volunteers to survey the health of Rhode Island’s remaining salt marshes. Their findings are alarming

and demonstrate the existing threats to Rhode Island’s salt marshes. Seventy percent of the Bay’s remaining salt marshes are affected by restrictions to the daily

ebb and flow of tides, reducing their ability to support Bay fisheries. Over 60 percent of the salt marshes show signs of dumping or filling. Mosquito ditches drain

over 50 percent of the marshes. About 1,200 of the 3,800 remaining acres of Bay

salt marshes are impacted by invasive plant species such as the tall common reed,

phragmites. Phragmites can grow to over 10 feet tall, block shoreline vistas and

pose a fire hazard when they die in the winter and early spring leaving dry plant

material close to coastal homes. Nearly thirty percent of our remaining salt marshes

have no protection from polluted runoff from lawns, golf courses and parking lots.

About 58 percent of Narragansett Bay marshes suffer from the polluted discharges

of storm drains.

Restoration is feasible and the only way to bring back the marshes. Successful

salt marsh restoration efforts have occurred in many New England states including

Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut. In Massachusetts, salt marshes

north of Boston have been restored through an innovative mosquito control program

called ‘‘Open Marsh Water Management.’’ This technique involves re-creating the

natural water conditions in the marsh thus allowing mosquito-eating minnows to

survive in tidal pools and creeks. Connecticut has reopened many Long Island

Sound marshes to the normal ebb and flow of tides halting the growth of invasive

phragmites in the process. Locally, Rhode Island began restoring the marshes at the

Galilee Bird Sanctuary by scraping off old dredge spoils, opening culverts, and recreating tidal creeks. A community-sponsored marsh restoration was recently completed at Common Fence Point in Portsmouth. The project involved removing dredge

spoils and re-grading a five-acre area of phragmites to allow salt marsh grasses to

re-colonize the area. Since the completion of the project in the fall of 1997, plants

and animals are beginning to return to the area. Many community groups throughout Rhode Island want to restore salt marshes, but lack the necessary funding and

technical support.

Fish Runs A Legacy of Vanishing Abundance

A fish run is:

• a freshwater river or stream that runs directly to the Bay;

• the place where native herring, salmon, smelts and shad return each spring to

spawn; and,

• the spawning grounds for herring stocks that are an important food source for

striped bass, bluefish, herons, otter and osprey.

(RIDEM, 1996; Desbonnet & Lee, 1991)

River herring, Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, sturgeon and American shad depend on fish runs for survival. These are saltwater fish that are hatched in freshwater, but mature and spend most of their lives in the Bay or the ocean. These fish

must return to the freshwater rivers and streams where they were born in order

to spawn. Narragansett Bay previously supported commercially valuable Atlantic

salmon and alewife (river herring) fisheries. River herring are a primary food source

for striped bass whose continued recovery is dependent on increasing sources of

food. The Atlantic salmon fishery was short lived in Narragansett Bay after the industrial revolution began harnessing the power of the Blackstone, Ten Mile and

Pawtuxet Rivers. The salmon were effectively blocked from returning to the waters
93

of their birth. The Blackstone and Pawtuxet each ended up with one power producing dam for every mile of river by the middle of the 19th century. The Atlantic salmon was eliminated from its Bay spawning runs by 1869 (Goode, 1887). The commercial herring fishery depended on Rhode Island fish runs. As with the Atlantic salmon, the herring fishery declined, but managed to linger much longer.

Herring do not need the same type of river conditions as salmon. They attempted

to adapt to other rivers and streams that were not dammed in the southern areas

of the Bay. Commercial harvesting was forced to a halt in Narragansett Bay by

1930 because of declining fish stocks. A few areas still support small runs of river

herring including Gilbert Stuart Brook in North Kingstown and the Annaquatucket

River in North Kingstown. The largest and healthiest herring and shad run in Narragansett Bay is on the Nemasket River in Massachusetts a tributary of the Taunton River where over one million fish came to spawn in 1996 (pers. comm, P. Brady). But many fish runs remain obstructed. In Rhode Island and Massachusetts com- bined, there are 27 rivers that could be spawning grounds for herring, shad and Atlantic salmon. Only two of these river systems were never harnessed for water

power or water supply and host small native runs of herring. Ten more rivers have

fishways any structure that allows fish to swim over dams, including fish ladders

to help herring and shad pass over dams and swim to spawning areas. But 15 are

still closed to spring fish runs of herring, shad and salmon. Among these 15 rivers

are three of the top five freshwater tributaries of Narragansett Bay the Blackstone,

Pawtuxet and Ten Mile rivers.

There are a number of steps we can take to restore our fish runs. We can remove

unnecessary dams and build fish ladders over dams that must remain. We also can

restore streams and improve water quality to make these rivers and streams once

again hospitable to fish runs.

What this Crisis Means to Rhode Islanders

On September 22, 1997 Senator Chafee came to a small boat yard in Narragansett Bay to announce the introduction of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222). This legislation is a vital component in our efforts to bring back

healthy conditions not only in Narragansett Bay but in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound and many of the other vital estuaries of the United States.

At that press conference Senator Chafee said, ‘‘Narragansett Bay is good for the

soul.’’ No truer words had ever been spoken about the meaning of Narragansett Bay

to all Rhode Islanders.

Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from its shores, it is part

of what makes Rhode Island special. The Bay is our lifeline it nourishes our environment, strengthens our economy, enhances our leisure time and protects our children’s futures. We need to care for the Bay and invest today in its health and very

survival. This investment will help ensure a secure future for Rhode Island.

Narragansett Bay is an engine for Rhode Island’s economy. It is estimated that

Narragansett Bay generates $2.4 billion in annual revenue from marine and Bay

related activities (estimates, Rorholm and Farrell, 1994). Commercial fishing and

the tourism industry are major contributors to our state economy. Restoration is a

small investment to keep this economic engine running.

Commercial fishing is estimated to generate $42 million dollars for the Rhode Island economy each year. For many communities, the harvesting of quahog, fish and

shellfish is central to a healthy local economy. The fishing industry understands the

importance of balancing the needs of industry with ecological concerns. Fishermen

realize the need to restore Narragansett Bay to give the fish and shellfish they harvest an ability to replenish and thrive. Without restoration, the fishing industry’s

future in Rhode Island is uncertain.

No one understands this more than Paul Bettencourt and Don Dawson of

Pawtcuket, RI. Like two gruff midwives, these graying fishermen assist in the final

leg of an otherwise impossible spawning journey by dipping a long-handled scoop

net beneath the foam and magically lifting a half dozen squirming, blueback herring

above the roaring mouth of the Ten Mile River. They help the herring upstream into

Omega Pond beyond the salt waters of the Bay a task these fish have been unable

to accomplish themselves for many generations. They do this because they have witnessed the consequences of disappearing fish runs firsthand. As a young man, Paul

Bettencourt made a living harvesting herring for bait for other fishers angling for

striped bass, lobsters and blue fish. Paul now refers to himself as a living ‘‘dinosaur.’’

But restoration means much more than helping fishermen. In 1993, for the first

time in Rhode Island’s history, the travel and tourism industry surpassed manufacturing to become the state’s second largest industry. In 1997, tourism brought in

over $2 billion to the state. Narragansett Bay is key to that industry. People come
94

to Rhode Island from all over the world to enjoy the beauty and splendor of Narragansett Bay. Whether sailing Bay waters or fishing for striped bass this resource

is an enormous treasure for residents and visitors alike. An increasingly unhealthy

Bay will lose its appeal.

Narragansett Bay is part of our lives. Tony Giardino knows this. Born just south

of Naples, Italy, Tony came to Rhode Island in 1927. Fishing trips with his dad at

Narragansett Pier sparked a lifelong passion for the sport and the Bay. Tony’s Barbershop, a fixture on Providence’s Hope Street for the last fifty years, is a great

place for a haircut and stories about the big ones that did not get away including

his 58-° pound striper. When Tony learned to fish, flounder was almost always the

fish of choice they were plentiful and did not put up much of a fight, once hooked.

But the Rhode Island tradition of teaching kids to fish by catching flounder is fading

fast and, without adequate restoration measures, may soon be gone forever. Tony

taught his kids to fish by first catching flounder but says now it is ‘‘pretty much

a waste of time’’ to take his grandchildren in search of flounder. ‘‘They’re just not

out there anymore,’’ says Tony. ‘‘I am worried that the flounder are disappearing

and I think it is a shame that I cannot teach my thirteen grandkids to fish for flounder.’’

Narragansett Bay is as important to our future as it has been to our past. We

can leave our children a Bay that gives them the pleasure of discovering the wonders of a summer beach by collecting seashells and tasting fresh baked clams and

scallops. We can pass on the opportunity to swim in the Bay’s waters or hear the

rustle of reeds in the salt marsh. We can afford them the thrill of landing their first

mighty bluefish. We can guarantee them the joy of seeing a heron fishing in a salt

marsh or saluting the rising moon. We can allow them to see a quahogger working

a rake. All of these opportunities are part of our Rhode Island and national heritage, part of our past and present. These opportunities can be a part of our future

if we make a commitment to restore Narragansett Bay and all of the other nation’s

estuaries great and small.

Make no mistake. Narragansett Bay and most of our nation’s estuaries are in crisis. Rhode Island and many other regions have only a limited time to take action

and resolve this crisis. If we do not restore America’s estuaries soon, many fish,

plant, and bird species may become extinct in this country. With this disappearance,

the United States will lose many jobs that depend on these species and our quality

of life will plummet.

In conclusion, Save The Bay applauds the leadership of Senator Chafee on this

critical issue. The need is so great and the situation so precarious that to delay at

this point would certainly mean greater losses for our coastal environment, our

economy and our quality of life. Twenty-six colleagues of Senator Chafee, from both

sides of the aisle, also understand this grave situation and have signed on as cosponsors. If we truly want to restore our nation’s fisheries, preserve our coastal heritage and improve our economy we must give our Federal Government agencies the

opportunity to actually help with this task. Not just with more funding but with

tools to break down the barriers of bureaucracy and to build partnerships with local

community efforts.
95
96
97

RESPONSES BY CURTIS SPALDING TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CHAFEE

Question 1. Much of what our efforts in the past have focused on, with respect

to water quality for estuaries and other waters, is pollution prevention, not habitat

restoration. How do you see the two actions, protecting the resource from further

degradation, and nursing the resource back to health, interacting to reach the larger

goal of improving overall water quality?

Response. Save The Bay and indeed all RAE member organizations believe that

protection and active habitat restoration are two sides of the same coin of environmental health for our estuaries. While it is true that much effort and resources have

been devoted to pollution prevention and better waste treatment technology, the

science of habitat restoration is just beginning to explore and test new techniques.

One of the most compelling arguments for linking restoration and protection efforts

is the remarkable connections that habitats provide in estuaries and other waters.

For example, underwater seagrasses, once established, create the ideal physical, biological and chemical conditions for more seagrass to grow. They also provide invaluable benefits to the overall water quality such as filtration of sediments and nutrients as well as dampening waves. Coastal and riparian wetlands provide not only

habitat for fish and other wildlife but also ‘‘pollution prevention’’ services to the rivers and coastal waters they border. They trap sediment, filter runoff and control

coastal and riverbank erosion. In this way, coastal habitats offer their own unique

‘‘pollution prevention’’ services that enhance our considerable investment in engineering-based pollution prevention.

Question 2. What is the biggest challenge that Save The Bay has faced in getting

habitat restoration projects of the ground? Is it working with government agencies,

lack of funding or something else?

Response. Our biggest challenge in Rhode Island is getting technical assistance

to local restoration efforts. We literally have dozens of groups ready and willing to

initiate local restoration projects but without the biology, engineering and design expertise most of these projects will have to wait perhaps years to get going. The state

has yet to make either a financial or policy commitment to coastal and estuarine

habitat restoration. There is no ‘‘Office of Habitat Restoration Assistance’’ where

these groups can go for help. We have helped a few groups cobble together a package of technical assistance, design work and funding. Funding can also be an issue.

It not so much that there isn’t enough, it’s a matter of finding it and knowing how

and where to apply.
98

STATEMENT OF JOANN BURKHOLDER, PROFESSOR AND PEW FELLOW, NORTH

CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

A Former Marine Fisheries Commissioner’s Perspective

Salt marshes, underwater grasslike meadows filled with shellfish. mangrove for- ests, and quiet, open waters with rich fisheries are what come to mind for people

when they consider estuaries, the natural areas where rivers meet the sea. But the

reality of this view has rapidly changed in the past several decades. Different scenes

now inundate us with the ‘‘signs of the times’’ . . . of elderly folk’s remembrances of times when a rowboat filled with fish could be taken within an hour, in areas

where fish are now rare; of commercial fishermen who acknowledge overfishing

pressures involved with fish declines, but who seem to have no voice when they

question why their fish nursery grounds have received another sewage outfall, of

why yet another coastal river that was classified as an ‘‘outstanding resource’’ has

been destroyed by the newest subdivision. As Chair of the Habitat & Water Quality

Committee on North Carolina’s Marine Fisheries Commission, I had no answer for

them because in that state, and many others, fisheries are managed ‘‘separately’’

from water quality issues, and the respective commissions that governed these issues had not once met in the decades since they had been formed.1

The overall economic value of our estuaries is significantly underestimated be- cause estuaries provide many ‘‘intangible’’ services, as well as tangible goods such

as seafood. . . . One acre of tidal estuary has been calculated to equate the oper- ation of a. $115,000 waste treatment plant (1984 figure, consumer price index 103.9;

adjusted for 1997, CPI 160.6; increase of 54.6 percent—Dr. J. Foley, natural resource economist, Norm Carolina State University) in pollutant filtering/removal capabilities.2 The total land value, alone, of estuarine habitat has been estimated at

about $128,000 per acre when fish production is factored into consideration. By comparison, 1 acre of prime farmland in Kansas was valued at $1,800 with an annual

production value of $900.2 Estuaries are also among the most productive ecosystems in the world. U.S. estuaries and coastal wetlands provide spawning grounds for 70

percent of our seafood including shrimp, salmon, oysters, clams and haddock, with

associated jobs for millions of people. 2

In their position along the land-water margin of our coastal zones, estuaries are

known to be highly vulnerable to human pressures. Estuaries receive most of the

excessive loadings of pollutants that reach marine environments.3 As a result, these

waters and the fish and waterfowl that directly depend on then have been seriously

impacted by sediment erosion from adjacent land development; microbial pathogens

from septic leachfields, urban runoff and land disturbance; excessive nutrients from

untreated or poorly treated sewage; oil spills from common boating practices as well

as major incidents; pesticides from cropland and lawn runoff, and other stressors.4

These impacts are exacerbated by often-dramatic changes in hydrology within the

watersheds that estuaries ultimately service. Extensive (among and channelization

of freshwater rivers completely altered the natural salt balance Us many estuaries,

as well as the volume of water supplied.5 Ditching and filling in of salt marshes and

other wetlands in estuarine ecosystems move pollutants into receiving rivers quickly

and directly.1 Pollutant loadings are on the increase in many coastal areas of our

country,2 coinciding with exponential human population growth and associated loss

of the wetlands which acted as a filter to protect the rivers that drain them.6 Over

half of the worldly population already live within a 100-mile radius of a coastline,

a pattern that includes our country. 6 More than half of our coastal habitats have

been destroyed or damaged by dredge/filling and by waste contamination, including

many of the sea-grass beds that are vital habitat for commercially important finfish

and shellfish.2 7 A steadily increasing proportion of our coastal wetlands and adjacent creeks that provide vitally important habitat for our shell fisheries have disappeared as coastlands are developed. Many of those that remain look

healthy... but then, one rices the posted signs that prohibit fishing for Oysters

or clams because the shellfish have filtered out too many pollutants from adjacent

lands, and would no longer be safe for human consumption. Overall across the nation’ only about half of our shellfish waters are now ’’clean’’ enough to produce edible seafood.

These are the overt, easily noticed ‘‘signs of the times.’’ But other, more subtle

human influencing on estuaries will likely prove much more serious in the near future, unless we support measures such as S. 1222, in order to better equip ourselves

to combat them. Scientists understand acute or obvious, severe impacts of pollutants

on fish and other wildlife supported by estuaries. By contrast, little is known about

the chronic or sublethal impacts of many of our actions on fisheries and other important estuarine, resources. Repeated research on all coasts of our country has

shown that fish from waters near major human population centers have suppressed
99

immune systems, higher incidence of bleeding sores, gonadal tumors and other diseases, and other serious health impairment relative to fish in cleaner waters.... Physiological stress in fish that lead to decreased growth, reproduction, survival of

young, and long-term survival of adults has been demonstrated from small amounts

of pollutant such 49 pesticides, petroleum compounds, and trace metals, over longer

time internals.

Such toxic substances (as caustic chemicals) would be expected to cause adverse

impacts. However, even the effects of more pollutants that are regarded as relatively

‘‘benign,’’ such as nutrient over-enrichment—especially of nitrogen and phosphorus,

the same kinds of nutrients that would be used to fertilize house plants—are proving to be much more serious than had previously been suspected. The foundation

of the food web in aquatic ecosystems is algae. These plants are open microscopic,

and they have enormous surface area relative to their small size. Bathed in their

water environment, algae have easy access to dissolved nutrients. They can be stimulated by extremely small levels of nutrient supplies, micro-quantities in comparison to how we typically think about in adding nutrients, which is by the pound (for

lawn fertilizer) or the ton (for our crops) Thus, aquatic ecosystems are highly sensitive to nutrient loading, and too many nutrients often translates into noxious

blooms of algae as estuaries are shifted out of their natural balance. Although algae

are generally good for estuaries, nutrient over-enrichment from sewage, cropland

runoff, lawn runoff, animal wastes, and other sources can stimulate too much algal

growth. At night the respiration of these small plants—millions of which can be contained in a few drops of water—can rob the oxygen from the water and cause fish

kills. Such conditions increasingly characterize many of our estuaries. This description is especially true of many quiet lagoons or upper embayments with poor water

exchange/renewal, where nutrients have time to stimulate substantial algal growth

before they are flushed from the system. Too many algae can block light from reaching beneficial underwater seagrass meadow habitat for our fisheries. Without

enough light, the seagrass meadows disappear, ant such habitat loss has been

strongly correlated with devastating declines in commercial fisheries.7

The proliferation of algal overgrowth that shade out and destroy seagrass beds is an obvious impact of nutrient over-enrichment. However, the following two examples illustrate other more subtle but serious impacts of chronic nutrient enrichment

on aquatic ecosystems. In the first case, recent research has demonstrated a more

subtle impact of nitrate loading on the most important seagrass habitat species on

the north temperate coasts of the U.S., namely eelgrass or Zostera marina. Very

small amounts of nitrate loading to the overlying water, given daily for several

weeks can cause these plants to die as a direct toxic effect, unrelated to algal overgrowth.7 Zostera is highly sensitive to nitrate loading (e.g. from septic effluent leachate) because, surprisingly, it has no way to stop nitrate uptake through its

leaves, For thousands of years, historically this plant was accustomed to nitrogendepauperate coastal waters. The ability to take up nitrate, day or night, through the

plant leaves—nitrate from storm runoff or other sudden, unexpected source—may

once have represented a great advantage in nitrogen-limited waters over other

plants that generally cannot Me up nitrate in darkness. However, with increased

coastal nitrate loading from human activities, our most important north temperate

seagrass now appears to be seriously disadvantaged because of this ‘‘strategy’’ to

take up nitrate at all costs, whenever it is available in the water. The excessive nitrate uptake is rather analogous ‘‘too much candy’’—it is not good for these plants.

It forces Zostera to direct most of its energy and other nutrient supplies, such as

carbon, into amino acid production, even when it does not need the amino acids.

Thus, too much nitrate—at concentrations that would be regarded as very low, relative to current conditions in many estuaries that drain increasingly urbanized watersheds—drives Zostera into severe internal imbalances in other nutrients, which

can lead to death. This phenomenon was first reported in 1992. The full extent of

damage to eelgrass meadow habitat from chronic exposure to elevated water-column

nitrate has only begun to be examined.7

A second compelling example of subtle but serious impacts of nutrient (both phosphorus and nitrogen) over-enrichment to estuaries clearly has direct implications for

human health. In 1991, I led a research team that discovered the toxic

dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria pisicida, as a causative agent of massive estuarine fish

kills.9 At sublethal, chronic levels the toxins a from Pfiesteria can also cause major

incidence of fish disease, in which millions of fish can be affected with large open,

bleeding sores. The affected fish often die, but more slowly and much less noticeably

than would be detected in an obvious, acute kill in which fish accumulated at the

water surface. Moreover, chronic exposure to small amounts of Pfiesteria’s toxins

over days to weeks may cause much more serious problems at the fish population

level than an acute fish kill that affects a small number of fish relative to the total
100

population size.10 The known range of chronic end sublethal impacts from these toxins on fish, thus far, includes several immune system suppression, unpaired reproduction, significantly depressed survival of the young, destruction of the

osmoregulatory system (i.e., fish cannot control their salt balance, which is very serious in the changing salinity environment characteristics of estuaries), and largescale disease. Such impacts suggest that Pfiesteria’s toxins seriously damage the

ability of fish to reproduce, and of young as well as adult fish to survive or fight

disease.

These impacts of Pfiesteria on fish health—even the obvious impacts that can be

visually observed through major fish kills—have only been known for less than a

decade, because of this organism’s rapid ‘‘attack/retreat’’ behavior which made it difficult to detect and track.9 Two other important points of information were gained

within the past 5 years, which clearly illustrate that Pfiesteria can be stimulated

by human activities, and that chronic or sublethal exposure to Pfiesteria’s toxins

merit concerted attention and action—because these toxins can impair the health

of people, as well go fish. First, we determined that Pfiesteria can be strongly stimulated by nutrient over-enrichment from multiple apthropogenic sources such as

human sewage, animal wastes, cropland and town fertilizer runoff10 11 Second, we

learned that people who are exposed to toxic cultures of Pfiesteria, or to toxic outbreaks where fish me diseased or dying from Pfiesteria can be seriously hurt just

by inhaling the overlying air.12 13

Production of airborne neurotoxins had not previously been known for toxic

dinoflagellates. Before this unusual feature of Pfiesteria was determined, people

who worked with dilute toxic cultures Of fish-killing Pfiesteria without protection

from airborne toxins sustained a suite of effects.12 Short-term impacts (hours) included narcosis, nausea, vomiting, burning eyes and skin, blurred vision, severe

stomach cramping and acute respiratory difficulty. Longer-term impacts (weeks to

months) included severe headaches, open sores that heal slowly (months) and do not

respond to antibiotics, and impairment of all three nervous systems—central, peripheral, and autonomic. Lingering impacts (years) have included easy infections

suggestive of a compromised immune system, certain visual impairment, episodes

of foggy memory, and peripheral autonomic nervous system dysfunction. The central

nervous system impacts to laboratory workers from Pfiesteria’s toxins were most

striking, and involved severe cognitive impairment and short-term memory loss.

Imagine what it is like to appear normal, but to have no idea, of where you are,

to be unable to put words into sentences, or to understand English. You have lucid

moments in which you are gripped with fear because you realize that something is

terribly wrong; then you slide back down. As you begin to recover, you must take

reading lessons to be able to read again. Imagine life style changes—that even after

you are able to test normally for learning and memory, you must compensate because you have lost the ability to process information as quickly as you could before

the illness occurred, and you do not recover it. Imagine not being able to strenuously

exercise because when you try, you develop severe bronchitis or pneumonia. Consider what it would be like to be a fairly young, energetic person who must be on

antibiotics more than a third of the year, 5 years after being affected... what it

would be like to watch as increasingly potent antibiotics do not help you recover

from the most recent, nearly constant illness, and to fear the prospect of reaching

the point at which the most potent antibiotics no longer can help. The above writing

describes the lives of several laboratory workers, ongoing five to 7 years following

exposure to dilute, field densities of toxic Pfiesteria culture.

The first clinical evaluations of people exposed to small toxic outbreaks of

Pfiesteria in estuaries were completed in late summer 1997.13 The resulting impact

that were documented on learning and memory function were described by health

officials as ‘‘profound.’’ About 85 percent of the fishermen who had been in these

toxic outbreak areas for 6–8 hours per day, for several weeks or more, tested in the

lower 8 percent of the U.S. population for learning ability and memory, once corrected for age and education and about 75 percent of the examined fishermen tested

in the lower 2 percent of the U.S. population in cognitive functioning ability. The

documented impacts were striking even for people with minor exposure—25 percent

of the people who were examined after they took a boat ride through a toxic outbreak, or stood on a bridge over an affected area, tested in the lower 8 percent of

the U.S. population in their ability to learn and remember. Most of the affected people had recovered and were able to test. at least, in normal range for cognitive ability and memory function within 3 months following exposure. However, 20 percent

of the fishermen who had been exposed longest to the toxic outbreaks were unable

to test normally until 6 months after their last exposure. Although they recovered

to normal testing range, much of the 6-month interval remains ‘‘lost’’—they have no
101

memory of it, and that period likely will remain lost as it has for the exposed laboratory workers. Such impacts from Pfiesteria, stemming from nutrient over-enrichment to quiet estuarine waters, were completely unanticipated. Many scientists, having carefully

evaluated all of the known information data on Pfiesteria, are now considering a

sobering hypothesis, that Pfiesteria represents the first of such ‘‘hidden’’ or previously unknown microbial pathogens to have been discovered as we inadvertently

continue, through excessive pollutant loadings, to shift estuaries from their natural

balance. As scientists, we may have done the ‘‘easy part,’’ that is, we previously recognized aquatic microbes that cause obvious problems for fish or human health, but

a new group may be emerging that counts Pfiesteria among its first known representatives. What is clear, at present, is that this example of subtle but serious

impacts from water quality degradation in our estuaries unites the issues of estuarine water pollution, fish health, and human health. For the sake of our own health

as well as the health of our fisheries, we must move beyond the obvious to gain

much sponger appreciation for The subtle but serious impacts of our actions in degrading water quality and otherwise altering estuarine habitats. Exponential human population growth in many coastlands of our county is pro- jected to continue for at least the next two decades.2 Thus, balancing the enormous economic grown along our coastlands with conservation practices—that is, wise use

of our coastal resources—is a challenge that is both immediate and pressing. We

have not been winning this battle, and we can do much better. S. 1222 represents

a major, exciting step toward meeting this challenge.

Estuary Restoration: Maximizing Progress

As a scientist who has acted in policy evaluation, in positions shalt were appointed by both republican and democratic Governors, I have long considered the

question of how to maximize progress in improving the quality of our estuaries. I

regard the partnership, cost-sharing approach outlined in S. 1222 as highly constructive in bringing all stakeholders together, from industries and municipalities

to individual citizens, in working to achieve this overall goal. Within that context,

the suggestions offered here include four major areas of emphasis, and stem from

my earlier efforts in contributing to a policy document with similar focus.1

Certain efforts are critically needed to maximize progress in restoration of our nation’s estuaries. First, we should accelerate river and watershed cleanup through a

strong incentive program. This cleanup effort needs to incorporate alternate/improved methods of waste disposal that reduce point source pollutant loadings (e.g.,

encouragement of adequate methods of land application, plant upgradings to employ

biological nutrient removal techniques). Non-point pollution historically has proven

much more difficult to control, and a major effort must be undertaken to design incentives programs that work for farmers, municipalities attempting to control urban

runoff, and animal production industries, for example. Small-scale contributors, who

collectively can become significant, should also be a focus of these programs, such

as homeowners or golf course managers who use fertilizers and pesticides in lawn

care. Acceleration of river and watershed cleanup, additionally, must involve restructuring hydrologic flow patterns to restore natural flow patterns in watersheds

that drain into estuaries. A critical problem facing many coastal areas, and already

impinging on estuarine ecosystems, is depletion of coastal aquifers and other water

supplies.5 Strong water reuse programs are needed as an essential component of estuarine system restoration. Coastal reserves should be expanded to further conserve

key environmental habitats such as estuarine fish nurseries.1

Secondly, success in the above actions will require additional information/programs including resource inventories where needed at state and local levels, so that

baselines can be established where needed and progress can be tracked. Such demonstration of progress will provide, of itself, a strong incentive to foster sometime

difficult efforts to achieve continued positive action. Accurate maps of submersed

aquatic vegetation, wetlands, shellfish beds, nurseries, spawning grounds, and other

habitats vital to our fisheries should be delineated and updated at appropriate intervals.1 Programs to strengthen protection at these critical habitats should be

strengthened. Attainment of con of the above goals also will require additions answers and information that must be provided by research. Examples of research

needs include:

• development/testing of water reuse techniques to maximize effectiveness in specific locations/regions;

• design of techniques and models to improve accuracy ire quantifying the contributions of various pollutant sources;

• development of improved indicators or biosensors of water quality and habitat

degradation;
102

• assessment of the contribution of groundwater to estuarine habitat/water quality degradation;

• design of improved techniques to create value-added products from various

waste sources;

• development of improved methods for constructing habitats with adequate functioned value to replace lost natural habitats; also development of improved techniques for restoring functional value to degraded wetlands, seagrass beds, and other

vital estuarine habitats for our fisheries; and

• characterization of the full extent of chronic and sublethal impacts from major

pollutant loadings on both aquatic communities (especially early life history stages)

and the health of people who live and work near the affected estuarine waters.

Lastly, but arguably of greatest importance in information acquisition is the need

to support research in natural resource economics, so that the full value of both

short-term and the long-term goods (products) services (filtering pollutants, flood

control, habitat provision, aesthetics in attracting, tourism, etc.) that are contributed by estuaries can be accurately appraised and imparted to our citizens.

A third major ingredient to maximize progress in restoration of our nation’s estuaries will be to promote development of comprehensive environmental education and

outreach programs that begin in pre-school, extend to high school and college, and

continue to touch all citizens throughout their lives.9 Such programs are needed in

every state from the heartland to the coasts—for example, a major body of research

now indicates that the ca. 700 square-mile zone of low-oxygen that extends out from

the Mississippi delta along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana has resulted, in large measure, from pollution carried, from north-central states down the Mississippi River.

The receiving estuary is impacted by states far removed from coastal Louisiana, and

restoration will not be possible without understanding, cooperation, and assistance

from the heartland states ’upstream.’ Federal, state and local programs that encourage responsible development should be developed/strengthened, with the goal of restoring and maintaining the high-quality waters and habitat, needed to sustain our

fishery resources.

The fourth major area of emphasis that will be required to minimize success in

estuary restoration will be to work to both significantly improve enforcement of existing laws aimed at conservation (wise use) of estuarine resources, and to strengthen legislation where needed.1 Many laws designed to protect or improve water quality in our rivers and receiving estuaries would go far toward achieving widescale

estuarine restoration, if they were meaningfully enforced. It is imperative that the

set of tasks that must be undertaken to accomplish this goal include development

of a strong incentive program to encourage all participants to both want to follow

existing laws and to have the means afforded for that to be possible. Innovative, creative programs will be required, and must be developed, to increase the funding

support that will he needed to achieve this extremely important goal. They are within reach;1 this country is great, in large measure, because of people through our history who have contributed creative, constructive thinking in solving major problems.

As previously mentioned, many impacts on estuaries from human activities originate upstream. States should enact/strengthen a freshwater wetlands protection

statute, similar to those that are available in many coastal states for saltwater wetlands. This freshwater wetlands statute should provide incentives to private landowners to conserve these important habitats for water quality control. Such improvements will need to be accompanied by changes in the current ‘‘turfdom’’ of estuarine resource management in order to achieve a more integrated approach

among, for example, fishery and water quality managers.1

Efforts are also needed to strengthen the success of the Coastal Area Management

Act (CAMA). Partnerships at state levels should work to create programs to provide

the fiscal resources and technical assistance to local governments in preparing and

implementing high-quality land use plans.1 Moreover, the design of land use plans

should be altered so that these plans are required to consider the cumulative and

secondary impacts of growth not only on development of the land itself, but also on

water quality and water supply. For example, at present, land use plans developed

under CAMA are not require to assess the carrying capacity of adjacent waters to

assimilate the additional wastes that would be associated with expanded community

growth and development. The greatest progress in restoring our estuaries will be

accomplished when that connection can be realized in the increasingly urbanized

coasts setting.

REFERENCES

1 Coastal Futures Committee (1994) Charting a Course for our Coasts—Report to

the Governor. Final Report to recommend changes in coastal resource policy in
103

North Carolina on the 20th anniversary of the Coastal Area Management Act.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Raleigh,

106 pp. Note: Dr. Burkholder was the only scientist on the committee, and represented the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission. 2Miller, G.T. (1992, 1997) Living in the Environment. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont (CA). 3 Office of Technology Assessment (1987) Wastes in Marine Environments. U.S.

Congress, OTA–0–334. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 4Kennish, M.J. (1994) Practical Handbook of Marine Science, 2d edn. CRC Press,

Boca Raton, LA. 5Postel, S. (1997) Last Oasis—Facing Water Scarcity. W.W. Norton & Company,

New York, NY. 6Bryant, D. E. Rodenburg, T. Cox & D. Nielsen (1995) Coastlines at Risk: An

Index of Potential Development-Related Threats to Coastal Ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, District of Columbia.

Deichmann, U. (1996) A Review of Spatial Population Data base Design and Modeling. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Technical Report

96–3 (March). Santa Barbara, California. 7 Burkholder, J.M. K.M. Mason & E.J. Glasgow Jr. (1992) Water-column nitrate

enrichment promotes decline of eelgrass Zostera marina: evidence from seasonsal

mesocosm experiments Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol 81, pp. 163–178.

Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.W.

Bergstrom & R.A. Batiuk (1993) Assessing water quality with submerged aquatic

vegetation. BioScience, vol. 43, pp. 86–94 8Sindermann, C.J. (1996) Ocean Pollution—Effects on Living Resources and Humans. CRC Press, Coca Baton, LA. 9Burkholder, J.M., H.J. Noga, C.W. Hobbs, H.B. Glasgow Jr. & S.A. Smith (1992)

New ‘‘phantom’’ dinoflagellate is the causative agent of mayor estuarine fish kills.

Nature, volume 358, pp. 407–410; and mature, vol. 359, p. 760. 10 Burkholder, J.M. (1997) Implications of harmful marine microalgae and

heterotrophic dinoflagellates in management of sustainable fisheries. National Academy of Sciences special issue on sustainable marine fisheries. Ecological Applications Supplement, vol. 8, pp. S37-S62. 11Burkholder, J.M. &. H.B. Glasgow Jr. (1997) Pfiesteria piscicida and other

Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates: Behavior, impacts, and environmental controls. Limnology & Oceanography, vol. 42, pp. 1052–1075 11Boesch, D.F. (ed.) (1997) The Cambridge Concensus—Forum on Land-Based Pollution and Toxic Dinoflagellates in Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland, Cambridge. 12Glasgow, H.B. Jr., J.M. Burkholder, D.E. Schmechel, P.A. Tester & P.A. Rublee

(1995) Insidious effects of a toxic dinoflagellate on fish survival and human health.

Journal of Toxicology & Environmental Health. volume 46, pp. 101–122. 13Grattan, L.M., D. Oldach,. T.M. Perl, M H. Lowitt, D.L. Matuszak, C. Dickson,

C. Parrott, R.C. Shoemaker, M.P. Wasserman, J.R. Hebel, P. Charache & Job. Moms

Tr. (1998) Problems in learning and memory occur in persons with environmental

exposure to waterways containing toxin-productng Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like

dinoflagellates. The Lancer (accepted).

STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON, PROFESSOR, FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee: I thank you for the opportunity to present a brief summary of research

on the economic value of the Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance and part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program. The information presented here is derived from a study I coordinated as part

of a team organized by Apogee Research Inc., a nationally recognized leader in environmental and natural resource economics. This study was sponsored by the Indian

River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) and the St. Johns River Water

Management District, the state sponsor for the IRLNEP. The study is presented as

one documented example of the value of estuaries nationwide.

The Indian River Lagoon, one of the nation’s most biologically diverse estuaries,

stretches 156 miles along Florida’s east coast spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian

River, St. Lucie and Martin counties. These five counties are home to more than

1 million residents and host more than 6 million visitors each year. The number

of residents in the five counties of the Lagoon is expected to increase from 1.25 million to 1.54 million between 1995 and 2005—a 24 percent increase in 10 years.
104

In developing estimates of the economic value of an environmental resource such

as an estuary it is important to consider the scope and extent of human activity related to that resource. The accompanying Table 2–4 (from Section 2 of the report

Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon which is included

as Addendum A) shows the scope of activities considered in the Indian River Lagoon

study. These activities range from traditional economic uses such as the value of

commercial and recreational harvests from the Lagoon to more intangible economic

values such as the enhancement of land values adjacent to the resource and individuals’ values for preserving the resource. The full report presents the valuation methodologies and data collection used in the study so I will not describe those here.

The results summarized in Table 2–4 show the importance of the Lagoon to the

economy of the region in 1995. Recreational fishing by residents and tourists was

estimated to contribute approximately $340 million per year; swimming, boating,

water sports, and nature observation activities around the Lagoon contributed another $287 million annually. Commercial harvesting of shellfish such as clams, oysters, and crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually. In addition, residential land

values were enhanced by the presence of the Lagoon in the amount of approximately

$825 million (see Table 2–1 in Section 2) which can be expressed as an annualized

value of $33 million. Collectively, the direct values associated with the Lagoon on

an annual basis amounted to more than $725 million.

These Lagoon-dependent activities create additional indirect impacts on the regional economy. Businesses related to recreation, tourism, and fisheries generate

nearly $4 billion or about 17 percent of total output within the region (see pp. 10—

12 of Addendum B). Resident and tourist spending for Lagoon related activities accounted for more than 19,000 jobs in the region.

These measures of the economic contribution of the Indian River Lagoon can be

compared to the costs of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) developed as part of the IRLNEP. The CCMP includes recommendations to maintain and restore the Lagoon through water quality management and habitat protection. These costs were estimated to be less than $18 million

annually (see pp. 12—14 of Addendum B) indicating that the costs of sustaining the

activities dependent on the Lagoon are modest relative to their economic contribution within the region. Properly designed funding plans could spread these costs equitably so that the average citizen in the region would pay no more than $10 per

year. In addition, public surveys conducted for this study showed that residents

would be willing to pay more than three times the estimated annual cost to implement the CCMP (see Addendum A, pp. 2–12—2–13).

The results of this study, while limited to a single estuary, help to illustrate the

economic importance of estuaries in regional economies and the linkage between environmental quality and economic development. The economy of the Indian River

Lagoon region depends upon the ecosystem services provided by the estuary and future development within the region will be linked to adequate maintenance of the

health of this ecosystem. Studies such as the one I am reporting to you are an integral link in helping citizens and public officials understand the relationship between

the health of estuaries and local economies (see Addendum C for a supporting statement from the St. Johns River Water Management District).

I hope this information will be useful to the Committee. I will gladly provide you

with any details about this study or any other information about economic valuation

of environmental and natural resources that would assist the committee in its deliberations.

ADDENDUM A TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON

‘‘ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON IN 1995’’

SECTION 2 OF ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON—

NATURAL RESOURCE VALUATION OF THE LAGOON.

report submitted to the finance and implementation task force, indian river lagoon

national estuary program by apogee research, inc. in association with resource economics consultants, inc. january 1996.

INTRODUCTION

The Indian River Lagoon as an Economic Asset

The Indian River Lagoon is many things to many different people: it offers unique

vistas of tropical habitats and barrier islands; it supports a diverse array of flora
105

and fauna; it attracts people to live, visit, and enjoy the region’s natural amenities;

it supports industries and jobs from renewable resources; and, in its entirety, it is

one ofthe most unique ecosystems in the United States. Some may assert that it is highly presumptuous to assume that economic value can measure the worth of this ecosystem to society. There are several reasons why a measure of economic value for the Indian River Lagoon is useful and indeed critical to the success of proposed resource management

programs. First, in a society that frequently gauges the importance of objects and

places by their monetary value, information about the economic value of a natural

resource may enhance public understanding of the contributions that resource

makes to the community. Second, information about the economic value of the Lagoon can help to establish priorities for the use of public funds to maintain its value.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, economic value information is necessary to

evaluate the economic merits of action plans developed by the Management Conference for the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Economic value information presented in this volume is based on both primary (newly collected for the specific purposes of this study) and secondary data (collected

previously for other studies). Where applicable secondary data were available from

previous economic or biologic studies or surveys of Indian River Lagoon, those data

were utilized. However, in at least three areas existing data were insufficient or inadequate and required the collection of primary data:

• A critical lack of data for all types of recreational activities (fishing, swimming.

boating, nature study) within the Lagoon. Most ofthe available data did not identify

if these activities occurred within the Lagoon or in the adjoining Atlantic Ocean.

• No activity- and site-specific estimates of the nonmarket values associated with

recreational activities within the Lagoon.

• No estimates of passive use values ofthe Lagoon.

In order to provide the necessary primary data, two separate surveys were conducted. A telephone survey collected information from residents of Volusia, Brevard,

Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin Counties, while an intercept survey collected information from nonresident visitors. Visitors were surveyed at Sebastian Inlet State

Park, Ron Jon Surf Shop in Cocoa Beach. Melbourne International Airport, Mangrove Mattie’s at Ft. Pierce Inlet, and the Kennedy Space Center. The data collected

in the surveys were used to develop:

1. Participation rates and economic values for recreational activities in the Lagoon

by both area residents and nonresident visitors;

2. Estimates of willingness to pay for Lagoon restoration and management programs; and

3. Estimates of passive use values.

The survey results, questionnaires and methodology are summarized in this section and described in detail in Section 3 and Appendices 3-A through 3-E.

Other elements of the economic valuation of the Indian River Lagoon summarized

in this section address three areas:

1. The effects of riverfront location on residential property value, discussed in Section 4,

2. The value to recreational anglers of access to the Lagoon and of increased catch

rates for their targeted species, discussed in Section 5, and

3. The value of commercial shellfishing for Lagoon-dependent species, discussed

in Section 6.

The following subsection introduces concepts important to understanding economic valuation.

Types of Economic Value

The broadest, and perhaps most straightforward, distinction to make in economic

valuation is between market and nonmarket values. Market values are the most

common type of dollar values measured because market values result from the normal day-to-day transactions for private goods such as food, clothing, and household

goods. Market values are relatively easy to identify as long as information is available about the total volume of the transactions.

On the other hand, nonmarket values are values that people have for goods they

enjoy but for which there are no explicit transactions to be monitored and therefore

no readily available dollar values from such transactions. For example, when a recreational angler decides to fish in the Lagoon, he or she derives value from the fishing experience yet does not have to make an explicit payment for the right to fish

(other than a license, if required). The fact that the angler does not pay for the right

to fish is a result of the ‘‘public good’’ nature of the Lagoon. That is, the Lagoon

is not owned by any entity, rather it is a resource held in common by the public.

By way of comparison, if the angler had instead decided to go bowling, he would
106

1Questions asked respondents directly what he/she would be willing to pay in the form of an

increase in local taxes for certain programs to improve Lagoon environmental quality.

have had to pay for the recreational activity according to the time of participation

(e.g., number of frames or games). The amount the angler would be willing to pay

to fish is the proper measure of the nonmarket value of recreational fishing in the

Lagoon. But, since no transaction actually occurs, some method must be used to

identify this nonmarket value. Recreational fishing also provides a good example of an activity that has both market and nonmarket value components. Since the angler may incur certain expenses to go fishing in the Lagoon (e.g., bait, fuel expenses, and equipment), he has

revealed a willingness to pay the market price for goods and services that accompany the fishing experience. This is a measure of the market value of recreational

fishing. Combining this market value with a measure of the nonmarket value yields

the total economic value of recreational fishing, generally

Total Economic Value = Market Value + Nonmarket Value

Many activities that utilize the resources of the Lagoon such as recreational boat- ing, swimming, and nature study have both market and nonmarket values. Therefore, a complete valuation of the Lagoon must consider the total economic value

whenever appropriate. Some activities, however, may be fully valued in the market

and have no nonmarket value component. Other activities, such as passive viewing

of the Lagoon or a concern that the resources of the Lagoon continue to exist for

future generations (referred to as existence value), have no market value component

and would be measured solely by nonmarket value. A second important distinction in the types of economic values is between direct and indirect values. Direct values are the result of an explicit. causal linkage to an

activity. For example, the sales of fish landings of the commercial fishing industry

is an expression of the value of the waters and especially the quality of the water

of the Indian River Lagoon since the industry harvests the commercially valuable

(market) products of the marine ecosystem. Similarly, recreational anglers’ activities

have a direct value that is explicitly linked to the Lagoon. On the other hand, indirect values are less explicit and difficult to link with resources. For example, a boat

manufacturer located near the Lagoon may have higher sales due to recreational

boating activities on the waters of the Lagoon. But the Lagoon has only an indirect

value to the manufacturer because boats can be sold in other markets or used in

other water bodies and the manufacturer’s output is not tied as directly to the Lagoon as is the commercial fisherman’s output. This report addresses only the direct economic values of human Lagoon-related activities. as indirect values are beyond the scope of the study. The analysis includes

both market and nonmarket uses of the Lagoon, and estimates in Section 3 a passive use value from willingness to pay data collected in the surveys of residents and

nonresident visitors.

Economic values for recreation activities and passive use developed from the sur- veys are based on the contingent valuation method (CVM). This widely applied

method uses survey questions to elicit people’s values for goods and services that

are not provided through traditional market processes. The questions are typically

designed to measure an individual’s willingness to pay for a good or service, whether

enjoyed actively or passively. The question format may be developed to create a hypothetical market or a hypothetical referendum. The hypothetical referendum is designed to elicit from the respondent an estimate ofthe increase in his or her value

resulting from a choice, such as supporting increased stormwater management for

Lagoon environmental quality improvement. 1 This referendum format was used in

both the resident and nonresident surveys.

The hypothetical referendum applied to estimate a willingness to pay for Lagoon

CCMP programs by its nature generates somewhat subjective dollar values. Because

the individual is responding to an interview rather than an actual purchasing or

decision-making situation, his or her statement of willingness to pay is made without an actual consideration of affordability or ability to pay. The respondent does

not have to open a wallet or check book before stating a willingness to pay. He probably does not consider what purchases he may have to delay or forego in order to

state his willingness to pay. Willingness to pay estimates of dollar value are therefore approximations.

The following four subsections of Section 2 describe the analytical approach and

the results of the economic valuation:

• Lagoon riverfront location effects on residential property value;

• Market and nonmarket value of resident and nonresident recreational activities;
107

2 Capitalized value may be defined as the present value of a stream of benefits obtained from

the land over the anticipated ownership period. 3 An analysis of the effect of riverfront location was not made for improvements to land because of the uncertainty in the data introduced by the wide variation in improvements. Nevertheless, the value of improvements made to riverfront residential properties is informative. Appraised value of improvements to riverfront property range from $431 million in Brevard County

to $89 million in St. Lucie County. The total appraised value of improvements aggregated across

the five counties is approximately $1.17 billion. Since these appraised values are approximately

85 percent of market value, the aggregate market value of improvements is about $1.4 billion.

In contrast to values for land alone discussed above, the value of improvements is only partially

attributable to riverfront location. 4Florida Administrative Code 12D-8002 (4).

5Wall Street Journal, 31 August 1995.

6 Carol McLarty, oral communication, 8 September 1995. Bureau of Economic and Business

Research, University of Florida.

• Resident and nonresident willingness to pay for Lagoon environmental quality;

and

• Market value of commercial fishing.

A fifth subsection assembles and summarizes economic values.

LAGOON RIVERFRONT RESIDENTS LAND VALUE

The influence of the presence and environmental quality of a waterbody, particularly in coastal areas, on the value of adjacent or nearby land is significant. The

value that people have for the Lagoon is partially capitalized 2 in the prices of land

in proximity to the Lagoon with the result that land parcels located near or on the

riverfront can be expected to command higher prices than parcels further from the

riverfront. Both market and nonmarket values, such as the aesthetic value of the

Lagoon view, may be capitalized in land value. The difference between the aggregate value of land near or on the Lagoon riverfront and the aggregate value of parcels more remote from the riverfront is an approximate measure of the capitalized

value that people have for the Lagoon.

To approximate the capitalized value, the study obtained appraised residentialuse land value data developed by county property appraisers. The staff of Volusia,

Brevard, Indian River, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin counties provided parcel

counts and appraised land values for riverfront and nonriverfront residential use

property. County data files permitted only riverfront land to be distinguished from

nonriverfront land; the value effects of location near, as opposed to on, the riverfront

could not be estimated. The analysis performed with the data addresses the impact

on land value only and not improvements to land. 3

As shown in Table 2–1, in the five-county region the difference in residential land

appraised value attributable to Lagoon riverfront location is approximately $700

million. Considering that the county appraised land values are approximately 85

percent of estimated market value, consistent with Florida Department of Revenue

Guidelines, 4 the difference in residential land market value attributable to Lagoon

riverfront location would be about $825 million ($700 million divided by 0.85). This

figure is an underestimate ofthe actual influence ofthe Lagoon on land values since

it includes residential riverfront only and not all land in proximity to the Lagoon.

On a county-by-county basis, as Shown in Table 2–1, the difference in appraised

land value attributable to the Lagoon ranges from $304 million in Brevard County,

which includes about half of the length of the Lagoon system, to $69 million in St.

Lucie County. In the case of Volusia County, about half of the north-south dimension of the county is within the Lagoon region and half is within the Halifax River

Region; therefore half, or $100 million, of the total Volusia County difference in appraised land value attributable to estuaries and their tributaries is included in the

aggregate $700 million.

In order to compare the capitalized land values with other annual dollar flows estimated in this study, the land values must be converted to annual dollar flows.

These approximate capitalized values may be converted to annual flows by the simple exercise of multiplying the capital value by a discount rate that represents the

time value of money. That is, the discount rate selected should exclude risk and inflation expectations normally contained in market interest rates. A risk-free interest

rate is represented by 30-year U.S. government bonds. As of August 31, 1995, the

30-year bond rate was 6.6 percent. 5 This rate is adjusted to exclude inflation expectations by deducting the 1994 rate of inflation, or 2.6 percent. 6 Therefore the analysis used a discount rate of 4.0 percent (6.6 less 2.6) to convert capitalized land values to an annual flow. The annualized total market value of riverfront location is

approximately $33 million ($825 million multiplied by 0.04).
108

Another approach to examining the difference in value attributable to Lagoon riverfront location is to develop certain ratios for comparison. A ‘‘value indicator’’

may be constructed by relating percentage of value and percentage of parcel count

for both riverfront and nonriverfront land. as detailed in Section 4 of this report.

The ratio of the value indicator for riverfront land to that for nonriverfront land relates the relative value of the two locations. Table 2–2 summarizes the results of

this exercise for the five counties. Volusia County demonstrates the highest ratio

of riverfront to nonriverfront value at 8.1 while Brevard County demonstrates the

lowest ratio at 4.6. In other words, this comparison suggests that riverfront land in

Brevard County is 4.6 times as valuable as nonriverfront, while in Volusia County

riverfront land is 8.1 times as valuable as nonriverfront.

While land values are not as sensitive to incremental improvements in environmental quality of the Lagoon as recreational and commercial fishing values, it is

clear that a significant value is associated with the Lagoon presence. Deteriorating

environmental conditions in the Lagoon over the long term could negatively affect

the value of riverfront property.

Table 2–1. Incremental Value of Residential Land Attributable to the Indian River Lagoon

County

Riverfront Average Parcel

Value

Nonriverfront

Average Parcel

Average Parcel Difference

in Value

Incremental

Value of Land

Attributable to

Riverfront Location

Market Value1

Volusia2 .......................................................... $132,919 $15,937 $116,981 $100,077,000 $117,738,000

Brevard ........................................................... 106,351 23,174 83,177 303,930,000 357,565,000

Indian River .................................................... 237,197 31,429 205,768 90,949,000 106,999,000

St. Lucie ......................................................... 71,928 12,578 59,350 69,025,000 81,206,000

Martin ............................................................. 212,136 40,389 171,128 137,066,000 161,254,000

Total .............................................. $125,362 $20,548 $104,814 $701,047,0003 $821,762,000

1Appraised value divided by 85 percent, as discussed in text.

2Volusia County entries are adjusted to recognize that roughly half of the north-south dimension of the county is within the Lagoon basin (Mosquito River) and half is within the Halifax River basin. Since county parcel counts and values could not be separated for the two basins,

the total numbers of each are simply divided in half. Thus the value of Indian River Lagoon riverfront residential land in Volusia County is

estimated at $100.1 million, while the total value of all estuarial riverfront land (Mosquito River plus Halifax River) is $200.2 million. 3The total value calculated vertically will not equal the total calculated horizontally because of statistical anomalies in the data. The statistically non-normal distribution of the nonriverfront parcel values reduces the average nonriverfront parcel value, which in turn inflates the

average riverfront parcel value and the average difference. Thus when the average riverfront parcel value is multiplied by the total riverfront

parcel count, the product is overestimated.

Table 2–2. Comparison of Riverfront and Nonriverfront Value Indicators

County

Riverfront

Value Indicators

Nonriverfront Value

Indicators

Value of

Riverfront to

Nonriverfront

Volusia ........................................................................................................... 7.91 0.98 8.1

Brevard .......................................................................................................... 4.21 0.92 4.6

Indian River ................................................................................................... 7.15 0.95 7.5

St. Lucie ......................................................................................................... 5.46 0.95 5.7

Martin ............................................................................................................ 4.9 0.93 5.3

VALUE OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The two surveys conducted in this study sought to identify the types of rec- reational activities, rates of participation in those activities, and value of market expenditures made for those activities by both residents and nonresident visitors to

the five counties ofthe Indian River Lagoon. As detailed in Section 3 and associated appendices, a stratified, random digit dial- ing telephone survey of 1,000 adult (at least 18 years of age) residents was conducted in February and March of 1995. Two hundred interviews were conducted in

each county, resulting in sampling error rates of + 3 percent for the region and +

8 percent for each county (with a 95 percent level of confidence in both cases). The nonresident visitor survey was completed during April and May 1995, using personal interviews with adults who are not Florida residents. A total of 500 interviews were completed. producing a sampling error rate of + 4.5 percent. Interviews

were conducted at five popular visitor destinations in the region. Sebastian Inlet,

Ron Jon Surf Shop, Melbourne Airport. Mangrove Matties and Kennedy Space Center. Due to limited information on visitor populations in individual counties, the survey results cannot be evaluated for individual counties.
109

7The swimming participation rate for visitors seems high, particularly in comparison with the

rate for residents at 9 percent. While visitors may correctly report that 55 percent swim in the

Lagoon, a potential problem could be that visitors did not distinguish the Lagoon from the ocean

and are really reporting swimming in the ocean. This issue is discussed further in Section 3

This high participation rate and possible confusion is reflected in a very high dollar value for

visitor swimming, as discussed below and shown in Figure 2–4. 8Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey, 1992, developed by the National Marine

Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with an add-on component

titled the University of Florida Participation Survey. See J. W. Milon and E. M. Thunberg, ‘‘A

Regional Analysis of Current and Future Florida Resident Participation in Marine Recreational

Fishing (Report SGR-I 12).’’ University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant, 1993.

Recreational Participation

Survey results indicate that participation in water-based recreation in the Indian River Lagoon is significant for both residents and visitors. Resident respondents indicated a 24 percent participation rate in recreational fishing and 17 percent in

boating, as shown in Figure 2–1. Visitors indicated a heavier preference for swimming and nature observation, with participation rates at 55 percent 7 and 48 percent, respectively, as shown in Figure 2–2. Overall, the results indicate that a large

share of nonresident visitors associate their recreational activities with the Lagoon.

Recreational Value

Total annual recreational expenditures by residents are estimated by multiplying the per person participation rate for each recreational activity times each county estimated 1993 population (from the 1994 Florida Statistical Abstract, Table 1.35).

The multiplication product is then multiplied by the average respondent-estimated

annual expenditures for that recreational activity. Total annual recreational expenditures by visitors are similarly estimated by multiplying the per party estimates

given by those surveyed times the total number of visitor parties. Resident recreational activities total $256.5 million across the five counties, with recreational

fishing at $149.1 million representing over half of the total as shown in Figure 2–

3. The largest single activity value for visitors is swimming at $112.2 million, which

reflects the high participation rate reported, but may also reflect some confusion between swimming in the Lagoon and swimming in the Atlantic Ocean. Total 1995

visitor recreational expenditures are $230.9 million, including recreational fishing

expenditures estimated at $43.3 million. Visitor expenditures are summarized in

Figure 2–4. Combined estimated 1995 recreational expenditures of both residents and visitors

surveyed total $487.4 million. The combined estimated expenditure for recreational

fishing and shellfishing alone totals $198.5 million, demonstrating the significance

of recreational fishing in the economic value of the Lagoon. These expenditures for

fishing as well as the other activities represent the estimated market value of the

recreational activities, as discussed earlier. Table 2–3 summarizes both resident and

visitor respondent-estimated expenditures for recreational activities in the region

(Section 3 and related appendices provide more detail).

While a nonmarket value also exists for all of these activities in the form of the

value of access to the activities which exceeds the cost of the activities (in economic

parlance, consumer surplus). collecting and analyzing the necessary data is beyond

the scope of this study. However, because data were already available for recreational fishing, the value of access to the Lagoon for resident recreational fishing

is estimated in this report. The data 8 utilized were collected for the Indian River

Lagoon region in 1992. Section 5 describes in detail the development and application

of statistical techniques known as random utility travel cost models with which the

value of access is estimated.

Using travel cost model techniques, the annual value of access to the Lagoon for

recreational fishing by residents is estimated to range from $589 per angler in Martin County to $110 per angler in Se. Lucie County. Extending the per angler values

across 1995 county populations and participation rates yields a total nonmarket access value of $140 million per year for recreational fishing in the Indian River Lagoon.

Table 2–3. Estimated 1995 Expenditures for Lagoon-Related Recreation (Millions of Dollars)

Activity Resident Visitor Total Expendi- tures

Fishing and Shellfishing ......................................................................................... $155.2 $43.3 $198.5

Swimming ................................................................................................................ 23.7 112.2 135.9

Boating .................................................................................................................... 49.1 9.5 58.6
110

Table 2–3. Estimated 1995 Expenditures for Lagoon-Related Recreation (Millions of Dollars)—

Continued

Activity Resident Visitor Total Expendi- tures

Nature Observation .................................................................................................. 22.2 65.8 88.0

Water Sports ............................................................................................................ 4.8 N/A 4.8

Hunting .................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.1 1.6

Total Expenditures ................................................................................. $256.5 $230.9 $487.4

The annual total economic value of resident recreational fishing may be approxi- mated by adding the estimated nonmarket access value of $140 million to estimated

expenditures of $155.2 million. providing an estimated $295.2 million for the annual

total economic value of recreational fishing by residents of the five-county Lagoon

region. Adding the estimated visitor expenditures for recreational fishing, $43.3 million, yields an estimated total value for Lagoon recreational fishing of $338.5 million

per year. Since this study does not include the Lagoon access value to visitors.

$,38.5 million is only a partial estimate of the total economic value of recreational

fishing to all anglers enjoying the Indian River Lagoon.

WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR LAGOON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Perception of Present Lagoon Environmental Quality

In the surveys of residents and visitors, respondents were asked a series of ques- tions intended to elicit their perceptions of the environmental quality of the Lagoon,

their opinions of the relate the effectiveness of environmental quality programs intended to improve the quality of the Lagoon. and their willingness to pay for such

programs. On a scale of I (excellent) to 7 (very bad). residents rated the present condition of the Lagoon at an average of 4.37. Since 4.37 is significantly above the scale

midpoint of 3.5, this average response indicates a public perception that the Lagoon

is somewhat deteriorated; moreover, a majority of residents indicated that the Lagoon is either continuing to deteriorate or staying the same. Nonresident visitors, on the other hand, rated the Lagoon quality at an average of 2.87. significantly lower than the scale midpoint 3.5. This average response indicates a perception that the Lagoon is of above average environmental quality. The

majority of visitors also responded that they had insufficient information to judge

whether the Lagoon is improving or deteriorating in quality. The results of the two

surveys show that residents have a more negative view of Lagoon environmental

conditions than those who visit the area for a short time. This may reflect the poorer environmental quality of resources in visitors’ home regions and/or a ‘‘halo effect’’

of the vacation experience in which the Lagoon appears highly aesthetic and therefore above average in environmental quality because it is an unaccustomed sight.

Perception of Lagoon Restoration and Improvement Programs

The resident survey included descriptions of three action plans that are composites of several CCMP action plans. The several CCMP action plans were combined

into three composites in order to give survey respondents a more complete picture

and still stay within the time constraints of the interviews. The survey asked the

respondents to give an opinion on the relative effectiveness of those action plans.

The composite action plans are:

• Wetlands Protection—described simply as enforcing and supporting conservation measures to limit development of privately owned wetlands;

• Land Acquisition—described as creating a public trust fund to buy and maintain wetlands; and

• Stormwater Management—described as limiting storm water runoff and improving water quality.

The composite action plans are discussed in more detail in Section 3 and Appendix 3-A.

Respondents indicated that they perceive stormwater management most likely to

improve environmental quality in the Lagoon. Notably, this priority was consistent

across all five counties. Land acquisition was perceived as the least effective plan,

consistently across all five counties.

Willingness to Pay for Lagoon Restoration and Management Programs

Resident willingness to pay for the stormwater management action plan was consistent with the indicated perception of the plan’s potential effectiveness. The average annual household willingness to pay for stormwater management is $58. The
111

9 Unpublished data, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Department of Environmental

Protection.

median value of annual household willingness to pay is $40, the amount that 50

percent of the respondents would be willing to pay for stormwater management.

Land acquisition has an average willingness to pay of $33 per household with a median of $29, and wetland protection has an average willingness to pay of $25 per

household with a median of $19. Depending upon the action plan, from 68 to 75 percent of respondents indicated their willingness to pay for a program to improve the

environmental quality of the Lagoon. The survey questionnaire also presented the three action plans as ‘‘programs,’’ al- ternatively combining two action plans. Those programs which included stormwater

management have higher means and medians than those programs that do not have

stormwater management. As discussed in Section 3, the highest respondent annual

willingness to pay for such a combination is $66 (median $52) for a combined wetland/stormwater management program Average willingness to pay for a total combined program of all three action plans is $60 (median $30). Overall there are relatively rumor differences between the composite plan alternatives and the total program’ suggesting a maximum amount that residents are willing to pay for any program to improve the Indian River Lagoon.

The survey of nonresident visitors asked if they would be willing to pay a special

tax on lodging and restaurant bills that would be earmarked for these programs

(note that no such tax is presently contemplated). The average willingness to pay

per visit by travel group or party is $23 (median $25). Of The 500 respondents, 78

percent indicated they are willing to pay some increase in tax.

Resident and Visitor Passive Use Values

The willingness to pay values for both residents and visitors represent passive use

values associated with the Indian River Lagoon. Passive use value represents the

preference that individuals may have for natural resources such as the Lagoon that

is in addition to current direct uses of the resource. Passive use values may reflect

an individual’s desire to use the resource in the future, to know that the resource

is available for others to use now or in the future, or simply to know that the resource will continue to exist in its present or an improved condition.

In the case of resident willingness to pay, statistical analysis described in Section

3 and Appendix 3-E shows that the estimated values are only weakly related to current direct uses of the Lagoon. suggesting that nearly all of the estimated willingness to pay may be characterized as passive use value. Aggregating the resident respondent willingness to pay across the number of households in the region yields

a total estimated annual resident passive use value of $14.6 million to $25.9 million,

depending on whether average or median values are used.

Multiplying the mean nonresident visitor willingness to pay across the estimated

number of visitor travel groups or parties yields a total of $29.9 million. Statistical

analysis of nonresident visitor responses in Appendix 3-E shows that a smaller

share of this total may be considered passive use value, as a larger share of their

willingness to pay is related to direct use motives than is the case with residents.

MARKET VALUE OF COMMERCIAL FISHING

Over twenty species of commercially valuable shellfish and finfish have traditionally been harvested from the Indian River Lagoon or are dependent upon the Lagoon during some stage of their development. The annual dockside value of the

landings of both shellfish and finfish was $12.8 million in 1992 and $17.0 million 9

in 1994.

As of July 1, 1995, gill and entangling nets are prohibited in Florida waters as

the outcome of a 1994 voter referendum This study, therefore, considers the market

value of only those commercial species which can be legally harvested: clams, blue

crab (hard and soft shell), shrimp, and oysters. Of the total 1992 landings, approximately $8.4 million or 66 percent was contributed by these four species. Of the total

1994 Endings, $12.6 million or 74 percent was contributed by shellfish (the increase

is due almost exclusively to an increase in clam harvests). The 1994 landings total

of $12.6 million is used in this study to estimate the contribution of commercial fishing to the 1995 total economic value of the Lagoon.

Section 6 of this report develops a statistical model based on the historical relationship between submerged aquatic vegetation and shellfish landings. The model

is applied to simulate increases in value of shellfish landings based on assumed increases in coverage of the Lagoon floor with submerged aquatic vegetation and increases in the reconnection of mosquito impoundments with the Lagoon. The model
112

and projected values can be used to estimate the change in value of the commercial

fishery in response to improved water quality and seagrass coverage but are not a

direct input to estimating the present, 1995 economic value ofthe Lagoon.

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON IN 1995

The economic values estimated in this study are composed of:

• Annual expenditures for recreational activity and the nonmarket value of ac- cess to the Lagoon for recreational fishing; • Annual values in terms of willingness to pay for programs to improve Lagoon environmental quality, and the expression of willingness to pay as a passive use

value for the Lagoon; and • The effect of Lagoon riverfront location on the value of residential land.

The economic value of the Lagoon resource is approximated in this study as an- nual flows of $487.4 million in market expenditures for recreational activities, $140

million in nonmarket value of access to the Lagoon for recreational fishing, $44.5

to $58.0 million in passive use values of those who live and visit the Lagoon, $12.6

million for commercial fishing value and $33 million annually in the incremental

value of residential land attributable to riverfront location. The total estimated annual economic value of the Lagoon ranges from $717.4 to $730.9 million, depending

upon whether one uses average or median values for estimated passive use value.

These values are displayed in Table 2–4. The annual economic value of the Lagoon is distributed across each of the five counties in Table 2–5. Brevard County clearly enjoys the greatest proportion of the

Lagoon’s annual economic value at $193.4 million, reflecting both the relatively long

shore line and large population of that county. Indian River County has the least

proportion of Lagoon annual economic value, consistent with a relatively short shore

hoe and small population compared to the other five counties in the Lagoon region.

Other demographic characteristics and recreational levels which influence the distribution of economic value across the counties are discussed in detail in Section 3

of this report. The distribution of resident versus nonresident recreational expenditures and activity levels is also discussed in detail in Section 3. Commercial

shellfishing estimates across the counties are not available since the data are not

collected by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on a county-bycounty basis. It is important to note that these dollar values are approximations based on statistical techniques that have wide acceptance and use in the field of economics and

specifically resource economics. Tables 2–4 and 2–5 thus show an approximate annual economic value of the Indian River Lagoon that comprises the majority of

human use and nonuse values for the natural resource.

The annual economic value of the Lagoon is distributed across each of the five counties in Table 2–5. Brevard County clearly enjoys the greatest proportion of the

Lagoon’s annual economic value at $193.4 million, reflecting both the relatively long

shore line and large population of that county. Indian River County has the least

proportion of Lagoon annual economic value, consistent with a relatively short shore

line and small population compared to the other five counties in the Lagoon region.

Other demographic characteristics and recreational levels which influence the distribution of economic value across the counties are discussed in detail in Section 3

of this report. The distribution of resident versus nonresident recreational expenditures and activity levels is also discussed in detail in Section 3. Commercial

shellfishing estimates across the counties are not available since the data are not

collected by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on a county-bycounty basis.

It is important to note that these dollar values are approximations based on statistical techniques that have wide acceptance and use in the field of economics and

specifically resource economics. Tables 2–4 and 2–5 thus show an approximate annual economic value of the Indian River Lagoon that comprises the majority of

human use and nonuse values for the natural resource.

Table 2–4. Estimated Total Annual Economic Value of Human Uses

(Millions of Dollars)

Use Category Value of Resident Use Value of Visitor Use Total Use Value

Recreational Fishing and Shellfishing ............................................ $295.2 $43.3 $338.5

Swimming ........................................................................................ 23.7 112.2 135.9

Boating ............................................................................................ 49.1 9.5 58.6
113

Table 2–4. Estimated Total Annual Economic Value of Human Uses—Continued

(Millions of Dollars)

Use Category Value of Resident Use Value of Visitor Use Total Use Value

Nature Observation .......................................................................... 22.2 65.8 88.0

Water Sports .................................................................................... 4.8 Included in boat

category

4.8

Hunting ............................................................................................ 1.5 0.1 1.6

Passive Use ..................................................................................... 14.6–25.9 29.9–32.1 44.5–58.0

Commercial Shellfishing .................................................................. 12.6 Not applicable 12.6

Riverfront Residential Land ............................................................. 33.0 Not applicable 33.00

Total Lagoon Value ........................................................ $456.6–467.9 $260.8–263.0 $717.4–730.9

Table 2–5. Estimated Total Annual Value of Human Uses of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995 By

County

(Millions of Dollars)

Value by County

Region Total

Use Category Volusia Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin

Recreational Activities:

Fishing1 ............................. $ 58.0 $ 124.3 $ 22.2 $ 31.3 $ 50.8 $286.6

Shellfishing ....................... 2.5 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 6.1

Swimming ......................... 6.7 7.6 3.1 2.8 3.5 23.7

Boating .............................. 5.6 27.5 3.7 4.9 7.5 49.1

Nature Observation ........... 2.6 9.7 5.7 2.1 2.1 22.2

Water Sports ..................... 0 2.1 1.0 1.1 0.5 4.8

Hunting ............................. 0 0 1.5 0 0 1.5

Recreational Activities Sub-total 75.4 173.9 37.8 42.4 64.5 394.0

Passive Use (Residents) ............ 4.9–8.7 5.2–9.2 1.2–2.2 1.9–3.4 1.4–2.4 14.6–25.9

Commercial Shellfishing ............ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.6

Riverfront Residential Land ....... 4.7 14.3 4.3 3.2 6.5 33.0

TOTALS .............................. 85.0–88.5 193.4–

197.4

43.3–44.3 47.5–49.0 72.4–73.4 454.2–465.5

1Includes both estimated nonmarket values and estimated expenditures.

ADDENDUM B TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON

‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY FOR A HEALTHY ECONOMY IN THE INDIAN RIVER

LAGOON BASIN’’

FOREWORD

The Indian River stretches for 156 miles spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian River,

St. Lucie, and Martin counties. These five counties are currently home to more than

one million residents and in 1995 hosted almost 6 million visitors. Last year, residents and visitors enjoyed 24 million recreation days fishing, boating, and swimming in the Lagoon, or otherwise taking advantage of its natural beauty (One recreation day is measured as one person engaged in one activity for one day. While not

everyone recreates, those that do, do so often. This is how recreation day estimates

can exceed population estimates.) Forecasters expect that future recreational activity in the Lagoon will increase, as more people are drawn to the area’s enviable

amenities.

Recreation and tourism are important parts of the regional economy that together

account for about half a billion dollars a year in purchases of Lagoon-related goods

and services. Other uses of the Lagoon bring its total value to more than $730 million a year. These purchases include goods and services supplied by businesses directly related to recreation and tourism, such as surf shops and hotels, and also by

businesses that indirectly support recreation and tourism, such as grocery stores

and insurance companies. In 1995, Lagoon-based recreation and tourism supported

more than 19,000 jobs economy-wide and generated more than $250 million in personal income for residents of the five Indian River Lagoon counties.
114

Sustaining the Lagoon’s economic contribution to the community depends on the

continued health and possible enhancement of Lagoon ecology. It is not hard to

imagine, for example, that in the absence of management actions, unabated pollution, overuse, and other stressors associated with the two percent annual population

growth in the five-county area could quickly degrade Lagoon resources.

The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) of the Indian

River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) is the blueprint for environmentally sustainable development in the watershed. The CCMP specifically addresses priority problems that threaten environmental sustainability and future recreational opportunities. It offers 69 separate recommendations that are designed to

enhance Lagoon resources and support economically important recreational activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation. If implementing the CCMP prevents even a 10% decline in the

value of the Lagoon, it will sustain more than $70 million a year in economic benefits to the five counties within the watershed.

Preserving the health of the Lagoon is not cost-free. But investment in management actions to sustain or improve the health of the ecosystem are good for the local

economy and good for local residents if its benefits exceed its Costs. Since the Lagoon is already relatively clean and its living resources relatively plentiful, it should

not be surprising that costs of maintaining and improving this healthy environment

are modest.

Implementing the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program’s CCMP will

cost less than $18 million a year, including about $7.4 million a year to continue

selected on-going programs ant $10 million a year for new activities such as wetlands creation and stormwater management. This cost is small compared to the extensive investments in the Lagoon being planned by local governments, the state

of Florida, and the federal government.

While these costs are reasonable and far less than the benefits one could reasonably expect as a result, it’s a fair question to ask whether individuals in one area

will pay more than individuals in another. In fan, this turns out not to be the case

since costs are spread relatively evenly across the five-county region.

To illustrate the relative cost distribution, we can divide the cost of new CCMP

anions assigned to each county by the number of households in each county. The

average household in Volusia County would pay the least, $17.66 a year, while the

average household in Indian River County would pay the most, $22.61 a year.

Households in Brevard, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties would pay $18.44, $20.13,

and $22.59 a year, respectively. The types of actions, scale of projects, and number

of households determine average costs. The difference between the lowest and highest average household cost is small, about the cost of a sandwich. This result indicates a relatively fair distribution of CCMP costs across the region.

Interestingly, area residents are willing to pay between $52 and $66 a year to implement the CCMP—roughly three times the average cost per household—if CCMP

actions result in a healthier ecosystem and additional opportunities to fish, swim,

and generally enjoy the Lagoon’s resources, according to a survey of 1,000 residents.

Tourists also said they want to support CCMP implementation and are willing to

pay about $9 a person per visit to improve the quality of the Lagoon. To the extent

visitor dollars help support implementation, as they will through sales taxes, average costs to resident households will be less than presented above.

Finding ways to pay for CCMP actions should not delay implementation: benefits

are high, Costs are reasonable and distributed equitably, and residents and tourists

are willing to pay more. Some $7.4 million in CCMP actions are already financed

from a variety of sources including local wastewater and stormwater fees, SWIM

funds, property truces, federal grants, and special appropriations of the Florida legislature. These and other, targeted sources of revenue also are effective and efficient

ways to finance new and expanded programs.

This document explains why the Indian River Lagoon CCMP’s scientifically-based

management actions are needed to sustain an environmentally healthy economy

well into the next century and shows that CCMP actions are cost-effective and fair.

In concise detail, it describes for residents and their elected officials how the CCMP

can deliver stronger local economies, increased revenues, and more jobs, even as

population grows and stress on natural systems increases. In the years to come, we

will point to our resource-rich watershed with pride, knowing that our decisions

today sustained a way of life unique to the Indian River basin.

DEREK BUSBY,

Director, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.
115

A Healthy Lagoon Supports Economically Valuable Recreation and Tourism

More than 1.25 million people live in the five counties bordering the Indian River Lagoon. Last year, another 6 million visited the area. Recreational opportunities

and an enviable quality of life afforded by Lagoon resources are a major reason people live in and visit the region. Lagoon-based recreational activity generates significant local economic value— more than $730 million in 1995. This value is tied to the estimated 24 million recreation days the Lagoon supported last year, 14 million for residents and 10 million

for tourists. A recreation day is equal to one person engaged in one recreational activity for a day. This is the same level of activity as the entire population of Melbourne going fishing, boating, swimming, jetskiing, windsurfing, hunting, or manatee watching on or near the Lagoon every day ofthe year. Recreational uses, along with other land and water-based activities, however, can place stress on the Lagoon ecosystem. Angling can reduce Lagoon fishery stocks,

boats can be a source of water pollution, and ocher motorized watercraft can disturb

aquatic life in sensitive areas. Surface runoff, discharge from wastewater treatment

planes, and improperly managed septic tanks also can impair the Lagoon’s health. Protecting the Lagoon will be critical over the next ten years as more people move to and visit the area. The number of residents in the five IRL counties is expected

to increase from 1.25 to 1.54 million between 1995 and 2005. This would be an increase of 24 percent. If the number of visitors increases at the same rate, by 2005

over 7.3 million tourists will be coming to the region each year. At current recreational participation rates, in ten years the Lagoon could be providing almost 30

million recreation days, 6 million more than last year.

CCMP Action Plans

• Point Source Discharges: Ensure compliance with the IRL Act and reduce or

eliminate, where possible, industrial wastewater discharges to the IRL.

• On-Site Sewage Disposal: Determine the impacts of onsite sewage disposal on

the resources of the IRL and develop and implement strategies to address these impacts.

• Fresh and Stormwater Discharges: Develop and implement strategies to address the impacts of freshwater and stormwater discharges on the resource of the

IRL.

• Marinas and Boat Impacts: Engage the boating public and marine industry as

active participants in the protection and restoration of IRL rcsources.

• Biodiversity: Develop and implement a coordinated research and management

strategy to preserve, protect and restore biodiversity in the IRL.

• Land Acquisition: Develop and implement coordinated strategy to protect environmentally endangered habitats within the IRL basin through acquisition.

• Wetlands: Preserve, protect, restore and enhance the wetland resources of the

IRL region.

• Sea Grasses: Protect and restore so grass integrity and function in the IRL by

attaining and maintaining water quality capable of supporting healthy submerged

aquatic vegetation community to a depth of 1.7 m.

The CCMP is a Blueprint for Environmentally Sustainable Growth

The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, or

the CCMP, is a blueprint for preserving Lagoon resources into the next century, and

as such, it is a guide for maintaining economic prosperity in the IRL region.

The CCMP embraces the three primary goals of the Indian River Lagoon Surface

Water Improvement and Management Plan, or IRL SWIM, a program administered

jointly by the St. Johns River and South Florida water management districts. By

adopting SWIM goals in its CCMP, the IRL National Estuary Program recognizes

the SWIM program’s significant planning and restoration accomplishments. The

CCMP adds a fourth goal that specifically addresses funding needs.

Indian River Lagoon CCMP Goals

I. To attain and maintain water and sediment of sufficient quality to support a

healthy estuarine Lagoon system.

II. To attain and maintain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which supports endangered and threatened species, fisheries, commerce, and recreation.

III. To achieve heightened public awareness and coordination of interagency management of the Indian River Lagoon ecosystem.

IV. To identify and develop long term funding sources for prioritized projects and

programs to preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the Indian River Lagoon system.

In 15 separate action plans (see sidebar), the CCMP specifically addresses priority

problems that threaten environmental sustainability and future recreational oppor-
116

tunities. In the absence of management actions tO avoid or minimize such threats,

the Lagoon has a limited ability to absorb human stress without degrading. This

ability is called carrying capacity. When an ecosystem like the Indian River Lagoon reaches its carrying capacity, environmental degradation occurs, recreation days decrease, and economic values diminish Fortunately, carrying capacity is not fixed. Management measures, such as

those in the CCMP, can reduce stressors, enhance the Lagoon’s ability to replenish

its resources, and minimize the impacts of development on natural resources.

Within the 15 action plans, 69 separate recommendations are designed to enhance Lagoon resources that support economically important recreational activities, including fishing, shellfishing, boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation. The anion plans represent a combination of hands-on restoration work,

such as wetlands restoration, impounded marsh reconnection, sea grass planting,

and stormwater abatement projects. They also include art array of actions that will

strengthen and integrate on-going activities and help make the most of available financial resources.

Many local, state, and federal organizations will help implement the CCMP. The region’s five counties—Volusia, Brevard, Indian, St. Lucie, and Martin—as well as

the 41 cities in the region will play lead roles. The St. Johns and South Florida

water management districts, local water control districts, and other regional organizations, including the Treasure Coast and East Central Florida regional planning

councils and the successor to IRLNEP also are key participants. State and federal

agencies will help fund CCMP implementation and provide technical assistance.

These include the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Department

of Community Affairs, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

CCMP Action Plans

Impounded Marsh Management: Restore the functions of marshes impounded for mosquito control purposes.

Endangered and Threatened Species: Protect endangered and threatened mam- mals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates of the IRL.

Fisheries: Conserve and protect fin and shell fisheries of the IRL.

Public Involvement and Education: Facilitate implementation of the IRL CCMP

through public involvement and education. Future Implementation: Establish a modified management structure that will oversee the implementation of the IRL CCMP and provide for an organization to

support the activities of the modified management conference. Data and Information Management: Develop and implement a strategy to coordi- nate the management and dissemination of data and information concerning the

IRL.

Monitoring: Develop and maintain a monitoring network which will provide ade- quate and reliable data and information on water quality, sediment quality and the

biological resources of the IRL on which management decisions may be based.

Just How Valuable is the Lagoon? $733 Million a Year

In 1995, the value of Lagoon resources to residents tourists was more than $733 million. The bulk of this amount, $533 million, is counted in direct expenditures,

including recreational spending, commercial shellfish landings, and the premium

paid for Lagoon-front property. This value is captured in everyday market transactions, such as boat rentals, shellfish sales, and home purchases. These expenditures to not include water-borne commerce, since shipping generally is unaffected

by water quality. The Lagoon’s total economic value also includes another $200 million that is not reflexed in market transactions. For example, the value of fishing in the IRL is

great enough that anglers are willing to pay more than they currently spend for

bait, fuel, and other items.

Additionally, residents and tourists are willing to pay more to improve the Lagoon beyond what they already pay for environmental programs (through taxes). These

are often called nonmarket values and they can be estimated and added to values

that are more easily measured in market transactions.

Lagoon-Based Recreational Spending Tops $487 Million Annually

Residents and tourists spent more than $487 million last year to enjoy fishing,

shellfishing,swimming, boating, other water sports, nature observation, and hunting

in and around the Lagoon. Residents spent $257 million while visitors spent $231

million. Total spending levels may be much higher as this figure does not include

related purchases of the more expensive recreational equipment that people don’t

typically buy every year, such as boats or recreational vehicles.
117

The Lagoon Provided Shellfish Worth Almost $13 Million in 1994

Commercially harvested clams, oysters, crabs, and shrimp were worth $12.6 mil- lion at the docks in 1994. Various finfish also contribute to commercial landings, but

it has been difficult to calculate their value since July 1, 1995, when the ban on

gill and entangling nets went into effect and commercial finfishing practices

changed dramatically. Even before the ban, clams, shrimp, and crabs represented

more than half of the total value of all commercial fishing. $825 Million in Property Values Are Tied to the Lagoon

Proximity to the Lagoon adds $825 million to market value of Lagoon-front prop- erty relative to non-Lagoon-front property in the five IRL counties. On an annual

basis, the Lagoon generates $33 million a year in value for residential landowners.

This is because people pay a premium to be on the water for aesthetics and convenience. Market values of riverfront property range from $358 million in Brevard

county to $81 million in St. Lucie county, generally reflecting relative length of each

county’s Lagoon shoreline.

Access to Lagoon Fishing Grounds is Valued at $140 Million a Year

Currently, anyone can fish in the Lagoon free of charge because it is a public re- source. That is to say, no organization, public or private, charges an entry fee to

fish. Anglers do of course pay modest sums for fishing licenses and boat registration

fees. They also pay sometimes not so modest sums for boats, rods, and other fishing

equipment. The amount people spend on such fees and equipment generally reflects

only part of the value to them of fishing in the Lagoon. In fan, many IRL anglers

would be willing to pay more to fish in the Lagoon, up to a certain dollar amount,

before they would choose to fish somewhere else. Collectively, IRL residents are willing to pay up to $140 million more a year than they currently pay to fish in the Lagoon, according to a study prepared for IRLNEP.

This value could increase to $200 million by 2010, based on projected population

and fishing participation rates. Individual access values vary by county of residence. The average angler living in Martin county is willing to pay $589 more a year to fish in the IRL system, while

the average angler living in St. Lucie county is willing to pay $110 more a year. Fishing access values are not the only kind of access value that can be calculated. Based on the IRLNEP study, we can expect that residents and tourists also would

be willing to pay more than they currently pay for other Lagoon-based recreational

activities, such as nature observation and boating. Estimates of these values have

not been developed, but they would certainly show that the value of Lagoon resources is substantially higher than the $733 million per year already estimated.

People Would Pay Up to $58 Million More to Protect the Lagoon

Residents care enough about the Lagoon that they are willing to pay up to $26 million more each year to protect its resources. A survey asked 1,000 IRL households about three environmental programs: Stormwater Management—Residents said they would be willing to pay the most for stormwater management, about SSO per household a year, saying they believe

limiting stormwater runoff will result in the greatest water quality improvements. Land Acquisition—Residents said they are willing to pay about $30 per household a year to create a public trust fund to buy and maintain wetlands. Wetlands Protection—Residents said they are willing to pay about $22 year to en- force and support conservation measures to limit development of privately owned

wetlands.

When presented with a combination of these programs, respondents said they would be willing to pay an average of $60 per household a year, suggesting a maximum amount that residents are willing to pay for any program to improve the Lagoon. Notably, residents are willing to pay the most among three generic programs

for the one that is not only an environmental priority but that probably will be most

expensive for the region to implement: stormwater management. In addition to the $26 million residents said they were willing to contribute to La- goon management, nonresidents said they would be willing to pay up to $32 million

more a year to support stormwater management and wetlands protection programs

for the Lagoon. A survey of SOO nonresident visitors showed that the average travel

party (2.75 people) is willing to pay an additional $23 per party each time they visit

the Lagoon if revenues were earmarked for the Lagoon.

The Lagoon Provides 19,000 Jobs and $250 Million in Annual Income for IRL Residents

The Lagoon’s value also can be measured by the number of jobs and income associated with Lagoon-based activities, in addition to monetary value of goods, services,

and other values.
118

Lagoon-based recreation currently provides over 19,000 jobs. This is equal to five

times the workforce at Patrick Air Force Base, two and a half times the workforce

of Harris Corporation, and exceeds the entire workforce of Cape Canaveral, including government employees, contractors, and other on-site workers, by more than

3,000.

Lagoon-based recreation also currently provides $250 million in personal income

for area residents. This averages $200 a year per resident, which could buy about

50 pounds of clams.

The CCMP Will Protect Lagoon Values and Create Benefits for the IRL Community

The CCMP will do two things: at a minimum it will prevent further degradation

of the Lagoon ecosystem that would have occurred in the absence of its management

anions; and it will enhance the quality and/or quantity of Lagoon resources beyond

current levels. Both outcomes will provide significant economic benefits to the IRL

community.

In economic terms, a benefit is defined as an increase in value or prevention of

loss of value. If, as experts expect, the value of Lagoon resources will decline as use

increases, preserving any portion of current value constitutes a benefit in the same

way that increasing current values creates a benefit.

The potential benefit of the CCMP can be illustrated in the following example.

Imagine that the economic value of Lagoon resources will increase 5 percent with

implementation of CCMP management actions, but will decrease 5 percent without

implementation. The economic benefit of CCMP implementation under these assumptions is 10 percent of the total value (the absolute difference between the two

cases). In this example, the CCMP is worth well over $70 million a year

(undiscounted) to the local economy.

Recall that by 2005, the Lagoon will be supporting millions more recreation days

and the cumulative effects could have significant consequences for the Lagoon. It

is not hard to imagine that in the absence of CCMP management anions, pollution,

overuse, and other stressors associated with the two percent annual population

growth rate projected for the five counties could quickly degrade the Lagoon ecosystem. With the CCMP, resource managers can maintain the Lagoon’s carrying capacity and continue to provide the recreational opportunities that residents and visitors have come to expecta.

It is impossible to predict the exact value of the Lagoon with and without the

CCMP because our scientific understanding of complex ecological cause and effect

relationships is still evolving. Using existing science, CCMP management anions

have been specifically targeted to address environmental problems that could

threaten economic sustainability. At a minimum, we can be sure that the CCMP

will provide an economic benefit for every dollar of value it preserves, as well as

every dollar of value it creates. Moreover, it is clear from the analysis presented

thus far and continued below that that the IRL community has hundreds of millions

of dollars at stake in its quest for environmentally sustainable development.

Economic Gains in Lagoon-Based Recreation and Tourism are Multiplied Throughout the IRL Economy

The economies of the five counties bordering the Indian River Lagoon depend on

healthy natural ecosystems for their welfare. Businesses related to fisheries, recreation, tourism, and agriculture generate about $4 billion worth of goods each year

within Brevard, St. Lucie, Volusia, Martin, and Indian River Counties. The economic sectors comprising these natural resource-dependent businesses account for

about three quarters of the value of all primary goods (i.e., non-service sector) in

this region. Manufacturing, including everything from T-shirts to semi-conductors,

accounts for the remainder of the non-service sector output.

In turn, much of the construction industry and retail trades depend directly on

the primary producing sectors for their livelihood. Hotels, for example, are not built

unless tourists want to visit the Indian River Lagoon region. Retail shops depend

on residents and tourists to buy their goods; insurance agencies and bankers need

local marinas, tackle shops, and other Lagoon-related businesses to buy their services. So in many ways, the regional economy depends on primary economic sectors

like recreation, tourism, agriculture, and manufacturing to drive much of the activity in other areas of the economy.

These interrelationships multiply any increase in the value of Lagoon-based recreation and tourism throughout the regional economy, increasing the total impact of

CCMP implementation beyond what appears in the recreation and tourism sector

alone. Every time residents spend $10 on recreation in the Indian River Lagoon,

total sales in the region increase by $12.40. The additional increase results from
119

spending by businesses like marinas, tackle shops, or grocery stores to buy more

goods for their shelves and pay their employees to continue operations.

Every time tourists spend $100 for a hotel room, total sales in the region increase

by $192. The additional increase results from hotel owners’ purchases of local supplies and services to keep the hotel running. Suppliers to the hotel industry, in turn,

reinvest portions of their earnings in the local economy to supply their businesses.

Conservatively, residents and tourists spend $487 million a year on Lagoon related activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating, water sports, lodging, and restaurants this figure excludes purchases of boats, recreational vehicles, and other

major capital goods). When this level of expenditure ripples through the regional

economy, it results in nearly $75O million worth of goods and services.

The tourism and recreation seaors also create thousands of jobs within the fivecounry region. For cxarnple, every $1 million in tourist spending on Lagoon-based

activities generates between 51 and 56 jobs, depending on whether it is spent in the

lodging or retail seaor. Simply preserving the quality of the Indian River Lagoon,

therefore, sustains more than 19,000 jobs across all five counties. Enhancing water

quality, increasing habitat, or providing additional points of access to the Lagoon

can generate thousands more jobs over the next 5 years.

All other things being equal, Florida economists predict IRL economy will grow

almost 16 percent between 1995 and 2000, implying an increase of $81 million in

the annual value of Lagoon-based recreation and tourism. This presumes that the

Lagoon continues to support its current share of the economy. It also presumes that

the quality and quantity of Lagoon resources can be sustained, as the CCMP Is designed to do.

Through the multiplier effect described above, an increase of this magnitude will

create another $43 million in local trade, for a total impact of $124 million. This

level of activity will add more than 3,000 new Jobs to the 19,000 currently supported by Lagoon-based economic acuity. Such additional employment opportunities

are comparable to adding another Holmes Regional Medical Center or Rockwell

International to the list of local employers.

But What About Costs?

All told, the CCMP will cost slightly less than $18 million a year over the first

five years of CCMP implementation (the CCMP planning period is five years). About

$7.4 million of this represents Costs for activities and programs that were on-going

or planned before the CCMP was developed. The $7.4 million includes more than

$5 million for managing fresh and stormwater discharges. Framers of the CCMP included selected ongoing actions in the Plan to highlight important efforts and facilitate integrating new CCMP anions into existing county, special dstra, and other resource management plans.

Costs for new projects a little over $10 million a year. Almost all of these new

COStS, $8 million annually, are for technical engineering studies and design work

associated with reducing and managing fresh and stormwater discharges. This work

lays the foundation for construction projects that will address fresh water and

stormwater discharge problems. At this time, COStS of actual construction are still

being estimated, but is reasonable to expect the total for the five-county region will

total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The remaining $2 million in new COStS includes a variety of in-the-ground

projects, such as muck removal, as well as a number of new initiatives that will enhance planning and coordination among the Lagoon’s many stewards. The relative

proportion of existing to new COStS within CCMP action plans varies substantially.

This variability is more a function of the organization of actions among plans than

necessarily reflexive of past expenditures and future needs in any one area.

Average Costs Per Family Will Be Modest

Bringing CCMP costs down to the household level helps to put them into perspective. If all CCMP COStS, for already planned as well as new activities, were divided

equally among IRL households, each would pay $33.81 a year. Existing programs

would claim $14.17 and new initiatives would capture the remaining $19.64. Remember that 1,000 IRL households said they would be willing to pay an additional

$60 a year to support programs like those contained in the CCMP. The average cost

of the CCMP per household is roughly half of what the average household said such

programs were worth to them.

The truth is, however, that IRL residents will not bear the full COSt of CCMP

implementation. Floridians outside the IRL community will contribute to state programs and water management district projects, through state sales taxes and federal income taxes redistributed to the state in the form of federal assistance. This

will reduce the total CoSt of the CCMP to the IRL community. American and for-
120

eign tourists also will offset some CCMP costs by paying for implementation as sales

and other special taxes levied on the goods and services they purchase while in the

region flow to government programs.

Costs Are Spread Equitably Across the Five Counties

While COStS of implementing the IRL CCMP are reasonable and far less than the benefits one could reasonably expect as a result, it’s a fair question to ask

whether individuals in one area will pay more than individuals in another. In fat,

this turns out not to be the case since costs are spread relatively evenly across the

five-county region. Together, all new CCMP costs represent less than one half of one percent of each county’s total annual personal income. If COStS of new CCMP anions were paid entirely by residents (see above to see how this will not be the case), the average citizen in Volusia County would pay the least, $7.42 a year, while the average citizen

in Indian River County would pay the most, $9.50 a year. Citizens in Brevard, St.

Lucie, and Martin Counties would pay $7.75, $8.46, and $9.49 a year, respectively. For all intents and purposes, costs per person are the same in all five counties.

The difference between the highest and lowest average cost per person is just barely

enough to buy a Big Mac on Sarno Boulevard with nothing left after sales tax, not

even for a small soda.

Many Options Exist to Finance the Indian River Lagoon CCMP

Fortunately, paying for the CCMP can be relatively painless, without any need to raid the region’s piggy bank. Implementing agencies have already allocated funds

for slightly less than half of the Plan’s total costs. The IRLcommunity can pay for

the remaining $10 million in annual costs with a variety of revenue sources in ways

that spread costs equitably, place some responsibility on tourists that enjoy Lagoon

resources, and minimize burdens for any one group. For many CCMP anions, the easiest ways to fund implementation will rely on en- hanced revenues from existing sources. To some extent, population growth alone will

bring an increase in revenues. For selected sources, however, local officials may

want to adjust tax rates and/or fee levels to be more in line with funding needs for

targeted activities.

Existing Revenue Sources

• Local wastewater and stormwater utility fees;

• Local general revenues (ad valorem tonics);

• SWIM funds including WMD ad valorem tax revenues and state matching

funds;

• Non-SWIM WMD funds, including ad valorem tax revenues, permit fees, state

and federal grants and funds from state land acquistion trusts;

• State land acquisition and environmental trust funds such as CARL Preservation 2000, and others;

• State general revenues and sate grant and loan programs Federal hmdinr. including grants from EPA, USFWS, and others.

With existing or new revenue sources, citizens and government representatives

typically expect that some relationship exists between a revenue source and the activities it supports. Many believe that individuals and businesses should pay for environmental programs in proportion to their contribution to problems or the benefits

they receive from ecosystem protection. While it is not always possible to achieve

this goal, several potential funding sources match up well with CCMP anions. One

simple funding package is illustrated on the next page.

ONE CCMP FUNDING SCENARIO

This example illustrates how the $10 million in new annual CoStS needed for

CCMP implementation could be raised according to the following criteria: (1) Nonresidents pay a reasonable share; t2) A relationship exists between the revenue

source and its use; and (3) No single group pays a disproportionate share. These

criteria were adopted by the IRLNEP Finance and Implementation Task Force,

which oversaw projects to estimate COStS and benefits associated with CCMP actions, and develop a financing strategy. One other criterion was followed for this example: keep it simple.

For convenience, responsibility is split equally between residents and nonresidents—Residents pay $6 million a year and nonresidents pay $4 million a year.

This division roughly reflects the breakdown between resident and nonresident Lagoon recreation days: 14 million to 10 million in 1995.

In this example, residents’ responsibility is split equally in two $3 million shares

to approximate the significance of CCMP costs related to storrnwater management
121

compared to all other CCMP costs. One share is funded through a storrnwater utility charge and the other is funded through an incremental increase in ad valorem

tax rate that the Sr. Johns and South Florida water management districts collect

from IRL county residents. Nonresidents pay their share through a single source,

a tax on lodging charges.

Revenue source Annual target Basis Rate Example charge

Stormwater utility charge ........ $3 million .. 523,865 households ....... $5.73/HH/yr $5.73/HH/yr

Ad Valorem Tax through WMDs $3 million .. appraised property in 5

IRL counties @ $45

billion.

0.07 mills .. $10.50/yr for $175,000 house

(with $25,000 homestead

exemption)

Lodging Tax ............................. $4 million .. Lodging receipts of

$69.2 million.

5.8% .......... $5.80 on $100 hotel bill

Under one example of this approach, it may be appropriate to fund anions miti- gate impeas of marinas and boating on the Lagoon with revenues from sources such

as watercraft sales taxes, marine fuel taxes, or boat registration and mooring fees.

Similarly, fishing license fees would provide a way for anglers to pay for fishery research and stock management programs. When CCMP projects will provide services or otherwise generate benefits over a long period of time and require considerable Front capital, as is the case with

wastewater treatment plants and stormwater management facilities, it is customary

tO rely on loans or bonds. These allow large, up-front COStS to be repaid over time

consistent with growth in population and use of Lagoon resources and have the

added advantage of distributing costs in proportion to a commuriity’s contribution

to the problem.

When CCMP anions result in broadly available benefits, broad-based revenue sources are often acceptable funding options. For example, a small increase in the

ad valorem tax rate of the water management district could provide additional funds

for wetlands restoration, impounded marsh management, land acquisition, or species protection programs.

CONCLUSION

IRENEP’s CCMP for the Indian River Lagoon specifies the scientific rationale and management anions needed to sustain an environmentally healthy economy well

into the next century. Its actions are Cost-effective and fair. Elected officials should

be particularly interested in the CCMP because it can deliver stronger local economies, increased revenues, and more jobs—even as population grows and stress on

natural systems increases. In the years to come, we will point to our resource-rich

watershed with pride, knowing that our decisions today sustained a way of life

unique to the Indian River basin.

ADDENDUM C TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON

STATEMENT OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee: The St. Johns River Water Management District would like to present

a supporting statement for the testimony of Professor J. Walter Milon of the University of Florida The St. Johns River Water Management District has been the state

sponsor for the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since 1990. During that

period, the District has provided over $16 million in support of restoration activities

while EPA has provided approximately $5.5 million.

Why has our District expended so much to protect and restore the Indian River

Lagoon? The answer is simple—it is a sound investment. Estuaries are the biologically essential, economically priceless, but vulnerable connections between the

land and the oceans. The entire nation is served by estuaries. Commercial and recreational fishing, maritime commerce, boating and tourism are just some of the activities that people undertake on and along our coastal waterways.

In an age of shrinking public resources, local officials and citizens (while generally

supportive) have increasingly asked about the economic sense of large public expenditures for environmental protection. Until recently, however, it was not possible

to illustrate the Lagoon’s worth in terms beyond its considerable aesthetic beauty.
122

With the advent of the Apogee study described by Professor Milon, it became clear

that the estimated costs of restoration were dwarfed by the social and economic benefits provided by the Lagoon. These results provided vital information to inform the

public about the role of the Lagoon in the regional economy and to rally local political support for the CCMP.

Sustaining the Lagoon’s economic contribution to the community depends on the

continued health and possible enhancement of Lagoon ecology. It is not hard to

imagine that, in the absence of management actions, unabated pollution, overuse,

and other stressors associated with the two percent annual population growth in the

five counties could quickly degrade Lagoon resources.

The IRLNEP, like other estuary programs within the NEP,has developed a blueprint for environmentally sustainable development in the watershed. The Indian

River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) specifically addresses priority problems that threaten environmental sustainability and future recreational opportunities. It recommends specific actions that are designed to

enhance Lagoon resources and support economically important recreational activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation.

Admittedly, preserving the health of estuarine systems is not cost-free, but investments in actions to sustain or improve the health of an ecosystem are good for the

economy and good for local residents if the benefits exceed the costs. As in many

other estuaries around the nation, the Lagoon is already relatively clean and its living resources relatively plentiful. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the

costs of maintaining and improving this healthy environment are modest—especially when compared to the likely costs of restoring the Lagoon as additional degradation occurs.

The Apogee study helped to focus on the benefits that improving the Lagoon

would bring to the region’s residents. Many of these benefits are already being recognized in the form of improved water quality for shellfish aquaculture which is a

growing industry in the Indian River Lagoon. Recreational fishing is the largest single sector of human activities documented for the Lagoon. The reconnection of saltwater marshes which were separated from the Lagoon by dikes has greatly enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. One study showed a significant increase

in the number of species utilizing reconnected marshes versus those which are impounded. Five species were documented using impounded marshes while over 90

species were recorded using reconnected marshes.

The St. Johns River Water Management District is proud to be playing a role in

restoring one of America’s most significant waterbodies. Many local and state initiatives are underway to implement the Indian River Lagoon CCMP. Some $17.4 million in CCMP actions are already financed from a variety of sources including local

wastewater and stormwater assessments, private grants, and legislative appropriations through the state’s Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program.

We believe that this work has clearly demonstrated the wisdom of investing in

the nation’s estuaries by showing that the cost of letting degradation occur is high

compared to the cost of protecting and restoring our estuaries now. Through the National Estuary Program, our District and the over one-hundred local governments

bordering the Lagoon are sharing the responsibility and the rewards of protecting

and restoring a beautiful resource. We look forward to the continued involvement

and support of our federal partners in this important work without which such

progress would not have been possible.

With the above information in mind, the St. Johns River Water Management District fully supports both S. 1321, a bill to reauthorize the National Estuary Program,

and S.1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Full implementation

of these bills will allow for continued and improved federal support of local efforts

to maintain and preserve our natural heritage. The need for this legislation is highlighted by the fact that funding for the individual members of the National Estuary

Program has effectively declined over the years as new programs have been initiated and overall funding levels for the program nationwide have remained relatively

constant. The increase authorized by S. 1321 and the additional resources projected

under S.1222 are critical to local efforts to protect and restore the nation’s estuaries.

Thank you for the Committee’s interest in the study results presented by Professor Milon and for the opportunity to share our views. Hopefully this information will

be useful to the Committee during its deliberations. The St. Johns River Water

Management District will be pleased to provide any assistance that the Committee

may request as it works to pass this vital legislation.
123

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR WALTER J. MILON FROM SENATOR

CHAFEE

Question 1: Much of what our efforts in the past have focused on, with respect

to water quality for estuaries and other waters, is pollution prevention, not habitat

restoration. How do you see the two actions, protecting the resource from further

degradation, and nursing the resource back to health, interacting to reach the larger

goal of improving overall water quality?

Response. The goals of the Clean Water Act of 1972, with refinements in subsequent CWA reauthorizations, to achieve fishable and swimmable waters and to

eliminate discharges were useful targets to help the public understand the purpose

of pollution control. These goals, however, do not address the issue of what overall

level of ‘‘ecosystem quality’’ does the public want for water resources such as estuaries. In this context, ecosystem quality includes not just water quality and fish populations but also other flora and fauna that are dependent on an estuarine habitat.

Habitat restoration offers the potential to enhance overall environmental quality in

degraded ecosystems and should be considered a logical progression in our national

efforts to protect the environment. The problem, however, is that it is often difficult

to predict how policies or actions will result in specific habitat improvements and

to determine the public benefits from these improvements. In my own research I

have found that the public (in this case Florida residents) strongly supports coastal

resource restoration proposals if the results of the proposals are clearly defined.

Federal policies that promote research on the environmental consequences of habitat restoration actions along with research on public perceptions and expectations

about ecosystem health are needed to provide a sound scientific basis to advance

our national policy goals beyond water pollution prevention.

Question 2: The results of your study are quite impressive, but because of the

warmer climate in Florida, I would imagine that the Indian River Lagoon has longer

fishing, recreation and tourism seasons than Narragansett Bay or the Long Island

Sound, which would increase the economic benefits of the study. Have any studies

been conducted on the economic value of estuaries in colder climates? If so, how do

the results of such studies compare with your findings?

Response. The economic value of an environmental resource will clearly depend

on the number of people (residents and tourists) who have access to the resource

and the quality of that resource. While estuaries in colder climates may have fewer

user days than the Indian River Lagoon, larger user populations and higher expenditures can easily compensate. Under the National Estuary Program, several studies

have been completed to document these economic benefits. Unfortunately the studies differ in their scope and level of detail so they are difficult to compare. For example, a 1993 study on Massachusetts Bay reported the value of the Bay ranged between $319-$963 million. A 1992 study of Long Island Sound estimated the economic value of fishing and recreation to be more than $5.6 billion. Neither of these

studies addressed the property, amenity, or ecosystem values associated with these

estuaries. One of the most recent studies, and most similar to the Indian River Lagoon study in scope and detail, was conducted for Peconic Bay on Long Island. This

study found that total revenues for estuarine-dependent activities accounted for over

$400 million or about 20 percent of the local economy (copies of the study can be

obtained from Professor Jim Opaluch at the University of Rhode Island (401/874-

4590)). This share of total economic activity attributable to estuarine-dependent activities is strikingly similar to the 17 percent share we reported in the Indian River

Lagoon study. Thus, these results support the proposition that estuaries provide a

significant contribution to local economies throughout the U.S.

STATEMENT OF TED MORTON, COASTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM COUNSEL, AMERICAN

OCEANS CAMPAIGN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Good morning. My name is Ted

Morton. I am the Coastal Protection Program Counsel for American Oceans Campaign. American Oceans Campaign (AOC) is a national, non-profit organization

based in Santa Monica, California and is dedicated to protecting and enhancing our

nation’s oceans and coastal resources. I also serve as Chairman of the Aquatic

Ecosystems Work Group of the Clean Water Network. The Clean Water Network

is comprised of more than 1000 citizen, conservation, labor, religious and other

groups nationwide working to improve the quality of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters.

Since 1991, American Oceans Campaign has focused a significant amount of attention to the health of estuaries. Working with numerous, dedicated advocates from
124

1 U.S. EPA, Water Quality Conditions in the United States: A Profile from the 1996 National

Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1998). 2 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The 1995

National Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1997), 7.

estuaries across the nation, we have long-supported making more Federal funds

available to improve estuarine water quality and restore estuarine habitats. American Oceans Campaign produced and distributed several public service announcements about the importance of estuaries. We served on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project’s Management Committee. In April 1996, American Oceans Campaign published Estuaries on the Edge, an examination of the 28 estuaries that are

part of the National Estuary Program. On behalf of my organization and its members, I wish to express my thanks to Senators Chafee and Baucus, and to the other members of the Senate Environment

and Public Works Committee, for inviting me to testify today on legislative proposals to improve estuary protection.

INTRODUCTION

Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the nation’s premier water quality law—the Clean Water Act. Across the nation, communities used the anniversary to

assess the condition of their lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal waters. Many communities discovered that significant progress had been achieved. More lakes and rivers are considered safe for swimming and fishing today, than in 1970. In many estuaries, the acreage of seagrasses and other aquatic vegetation is increasing from levels just a decade ago. Much of the progress is attributed to concentrating on ‘‘point

source’’ pollution controls, such as sewage treatment plant and industrial facility

discharges. Also, the public is becoming more involved in hands-on, community-wide

projects to protect their waters and citizens are letting their elected officials know

that they expect clean, healthy waters for their families and communities. These efforts are helping to improve the quality of many water bodies.

But, the examination prompted by the 25th anniversary also revealed we still

have much work to do before America meets one of the goals of the Clean Water

Act—to make all waters swimmable and fishable. In particular, our coastal waters

are troubled. A recent national water quality report disclosed that about 38 percent

of the nation’s surveyed estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as

fishing or swimming. 1 Many beach waters and shellfish harvesting areas are closed

due to pathogen and toxic contamination. In 1995, almost one-third of our nation’s

shellfish harvesting areas were closed or harvest-limited; polluted urban stormwater

was identified as the leading source of pollution contributing to harvest restrictions. 2 Other coastal waters are subject to an increasing number of fish consumption advisories. Finally, estuarine habitat is threatened by unwise development,

sedimentation, and destructive fishing practices.

Since last summer, disturbing accounts of our nation’s coastal water quality have

been featured in the headlines. For example, the outbreak of a toxic microbe,

Pfiesteria piscicida, in tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay caused fish kills and

human health problems. Red tides along the Texas shore killed an estimated 14 million fish last September and October. Sea turtles with tumors have been found off

the coasts of Florida. Sewage spills closed a number of Long Island Sound area

beaches last summer. The ‘‘dead zone,’’ an area approximately the size of New Jersey where dissolved oxygen levels are too low to sustain fish, continues to appear

off the coast of Louisiana and Texas each year. And, El Nino-related storm events

overwhelmed sanitation and storm sewer systems in California this winter, causing

untreated sewage to flow to the Pacific Ocean and forcing health officials to close

numerous beaches.

In order to improve the conditions of estuaries it is imperative to develop and follow a comprehensive national strategy that entails many critical components, including water quality improvements, habitat restoration, smarter land use decisions,

public education efforts, and greater investments. I believe that a combination of

Senator Chafee’s Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222) and Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays’ Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act (H.R. 2374) provides a significant start to ensure that a comprehensive

national strategy for estuary protection is put in place.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ESTUARIES

Estuaries are dynamic bodies of water along our nation’s coasts which are formed

by the mixing of freshwater from rivers and streams with saltwater from the ocean.
125

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Ocean Service, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base

(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990), 1. 4Dwight 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. 5William M. Kier Associates, Fisheries, Wetlands, and Jobs: The Value of Wetlands to America’s Fisheries (Sausalito, CA: Clean Water Network, et. al., 1998), 1. 6 Elliot A. Norse, Ph.D., Global Marine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993), 65. 7 U.S. EPA, Wetlands Fact Sheet No. 2 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1995). 8San Francisco Estuary Project, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (Oakland, CA: San Francisco Estuary Project, 1992), 44. 9Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Charting the Course for Tampa Bay, 1996 (St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, 1996), 14–15.

Typically, these waters are semi-enclosed by surrounding mainland, fringing wetlands, peninsulas, or barrier islands. Many of the renowned water bodies of the

United States are estuaries—Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett

Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound, for example. In addition to bays and

sounds, estuaries are commonly known as lagoons, sloughs, bayous, and inlets.

The combination of freshwater and saltwater creates a distinct environment

where aquatic plants and wildlife thrive. An abundance of land and ocean nutrients,

ample light which promotes the growth of aquatic vegetation, and a continuous mixing of the system by winds, tides, and river inflows create conditions which give life

to some of the richest and most productive ecosystems in the world.

In addition, estuaries support a variety of coastal businesses and are valued as

places to live and visit. In 1990, it was estimated that 45 percent of the nation’s

population live in estuarine areas 3—and the predicted population trends suggest

that this percentage will rise in the upcoming years.

The functions and values of estuaries are considerable. For example:

• Estuaries provide valuable commercial benefits. Approximately 28 million jobs

are generated by commercial fishing, tourism, water-dependent recreation, and

other industries based near estuaries and other coastal waters. 4 It is estimated that

commercial and recreational fishing contributes $152 billion to the nation’s economy

and generates approximately two million jobs. 5

• Estuaries provide important spawning and nursery habitat for commercial and

recreational fish species. More than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch

uses estuaries during at least one stage of life—usually the critical early stages. 6

In the Southeastern United States, 96 percent of the commercial fish catch and

more than 50 percent of the recreational catch are comprised of fish and shellfish

that are dependent on estuarine and coastal wetlands. 7

• Estuarine wetlands improve water quality by filtering pollutants before they

reach coastal waters.

• Estuarine wetlands and barrier islands protect shorelines and inland areas

from coastal storms and flooding. In their natural state, these areas are able to temporarily store large quantities of flood waters and help to minimize damaging impacts of storm events.

MAJOR THREATS TO PRODUCTIVE ESTUARIES

Estuaries are threatened by rapid population growth along the coasts, habitat

loss, and pollution. Some of the major problems affecting our nation’s estuaries include:

• Nutrient pollution. Nitrogen can enter estuaries from a variety of sources, including sewage treatment plants, failing septic systems, combined sewer overflows,

polluted runoff from agricultural lands, stormwater, and atmospheric deposition. Excessive loadings of nitrogen disrupt estuarine life by accelerating the growth of

algae. When large blooms of algae develop, they block sunlight needed by the

estuary’s submerged aquatic plants. In addition, as algae decompose, they require

such great amounts of oxygen, that other aquatic life are deprived of oxygen. Oxygen-deficient conditions (called hypoxia) can result in massive fish kills.

• Loss of Habitat. Due to development pressures and increasing pollution, natural

estuarine habitats are being destroyed. Coastal wetlands, mangroves, and submerged seagrasses provide important nursery, spawning, and sheltering areas for

fish, shellfish, and other wildlife. Ninety-two percent of the original wetlands base

of the San Francisco Bay area has been destroyed. 8 In addition, between 1950 and

1982, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay decreased from 40,627 acres to 21,647

acres—a 47 percent reduction 9—because of increased pollution, development and
126

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. • Pathogens. Disease-causing microorganisms, called pathogens, contaminate pro- ductive shellfish beds and recreational beach waters in estuaries across the United

States. Pathogens are found in animal and human waste and enter estuaries from

overburdened sewage treatment plants, raw sewage overflows, agricultural runoff,

and malfunctioning septic systems. Eating shellfish or ingesting water contaminated

with pathogens can cause a variety of diseases in humans, including gastroenteritis,

hepatitis, and others. • Toxics. Often, elevated levels of toxics can be detected in the sediments, the

water column, and in the tissues of fish, shellfish, and other organisms that inhabit

estuaries. Heavy metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and hydrocarbons are the most common toxic contaminants in estuaries. These toxic substances originate from a variety of sources, including agricultural runoff, polluted

urban stormwater, automobile emissions, and industrial discharges.

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM AND CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM AS MODELS FOR

COMPREHENSIVE ESTUARY PROTECTION

Estuaries are highly valued and intensely used waters, but only recently were they recognized by Congress as a unique and severely depleted resource requiring

special attention. In 1987, Congress added a specific provision to the Clean Water

Act (section 117) to provide direction and funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program. The Program is recognized for its

work on addressing nitrogen pollution and encouraging sound land-use planning. During the 1987 Clean Water Act reauthorization, Congress also established the National Estuary Program (NEP). The primary purpose of the NEP is to resolve

many of the complex issues that contribute to the deterioration of our nation’s estuaries.

Governors of coastal states nominate particular estuaries for inclusion in the National Estuary Program. The EPA selects ‘‘nationally significant estuaries’’ to participate in planning activities. After designating a particular estuary, the EPA becomes responsible for convening management conferences to address all uses affecting the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of each estuary. Conference participants include representatives of the relevant

interstate, or regional agencies, Federal agencies, the Governor(s) and appropriate

state agencies, local government agencies, affected industries, educational institutions, and citizens. The mission of these conferences is to develop a Comprehensive

Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that will protect and restore the water

quality and living resources of estuaries. The priority actions identified in the

CCMP are to be consistent with other provisions of the Clean Water Act and other

Federal laws.

The NEP has been, and continues to be a model for outstanding watershed man- agement plans; however, implementation of the plans is more problematic. Over the

years, we have discovered as more and more plans are completed, they unfortunately languish on the shelf waiting for the dollars necessary for implementation.

Currently, 28 nationally significant estuaries participate in the National Estuary

Program. These estuaries were added in five distinct rounds, or ‘‘tiers.’’ Seventeen

of the 28 estuaries have completed their plans and are proceeding to implement the

identified priority actions. The table on the next page provides a quick summary of

the status of the local programs.

Nationally Significant Estuary Year Designated CCMP Status

Puget Sound (WA) .............................................................................. 1987 ................................. Approved 1991

Buzzards Bay (MA) ............................................................................. 1987 ................................. Approved 1992

Narragansett Bay (RI) ........................................................................ 1987 ................................. Approved 1993

San Francisco Estuary (CA) ............................................................... 1987 ................................. Approved 1993

Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds (NC) ........................................................ 1987 ................................. Approved 1994

Long Island Sound (CT, NY) .............................................................. 1987 ................................. Approved 1994

Galveston Bay (TX) ............................................................................ 1988 ................................. Approved 1995

Santa Monica Bay (CA) ..................................................................... 1988 ................................. Approved 1995

Delaware Inland Bays (DE) ................................................................ 1988 ................................. Approved 1995

Sarasota Bay (FL) .............................................................................. 1988 ................................. Approved 1995

Delaware Estuary (DE, NJ, PA) .......................................................... 1988 ................................. Approved 1996

New York/New Jersey Harbor (NY, NJ) ............................................... 1988 ................................. Approved 1996

Massachusetts Bay (MA) ................................................................... 1990 ................................. Approved 1996
127

Nationally Significant Estuary Year Designated CCMP Status

Casco Bay (ME) ................................................................................. 1990 ................................. Approved 1996

Indian River Lagoon (FL) ................................................................... 1990 ................................. Approved 1996

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary (LA) .................................................... 1990 ................................. Approved 1996

Tampa Bay (FL) ................................................................................. 1990 ................................. Approved 1997

Peconic Estuary (NY) ......................................................................... 1992 ................................. Expected 1998

Tillamook Bay (OR) ............................................................................ 1992 ................................. Expected 1998

Corpus Christi Bay (TX) ..................................................................... 1992 ................................. Expected 1998

San Juan Bay (PR) ............................................................................. 1992 ................................. Expected 1999

Barnegat Bay (NJ) .............................................................................. 1995 ................................. Expected 1998

Lower Columbia River (OR) ............................................................... 1995 ................................. Expected 1998

Morro Bay (CA) ................................................................................... 1995 ................................. Expected 1999

Maryland Coastal Bays (MD) ............................................................. 1995 ................................. Expected 1999

Mobile Bay (AL) .................................................................................. 1995 ................................. Expected 1999

New Hampshire Estuaries (NH) ......................................................... 1995 ................................. Expected 1999

Charlotte Harbor (FL) ......................................................................... 1995 ................................. Expected 2000

One of the strengths of the National Estuary Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program is their reliance on a watershed approach to address and solve the problems of the estuary. By identifying, examining, and correcting environmental problems that may originate upstream, the estuary restoration plans and actions have

a substantially better chance of success. National Estuary Programs are designed

to consider a myriad of issues: stormwater pollution, nutrient enrichment, heavy

metals, seagrass loss, wetlands destruction, sewage treatment, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, fishery landing trends, wildlife populations, land-use

practices, and others. Past approaches to restoration and protection have typically

concentrated on a narrow examination of a particular type of pollution or a particular species of fish. Although many of these efforts are making progress, a more complete understanding of the cumulative effect of all the estuary’s stresses should

produce more extensive beneficial results.

Another strength of the programs is the range of participation they attract from interested parties. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, along with other conservation

organizations and many local businesses are actively working to enhance and improve protections for the Bay. The work of NEP Management Conferences provide

great opportunities for collaboration and building consensus among the varied interests of the community. Joint decisionmaking during the studying and planning

phase, although sometimes difficult to achieve, can lead to far fewer hurdles during

subsequent implementation.

ESTUARY LEGISLATION OF THE 105TH CONGRESS

American Oceans Campaign is very pleased with the growing attention that the 105th Congress is paying to the plight of estuaries. At least four bills have been

introduced that call for improvements for estuary protection. In addition, several

Members of Congress have sought increased appropriations for the National Estuary

Program in order to fund implementation actions. It is my opinion, that the enactment of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partner- ship Act (S. 1222), introduced by Senators Chafee and Breaux, and the Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act (H.R. 2374), introduced by Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays, would significantly advance a successful, comprehensive approach to estuary protection. The combination of these two bills would

foster beneficial estuarine habitat restoration activities; augment efforts to minimize

water quality impairment from both polluted runoff and point sources; encourage

broad-scale, meaningful public participation in estuary enhancement actions; and

authorize substantially more Federal dollars for restoring estuaries and vital estuarine habitat.

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222). On September 25,

1997, Senator Chafee, along with several members of this Committee, introduced S.

1222. The objectives of the bill include improving coordination among various Federal and non-Federal estuary habitat restoration programs and increasing the level

of Federal funding dedicated to these important restoration efforts. The bill is supported by leading estuary protection organizations across the nation, American

Oceans Campaign, and by several other organizations that are part of the Clean

Water Network. American Oceans Campaign considers the approach detailed in S.

1222 to be an essential component of a national strategy to improve the health of

estuaries.
128

In particular, the bill will improve efforts to restore estuarine habitat in numerous ways:

It establishes an ambitious, critical goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine

habitat by 2010. Numerous commercial and recreational fish and shellfish species

use estuarine habitats for nurseries and shelter. Such an increase in estuarine habitat should significantly aid efforts to restore estuarine and marine fisheries to sustainable levels.

It establishes a Federal inter-agency council to better organize the various Federal programs involved in estuarine habitat restoration. The Collaborative Council

is to be comprised of the heads of five leading Federal agencies involved in estuary

protection and land-use decisions. The activities of the Collaborative Council will increase awareness about estuarine health among key Federal officials and greatly assist coordination and priority-setting. One potential outcome of increased coordination will be the compilation of completed and ongoing restoration plans in the national estuary habitat restoration strategy. A data base that gives a brief account

of restoration projects; the types of restoration methods used; the various governmental roles included in the project; and the effectiveness of the restoration will

prove to be an invaluable resource for coastal communities that are determined to

initiate their own restoration campaigns but unsure of how to start and what to include in a plan.

It promotes a through national approach for restoring estuary habitat. The bill

calls for the Council to develop a comprehensive strategy that addresses fish and

shellfish, wildlife, water quality, water quantity, and recreational opportunities.

Such a strategy should aid in directing scientific and financial attention to the most

pressing estuarine habitat concerns, in balancing national attention between small

scale and larger habitat restoration projects, and in evening geographical distribution of estuary restoration projects.

The bill encourages community-based involvement by seeking the active participation of concerned individuals, non-profit organizations, and businesses.

The bill authorizes appropriations to carry out estuary habitat restoration

projects. The increased investments will allow states to leverage their own contributions to restoration projects and should accelerate and enhance estuary restoration

activities.

The Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act (H.R. 2374). On August

1, 1997, Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays introduced H.R. 2374. The bill

corrects the most glaring weakness of the National Estuary Program—the lack of

consistent, adequate Federal funds for implementing approved comprehensive conservation management plans. The bill enables States and local communities to make

greater progress in cleaning up estuaries, plus rewards the efforts put forward by

the community to develop an action plan for their estuary.

Working through the National Estuary Program (NEP) of the Federal Clean

Water Act, community leaders have collaboratively crafted comprehensive estuary

management plans (CCMPs) to restore their estuaries. As previously mentioned,

seventeen of the twenty-eight estuaries in the NEP have completed their ‘‘blueprints’’ and are trying to implement the identified priority actions.

The NEP provides Federal funding to assist states and local communities in developing watershed plans; however, no Federal funding is specifically allocated to

help communities perform the priority actions of the finished plans. To be part of

the National Estuary Program, an estuary is considered to be ‘‘nationally significant.’’ It should therefore be in the national interest to ensure that plans to restore

these waters are implemented and given a proper opportunity for success.

Some coastal states have been successful in securing earmarks through EPA appropriations bills to help support implementation activities. Others have used the

existing Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) to fund priority actions of

the CCMP; however, this has not proven to be a consistent source of Federal funding for estuary priority actions. To its credit, U.S. EPA has encouraged greater use

of the SRF for implementing watershed protection activities through workshops,

publications, and missives. Unfortunately, coastal communities continue to struggle

in a quest for Federal funds to augment local and state funds for completing priority

actions listed in their local CCMP. As a result, the ‘‘blueprints’’ for estuary recovery

are not fully being put into action.

Earlier this year, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project released a progress

report on its restoration plan, which was completed and approved in 1995. Of the

74 priority actions listed in the plan, only eleven have been fully implemented. Lit-
129

10Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Taking the Pulse of the Bay: State of the Bay 19989

Executive Summary (Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1998), 5. 11 U.S. EPA, 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Reprot to Congress, Executive Summary (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1996).

tle or no progress has been achieved on sixteen actions. According to the report, a

lack of funding is the primary reason that the clean-up plan has floundered. 10

H.R. 2374 will strengthen protections for estuaries. The bill:

• requires implementation of approved estuary management plans. Local estuary

management plans have been generally successful at identifying water quality problems affecting an estuary. It is essential that the solutions to identified problems

are actually carried out.

• assures Federal funding for implementation. The bill extends the State water

pollution control revolving loan fund (SRF) through fiscal year 2004. The SRF receives authorized appropriations of $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998, gradually increasing to $4 billion in fiscal year 2004. The bill requires that states with approved

estuary plans set aside a percentage of the SRF increases to be used to implement

the priority actions of approved estuary plans. H.R. 2374 creates a State matching

requirement for receipt of the Federal funds.

• increases citizen involvement by requiring that representatives of conservation

organizations belong to the program’s management committee during development

of the CCMP. Actively involving citizens in the key decisionmaking arm of the local

program will help build support for restoration actions and expenditures that are

needed later.

• allows Federal grants to fund select interim actions as local management conferences craft their plans.

• calls for a public assembly to be held and the management conference to be reconvened within 4 years after implementation has begun to gauge the success and

status of the plan’s implementation.

• extends the authorization of the National Estuary Program through fiscal year

2004.

Because it increases authorization levels for the Clean Water State Revolving

Loan Fund, the bill would benefit coastal and inland states. The need for increased

funds for water quality infrastructure is particularly great. In 1996, EPA released

a national needs survey for water quality infrastructure. Based on reports submitted

by the states, the report concluded that the United States will need to spend more

than $139.5 billion over the next 20 years to meet capital costs eligible for funding

under the SRF. 11 For fiscal year 1999, the Administration requested $1.075 billion

for the Clean Water SRF. With the support of American Oceans Campaign, other

conservation organizations, water infrastructure associations, and other interested

parties, the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $1.35 billion for the

SRF and the House Appropriations Committee has provided $1.25 billion. American

Oceans Campaign commends Senators Bond and Mikulski and Representatives

Jerry Lewis and Stokes for their strong leadership in increasing funding levels for

clean water programs.

If the United States is to narrow the gap between our infrastructure investments

and our infrastructure needs, stronger financial commitments from the Federal Government must be made. The Lowey-DeLauro-Shays bill, by significantly increasing

Federal contributions to the revolving fund, signals stronger leadership in meeting

the future challenges of clean waters.

H.R. 2374 has been the subject of a hearing conducted by the Long Island Sound

Caucus, but has not yet received a hearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill enjoys bi-partisan support and currently has 20 cosponsors. Last fall, 81 conservation, environmental, fishing, and public interest organizations, representing 23 states and the District of Columbia, joined together in

a letter in support of the bill. (Attachment 1) In addition, a coalition of labor and

environmental interests, called the Clean Water/Clean Jobs Coalition supports the

House bill.

A Senate companion bill to H.R. 2374 has not been introduced. In previous Congresses, Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, D’Amato, and Dodd introduced similar bills

to require implementation of CCMPs and assure consistent Federal funding through

the State Revolving Loan Fund. During consideration of the Clean Water Act reauthorization in the 103d Congress, much of the Lieberman bill, including requiring

implementation of approved plans, and authorizing funds from the State Revolving

Loan Fund program, the nonpoint pollution control program, and the National Estuary Program to be used for implementation, was included in the bill (S. 2093) that

passed out of this committee.
130

In an effort to craft a comprehensive national strategy for protecting estuaries and vital estuarine habitat, the Lowey-DeLauro-Shays bill and the Chafee bill complement each other well. The bills support community involvement. The bills reward

locally driven processes to determine what vital areas of estuarine habitat to restore

and what important actions for water quality improvement to undertake. In addition, they increase the Federal financial commitment to improving water quality

and restoring habitat. The National Estuary Conservation Act (S. 1321). Senator Torricelli introduced S.

1321 on October 28, 1997. The bill permits grants that are authorized under the

National Estuary Program to be used to develop and implement comprehensive conservation management plans. The bill also increases the authorized levels for the

NEP to $50 million a year for fiscal years 1999 through 2004. If enacted, Senator Torricelli’s bill would set a meaningful advancement for the National Estuary Program. The bill would open the door to using NEP grants for

implementation of approved CCMPs.

American Oceans Campaign believes that the Torricelli approach, although a stride in the right direction, can only hope to exact modest improvements in implementing approved priority actions in estuaries. First, an annual Federal allocation

of $50 million divided among 28 programs in various stages of their planning and

implementation will not fully solve the current problem of inadequate Federal funds

available to implement CCMP actions. For all of the programs, the estimated cost

their water quality improvement actions substantially exceeds $50 million. A much

more significant Federal investment is needed to ensure these plans have a chance

for success.

Second, a reliance on NEP grants rather than the state revolving loan fund (as called for by H.R. 2374) to fund implementation activities could lead to a less reliable source of Federal funding. Many of the priority actions identified in the approved CCMPs will take several years to complete. For example, several plans address the need to upgrade or extend sewer service for wastewater treatment and to

expand the use of reclaimed water. Having a reliable source of Federal funding to

assist states and localities leverage their costs in making these infrastructure improvements should minimize delays and cost overruns, and thus, accelerate the

clean up of these estuaries.

Finally, the bill could unintentionally create conflicts between newer programs still involved in developing their CCMPs and older programs needing funds for implementation. Although it is important to support implementation activities, we do

not want to squeeze dollars from programs still developing their plans. It is likely

that the $50 million will be a future target of earmarks in appropriations bills. The

bill needs to address how the distribution between planning and implementing will

be equitably carried out. At the same time, I am concerned that the increased level of authorization might

entice EPA to significantly expand the NEP, and not adequately address the great

need to support implementation. The pattern of the NEP is to accept additional

nominations of estuaries every few years. Between 1987 and 1995, the NEP grew

from six estuaries to 28. Certainly there are significant benefits to expanding the

number of nationally significant estuaries: an expanded knowledge of estuary conditions in more parts of the nation; stronger public awareness about the need to protect the estuary; increased citizen involvement in planning the restoration of an

estuary’s vitality; and in the end, an identified, comprehensive list of key actions

needed to be taken. However, additional local programs require greater expenditures for administrative, technical, and scientific support.

In summary, local programs need significant and reliable sources of Federal funds

to leverage the dollars already being invested by states and localities for implementation of comprehensive estuary management plans. Although S. 1321 does allow

NEP grants to be used for implementation activities and increases the authorization

level for the program, I believe that to significantly advance the efforts to restore

our nation’s significant estuaries, a more sizable, comprehensive and dependable

Federal funding source is required.

The Coastal Pollution Reduction Act (Mayagu ̈ez, Puerto Rico Deep Ocean Outfall

Act) (H.R. 2207). Representative Romero-Barcelo introduced H.R. 2207 on July 22,

1997. The bill passed the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997. Section

3 of the bill amends section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act to allow NEP grants to

be used for implementation in addition to development of comprehensive conservation management plans. The bill increases the authorization level for the National

Estuary Program to $20 million in fiscal year 1998. The bill is silent on extending

the authorization of appropriations beyond fiscal year 1998.

Representative Barcelo-Romero’s bill corrects the limitation of the National Estuary Program that only allows NEP grant money to be used to support development
131

activities. However, the increased authorization is only established for one fiscal

year and is wholly inadequate an increase to enable significant progress in completing priority activities of approved CCMPs. American Oceans Campaign does not consider this approach to be a comprehensive measure for restoring nationally significant estuaries.

American Oceans Campaign joins with other conservation organizations in Puerto

Rico and other national ocean advocacy groups in opposing section 2 of H.R. 2207.

This section will allow the Mayagu ̈ez publicly owned treatment works to apply for

a waiver from secondary treatment requirements and to discharge inadequately

treated sewage at a to-be-constructed deep ocean outfall site.

OTHER LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN THE YEAR OF THE OCEAN

Before I conclude my testimony, I would like to briefly discuss other important

legislative issues affecting the oceans. As you know, 1998 has been declared the

International Year of the Ocean by the United Nations. To encourage greater ocean

protections, American Oceans Campaign is supporting a legislative ‘‘Ocean Package’’

and is encouraging Members of Congress to support and ‘‘Vote for the Ocean’’ in

1998. Key elements of this legislative package include:

The Oceans Act (S. 1213/H.R. 3445). The Oceans Act was introduced by Senators

Hollings, Stevens, Boxer, and Kerry, and by Representatives Farr and Saxton. The

primary objective of the Oceans Act (H.R. 3445, S. 1213) is to reassess and refine

U.S. programs and policies that affect oceans and marine life in order to craft a

more coordinated vision for the future. The bill calls for the establishment of a 15

or 16-member national commission to study U.S. policies affecting ocean quality and

health, including sustainable fisheries, pollution, transportation, coastal hazards,

and exploration. The commission would issue comprehensive recommendations for

improving national policies and programs within eighteen months of its establishment.

Current Federal policies and funding to protect oceans and coasts derive from different laws, and responsibilities for safeguarding the oceans are divided among various Federal agencies. Often, the objectives of these laws and agencies conflict.

Using the commission’s recommendations, directors of the many Federal agencies

charged with protecting ocean resources will work with other governmental entities

and non-governmental partners to develop and implement a coordinated ocean and

coastal policy for the nation.

The Senate has already passed S. 1213. The House bill is currently awaiting a

mark-up by the House Resources Committee. We hope that in this International

Year of the Ocean, the U.S. Congress will take a strong stand for a national ocean

policy and pass the Oceans Act.

The B.E.A.C.H. Bill (S. 971/H.R. 2094). Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the United States. In 1997, California’s beaches alone attracted almost 116

million visitors. This summer, many adults and children will swim, snorkel, surf or

wade in beach waters that, unbeknownst to them, are contaminated by pathogens

that may cause gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and various nose, ear, and

throat infections.

To protect themselves from harmful pathogens, swimmers must rely on beach

water quality tests conducted by local public health agencies. Unfortunately, the

testing standards and monitoring practices used by coastal states and localities vary

significantly, and often vary within a state. Several states do not regularly monitor

their beach waters for pathogen contamination and only a distinct minority of states

and local communities consistently notify the public about poor beach water conditions.

The Natural Resources Defense Council conducts an annual survey of public

beach closures along our nation’s coasts. According to its 1997 report, Testing the

Waters, Volume VII, beaches were closed or health advisories against swimming

were issued more than 2,596 individual times during 1996. Several of these lasted

more than 1 day. These figures underestimate the true extent of the problem since

many states to not regularly test beach waters.

To address these problems, Representatives Pallone and Bilbray introduced the

Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Act (the B.E.A.C.H. bill),

H.R. 2094, last summer. Senators Lautenberg and Torricelli introduced a Senate

companion bill, S. 971. The B.E.A.C.H. bill establishes a common-sense, national approach to the problems of inconsistent beach water quality testing and public notification. The bill requires coastal states to adopt water quality criteria for public recreational beach waters that are, at a minimum, consistent with U.S. EPA recommendations. It also directs EPA to work with states to develop monitoring programs that include timely public notification about contaminated beach waters.
132

Beach visitors have a right to know that the waters they choose to play in are safe for recreation. The B.E.A.C.H. bill promotes a nationwide commitment to ensure beach-goers receive the basic information needed to protect themselves and

their families from harmful pathogens. Essential Fish Habitat. There are currently a number of threats, both regulatory and legislative, to effective implementation of the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The

EFH mandate was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 1996 in order to address

what Members of Congress described as ‘‘one of the greatest long-term threats to

the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries.’’ The mandate requires that

fishery managers describe, identify, and protect areas necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. Unfortunately, we now understand that some Members of the Appropriations Committees intend to repeal, weaken, issue exemptions for, or eliminate funding for

fish habitat protection provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through this year’s

annual funding process. These Members are responding to pressure from the nonfishing industry sector (including timber, ranching, mining, development, hydropower, and others), which is concerned that the EFH mandate may compromise

their short-term economic gain. If these Members succeed in their attempts to weaken, repeal, or debilitate the EFH implementation process, they will have sacrificed

a vital public resource to the interests of the private sector.

Clean Water Appropriations. The Clinton Administration’s proposed budget for fis- cal year 1999 includes a Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative, calling

for increases for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent polluted runoff, protect

public health, and restore waters. American Oceans Campaign fully supports these

increases and urges Congress to appropriate these moneys to bring about the needed improvements to our nation’s waterways. (Attachment 2) Polluted runoff is a major source of water quality impairment in coastal waters, rivers, and lakes. Polluted runoff threatens the health of our families and destroys

important fish and wildlife habitats. Each time it rains, water runs off the land and

picks up toxic pesticides and fertilizers from farm fields and lawns, heavy metals

and oils from streets, manure from animal feedlots, metals from mining sites, and

sediment from constructionsites, farms, and timber operations. This polluted runoff

carries these contaminants into our drinking, fishing, and swimming waters. In addition, sediment buries the underwater vegetation in rivers and coastal waters that

sustains juvenile fish and shellfish. In order to achieve the Clean Water Act’s goal of having waters safe for swimming and fishing, we must maximize our efforts to prevent polluted runoff. So far, a few

of the Appropriations bills have included significant increases to support the Clean

Water and Watershed Restoration Budget Initiative. As members of the committee

with oversight responsibilities for many of the clean water programs, I encourage

you to continue working to ensure full funding for clean water improvements, particularly in the polluted runoff budgets for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Control Act (S. 1480). Last November, Senators Snowe and Breaux introduced S. 1480 to address a serious and growing national problem affecting our coasts. Harmful algal blooms, such as red tides and

brown tides, are increasing in severity and frequency along our coasts. Outbreaks

of harmful algal blooms can cause fish kills, poison humans and wildlife, close fisheries, and impair the aesthetics and recreational uses of coastal waters. It has been

estimated that the annual economic losses associated with harmful algal bloom impacts range from $35 to $65 million.

A similarly significant problem affecting estuaries is hypoxia. Waters that contain

low levels of dissolved oxygen are considered to be hypoxic. Hypoxic water conditions do not support marine life and create ‘‘dead zones.’’ Off the coast of Louisiana

and Texas, a dead zone covering 6,000 to 7,000 square miles (about the size of New

Jersey) appears during the summer months. The Chesapeake Bay and Long Island

Sound also experience periodic hypoxic conditions.

There is strong evidence linking nutrient loadings with hypoxia and growing evidence associating many outbreaks of harmful algal blooms with an overabundance

of nutrients. Measures to restrict the amount of nitrogen being introduced to estuarine and coastal waters from agricultural operations, concentrated animal feeding

operations, sewage treatment plants, and atmospheric deposition will assist efforts

to control the outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

The Snowe-Breaux Harmful Algal Bloom bill authorizes additional funds to support ongoing harmful algal bloom research and coastal zone management activities
133

conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Often, these

activities involve partnerships with coastal states and universities. American

Oceans Campaign particularly supports dedicating additional moneys to assist

states in finalizing and implementing coastal nonpoint pollution management programs. These programs provide technical and financial assistance to states to help

develop strategies for addressing the threats of polluted runoff in our nation’s coastal waters.

Coastal Title to the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was last reauthorized

in 1987. During the 103d and 104th Congresses, bills to reauthorize the Clean

Water Act were presented for votes (the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee passed S. 2093 in 1994, the House passed H.R. 961 in 1995). Neither

of these bills garnered the full support of American Oceans Campaign; however, we

were supportive of the addition of stronger coastal protection provisions in a Coastal

Title to S. 2093.

In future considerations of the Clean Water Act reauthorization, American Oceans

Campaign, along with the Center for Marine Conservation and other coastal advocacy organizations urge Congress to add a Coastal Title to the Clean Water Act.

Such a title could be closely based upon the Coastal Title that was added to S. 2093

in the 103d Congress. A Coastal Title should include sections to: strengthen the National Estuary Program (H.R. 2374), establish coastal and marine water quality criteria; devise uniform beach monitoring programs that assures appropriate public notification when waters are too contaminated for safe swimming (S. 971, H.R. 2094);

strengthen MARPOL compliance and restrict garbage from ships; ensure the availability of adequate pumpout facilities for recreational boat sewage and marine sanitation devices; and strengthen ocean discharge criteria. I would welcome the opportunity to help put together such a Title.

CONCLUSION

It is time for the Federal Government to do more to advance a comprehensive,

national strategy for estuary protection. Efforts of the National Estuary Program

have improved the knowledge of water quality problems affecting estuaries and

have developed numerous actions that will support the clean up of these waters.

Coastal communities, states, and citizen organizations have initiated successful estuary habitat restoration projects and have identified several more projects needing

immediate attention.

The approaches contained in the Chafee Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership

Act and the Lowey-DeLauro-Shays Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration

Act make substantial strides in achieving such a comprehensive strategy. Both bills

recognize the important contributions states, localities, businesses and concerned

citizens make to improving estuaries. They facilitate inter-agency coordination

among various Federal agencies. They reward developing solutions to sometimes difficult water quality and habitat concerns. Finally, they increase the Federal financial contributions to ensure estuaries will remain special, productive places for the

future.

I urge this Committee to combine S. 1222 and H.R. 2374 in a subsequent Committee mark-up and work to ensure passage of these important estuary protection provisions by the end of this Congress. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on legislative initiatives to improve estuary protections. I look forward to working with this

Committee on these and other estuary issues.

LETTER FROM RESIDENT COMMISSIONER ROMERO-BARCELO ́

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC 20515–5401, July 6, 1998.

HON. JOHN CHAFEE, Chairman,

Committee on Environment and Public Works,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR CHAIRMAN CHAFEE: I write you today, as the sole representative of the 3.8

million disenfranchised U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico to propose an amendment

to Section 301 (h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that would allow the

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) to apply for a waiver from certain wastewater treatment requirements affecting its Mayagu ̈

ez facility.

Under existing law the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not allowed to

accept new applications for waivers from secondary treatment requirements. The

proposal does not alter the rigorous criteria for issuing a waiver nor does it override
134

the judgment of EPA. The proposal before your committee reflects the goal of both

Congress and the Administration to find innovative, alternative and less costly ways

to apply existing statutes without compromising the environmental objectives underlying existing law.

Many scientists and experts agree that plans to construct deep ocean outfalls at

locations can provide the best environmental and economic alternative for

wastewater treatment. The plans would not only preserve but would even improve

the coastal environments where these discharges occur.

PRASA proposes the construction of a deep ocean outfall that would release primary treated wastewater miles from shore at a depth and location that will have

no adverse impact on human and marine life.

This alternative would improve the coral environment where the current outfall

discharges and would also save the Government of Puerto Rico about $65 million

over 20 years that can be spent to address other water supply and infrastructure

problems affecting the island.

EPA and the Department of Justice have agreed to enter into a Consent Order

with PRASA that provides PRASA the opportunity to apply for the construction of

a deep water ocean outfall, which would be an alternative to a secondary treatment

plant. However, this alternative cannot even be considered without this legislation;

and under the terms of the Consent Order, this alternative can only be considered

if this legislation is enacted by August 1, 1998.

If this legislation is enacted, EPA will have a choice as to whether or not to allow

the alternative measure. If it is not enacted, there will be no choice, regardless of

the environmental or economic consequences. This is what this proposal will accomplish. It is a sound approach to environmental regulations.

It is imperative to stress the fact that this is only a limited and technical amendment that allows PRASA to refile under section 301(h). PRASA would be required

by EPA to meet the same stringent legal and scientific tests, conduct the same environmental studies and implement the same monitoring program applicable to existing recipients of section 301(h) waivers. This amendment would not assure that a

waiver would be granted; that decision would remain entirely within EPA’s discretion.

EPA will be the ultimate decisionmaker, and will determine if PRASA’s proposed

alternative is feasible and environmentally beneficial. If, after the review, that alternative is acceptable, then PRASA will immediately begin construction of the facility,

with the discharge location approved by the EPA. If EPA finds the alternative unacceptable, then PRASA will proceed with the construction of the secondary treatment

plant.

Puerto Rico is not asking for preferential treatment. Rather, we are only requesting that EPA balance the cost of constructing a secondary treatment facility against

the environmental, economic and social benefits of constructing an outfall at a deep

water location.

There are precedents for such limited amendment to section 301(h), most recently

for San Diego during the 103d Congress. In the instance of San Diego legislation

was enacted to allow EPA to consider a section 301 (h) waiver application proposing

a similar alternative to secondary treatment. I believe we deserve the same opportunity to implement an alternative and seek a section 301(h) waiver.

My environmental record speaks for itself. I would not support any measure that

I believe compromises our resources or the environment of the island. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and its common sense approach. The proposal is

limited and targeted, provides for an efficient process, does not modify existing

standards and would be implemented by EPA only if environmental and economic

objectives are accomplished. I am hopeful that it will receive favorable action in the

Senate before the August Is’ deadline.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions

please do not hesitate to contact Ruben Padron of my staff at (202) 225–5046.

Sincerely,

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́

.

STATEMENT OF PERFECTO OCASIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT

AND SEWER AUTHORITY

Mr. Chairman, my name is Perfecto Ocasio. I am the Executive Director of the

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), the public corporation that

serves almost all of the 3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico with potable

water and wastewater services. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to com-
135

ment on the need for this legislation, which would benefit the environment and the

economy of Puerto Rico.

I would first like to present to the Committee a letter, from Governor Pedro

Rossello, urging quick Senate action on H.R. 2207, as a matter of urgent importance

to the people of Puerto Rico.

BACKGROUND

Under section 301(h) of the 1977 Clean Water Act, coastal communities, including

islands, were permitted an opportunity to apply for an alternative to the requirements of secondary treatment for ocean discharges that met stringent environmental equivalency requirements. All applications were required initially to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by December 31, 1982.

PRASA submitted seven applications. Six were tentatively approved; only one—the

Mayagu ̈ez treatment plant outfall—was denied, finally in 1994, because of the location of the outfall in the sensitive coral environment of Mayagu ̈

ez Bay.

CONSENT DECREE ALTERNATIVES

H.R. 2207, which was passed by the House last October, would allow Puerto Rico

to apply to the EPA for authority under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act to

construct a new, state-of-the-art deep ocean outfall at a location that avoids this

coral environment. This would be an alternative to secondary treatment at the current outfall location in Mayagu ̈

ez Bay. This option is specifically embodied in a recent Consent Decree between the EPA and PRASA, which resolves a 15-year-old

legal dispute. The Consent Decree, supported by EPA and PRASA, requires PRASA

to meet a detailed schedule for the construction of facilities necessary to achieve

compliance with all of the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

But it provides two alternatives. One is the construction of a traditional secondary

treatment plant, at high cost and energy consumption, which will continue to discharge effluents into Mayagu ̈

ez Bay. The second alternative, illustrated in the accompanying chart, is the construction of a deep water ocean outfall, sending primary

treated effluent several miles offshore into deep ocean currents, thus relieving stress

on the Bay and its sensitive coral ecosystems. The deep water outfall could be less

expensive to build and much less expensive to operate than a secondary treatment

plant. EPA would determine whether the deep ocean outfall meets all Clean Water

Act standards. However, because of the urgent need for a solution, the Consent Decree permits EPA consideration of the deep ocean outfall alternative only if Congress authorizes this approach by August 1, 1998.

BENEFITS OF THE LEGISLATION

This legislation provides Puerto Rico the same opportunity that Congress has

given other coastal communities in unique situations to implement section 301(h).

The bill does not in any way change any applicable standards of the Clean Water

Act. Without authority to submit a waiver application to the EPA, PRASA may be

required to spend many millions of dollars for a secondary treatment plant that will

have no beneficial effect on the stressed marine environment of Mayagu ̈ez Bay.

These funds could be used for the renovation and upgrade of Puerto Rico’s deteriorating water facilities infrastructure and other water supply, treatment and

wastewater projects urgently needed in Puerto Rico.

H.R. 2207 makes the following findings:

1. The existing discharge from the Mayagu ̈ez publicly owned treatment works is

to the stressed waters of Mayagu ̈ez Bay, an area containing severely degraded coral

reefs, and relocation of that discharge to unstressed ocean waters could benefit the

marine environment;

2. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act should, consistent with the environmental goals of the Act, be administered with sufficient flexibility to take into consideration the unique characteristics of Mayagu ̈

ez Bay; and

3. Scientific evidence suggests that some deep ocean areas off the coastline of

Mayagu ̈ez, Puerto Rico, might be able to receive a less-than-secondary sewage discharge while still maintaining healthy and diverse marine life.

CORAL REEF PROTECTION

Just last month the President issued an Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection. The legislation also provides Congress and the EPA with an early opportunity

to further the goals of this initiative. That Order, which is designed to protect and

preserve coral reef ecosystems, requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities

to reduce impacts on affected environments from pollution and sedimentation. H.R.
136

2207 will allow EPA the opportunity to determine whether a deep ocean outfall can

protect Mayagu ̈ez Bay. Without this bill, EPA and PRASA have no options—except

an inordinately expensive one—a course of action that would continue pollution and

sedimentation of the coral ecosystem. This bill does not authorize construction of a

deep ocean outfall, it will simply allow us to conclude the necessary studies and

complete an application for EPA’s review.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PRASA is already proceeding to ensure a thorough environmental review of all

options. Under Law Number 9, Puerto Rico’s local equivalent to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), PRASA and the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality

Board (EQB) are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A draft EIS

was completed in April recommending a deep ocean outfall as environmentally preferable. A copy of the EIS is being submitted to the Committee.

The entire EIS record will be available to EPA as it considers the strict standards

of section 301(h).

CONGRESSIONAL PRECEDENTS

There are precedents for such a limited amendment to section 301(h). The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981 included a provision that specifically permitted the city of Avalon, California to file. The 1981 provision concluded: ‘‘failure to broaden eligibility risks requiring treatment for treatment’s sake, involving the expenditure of funds which could be better used to

achieve additional water quality benefits elsewhere. This provision does not grant

variances. It simply allows variances to be sought with the burden on the applicant

to make his case on environmental grounds.’’

The Water Quality Act of 1987 also included a specific provision for the Irvine

Ranch Water District, a California public agency, that permitted the District to file

for a section 301(h) waiver. More recently, in 1994 Congress passed H.R. 5176,

which allowed the city of San Diego to apply for a waiver under section 301(h) within 180 days of enactment. This action precisely parallels the provision here.

We urge you to act quickly. A legislative solution must be in place before August

1, 1998. This will allow us to put to rest years of litigation and focus our energies

and capital resources on implementing an environmentally sound solution for

Mayagu ̈ez and other urgent priorities.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue for Puerto

Rico.
137

STATEMENT OF JUAN C. MARTI ́NEZ-CRUZADO, PH.D., MAYAGU ̈EZANOS FOR HEALTH

AND ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Chairman: I am Dr. Juan C. Martı ́nez-Cruzado, former President of and

spokesperson for Mayagu ̈ezanos for Health and Environment, Inc. (MHE). We thank

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee very much for this oppor-
138

tunity to express ourselves to you, even though we are not constituents of any of

you. Until earlier this week, I had expected to be silent today. Mr. Victor Negron, counsel to the Mayor of Mayagu ̈

ez, had planned to present testimony on behalf of the government and people of Mayagu ̈

ez, MHE, and La Liga Ecologica de Rincon. Unfortunately, a last-minute change in circumstances prevented him from appearing today. His written testimony is found on top of the packet that we have presented to the Committee. Accompanying his testimony is a letter from the Mayor

of Mayagu ̈ez authorizing me to testify on behalf of the Municipality today. My testi- mony is labelled attachment 1. MHE is a community-based environmental community organization that formed during our city’s successful struggle against the establishment of a coal-fired power

plant that was to use 466 million gallons of seawater per day from Mayagu ̈ez Bay. We hold our Bay in high regard, and dream of the day in which we may be able

to swim again in it without getting skin rashes, ear infections, and other ailments. We are also involved in other programs aimed at protecting the Bay. For example, we took vigorous action to improve the bay’s water quality by filing a citizen suit

against the tuna canneries that discharge to the bay and negotiating with them the

construction of secondary and tertiary treatment facilities. This was done, I might

add, despite the opposition of the government of Puerto Rico. When H.R. 2207 was introduced in the House of Representatives last summer we

opposed it very strongly because it would have given the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority (PRASA) an opportunity not only to submit a new 301(h) waiver

application, but to exempt it from the application revision procedures of section

125.59(d) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, thereby eliminating all EPA review criteria and all public participation and, in effect, leaving EPA with no legal

basis to deny any new PRASA—301(h) waiver application in Mayagu ̈ez. Though that highly objectionable provision has since been removed, we are still adamantly

opposed to the bill because it has the effect of retarding by too many years all actions and investments needed to save the coral reefs and improve the water quality

of Mayagu ̈ez Bay. We must stress that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is characterized by indifference and negligence, and a much less pro-environmental position than is generally the case on the mainland. The Agency’s handling of—301(h)

waivers is a good example. Since that provision was first added to the Act in 1977,

more than 200 applications for waivers were submitted. During that 20-year or so

span, EPA has made its final determinations on all but seven of those applications.

Not coincidentally, the remaining 7 are all in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. In

the meantime, partially treated sewage continues to be dumped into the Caribbean

and the Atlantic.

As Hispanics, we are very aware of discrimination by EPA, and so we were very

pleased that President Clinton signed an Executive Order on Environmental Justice

in 1993. However, the problem remains a very real one for us.

In Mayagu ̈ez, it took EPA 6 years to conclude its enforcement discussions with

PRASA. When they finally produced a consent decree (see attachment 4), EPA had

agreed to sit on the law for 1 year, explicitly to give PRASA a chance to weaken

the law that EPA is called on to enforce. The agreement of EPA to this provision

is regarded by many, including us, as a preliminary approval of the proposed deep

ocean outfall, despite the fact that no studies or documentations that supported its

viability were available. We were also distressed to learn that EPA had helped draft

H.R. 2207. In short, we believe that we have been treated worse than those who

live on the mainland. We cannot trust EPA.

Even though EPA concluded 7 years ago that the waters of Mayagu ̈ez Bay were

already so stressed that no further impairment could be tolerated, PRASA is still

discharging the same barely treated wastewater, at the same site, causing the same

effects on our beaches and corals. And here we are, now considering turning the

clock back to 1979 and giving PRASA another opportunity to engage in a long—

301(h) waiver application procedure. The people of Mayagu ̈ez, who are sick of waiting for action, can only regard this bill as an excuse to keep doing nothing about

the sewage in Mayagu ̈ez Bays and an attempt to condemn our coral reefs to a slow

death.

The desire for a quick solution to this discharge is so great that even the Governor

of Puerto Rico went out of his way in October, 1996, 1 month before the general

elections, to promise to the people of Mayagu ̈ez the start of the construction of the

secondary treatment plant by July, 1997 (see attachment 6). That promise, however,

proved to be an empty one.

Last May, PRASA submitted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the

deep ocean outfall to the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB).
139

PRASA put in writing and on the map (see attachment 3) the proposed point and

depth of discharge. The depth, 400 feet, is within, not under, the thermoclyne, suggesting that the wastewaters will float to the surface, rather than sink to the sea

bottom.

The proposed point of discharge is within waters used by humpback whales to mate and give birth, and part of the area used for whale watching activities. It is

awfully close to the point where the continental shelf drops off—this area provides

critical habitat to massive populations of fish larvae, and is thus a cornerstone of

the local fishery. The proposed discharge point is only 2.5 miles from beaches of Rincon and Anasco, well known as tourism spots and for their surfing activities. Most of the

year, strong ocean currents would bring the pollution to those beaches. When cold

fronts hit Puerto Rico in the winter months, ocean currents shift to the southeast,

where a major coral reef—Manchas Exteriores—would be located 1.2 miles from the

point of discharge. As a result, the people of the municipalities of Anasco and

Rincon are joining the opposition to this bill. Close to 100 people attended the

PREQB public hearings on June 22. Fifteen testimonies, all in opposition, were presented, including testimonies from hotel and parader owners in Rincon, fishermen

in Anasco, various people from Rincon, Anasco and Mayagu ̈ez, as well as environmental organizations and marine scientists. (see attachment 8). An engineer presented for a second time a proposal for secondary treatment fol- lowed with discharge to existing wetlands for natural tertiary treatment (see attachment 7). Land application of secondarily treated wastewater will be less expensive

than deep ocean disposal, and will remove ALL discharges from the sea. It is crystal clear that the deep ocean outfall is the worst possible solution to a fairly straightforward problem. Undoubtedly, the approval of H.R. 2207 will mean

years and years of the current conditions in which our corals are slowly dying and

our children can only swim in filth. If passed, H.R. 2207 will only keep Mayagu ̈ez in the polluted conditions that it has endured for so many years. We urge you to

let H.R. 2207 die.

If the bill is not enacted, secondary treatment will be in operation by 2001, ac- cording to the terms of the consent decree. Even though secondary treatment is in

itself a mediocre solution, as it provides little relief to corals, this is far better than

waiting another decade for PRASA to bicker with, and probably sue EPA over its—

301(h) waiver application. In the meantime, our children will be able to swim in safe

waters and a sound alternative, tertiary treatment, can be fleshed out. We hope that this option will have renewed support, given President Clinton’s is- suance of Executive Order No. 13,089, ‘‘Coral Reef Protection.’’ As I’m sure you

know, the Order is intended to renew and deepen ‘‘the Nation’s commitment to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value

of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment.’’ How ironic it would be

if the Senate were to approve H.R. 2207, and send it to the President for his signature so soon after the issuance of the Executive Order.

We must bear in mind that when Congress structured the—301(h) waiver opportunity in 1977, it did it so with the clear understanding that the opportunity to seek

such waivers would expire in 5 years. In other words, even where a sewage plant

operator could persuade EPA that it complied with all of the criteria found in the

law, no application for such a waiver could be accepted after December 31, 1 982.

On that day, the door closed. Why? Doubtless because Congress recognized that

there is something profoundly wrong with dumping barely treated waste into the

sea for decades. The 92d Congress was right. The 105th would make a terrible mistake by undercutting the only sound feature of—301(h).

Not long ago, it was commonly believed that the world’s oceans were a bottomless

receptacle, a universal sink, a resource with no limits. Therefore, it was thought

that there was no problem with barging New York City’s garbage 112 miles offshore, and dumping it onto the sea floor. The Soviet Union thought there was no

problem with disposing of decommissioned nuclear submarines by dropping them

onto sea floor. Many people still believe that we can harvest all the fish we please

from the world’s oceans, because the ocean’s ability to produce protein is unlimited.

As this Committee is now very aware, all of these notions have been proven to

be tragically wrong. We have come to realize that the oceans are much smaller and

more fragile that we once thought. Fueled by population and technological growth,

our collective ability to tamper with, if not destroy traditional ecological equilibria

increases every year, often with disastrous consequences. We now know better than

to think that indiscriminate dumping of waste is harmless. We can no longer claim

ignorance as an excuse.

Broadly speaking, there are three ways to deal with pollution; (1) it can be prevented—this is the modern, and most cost-effective approach; (2) it can be treated
140

after the fact, as most pollution is now handled; or (3) it can simply be dumped,

untreated into a dark hole where people do not know what is going on, hoping that

the pollution will never come back to haunt us. This is the waste management philosophy of the Cave Men. The Senate disserves Puerto Rico by applying this philosophy to our island, our people, our tropical waters, and the tremendous array of wildlife that inhabit them.

The 92d Congress was right when it closed to door on 301(h) waivers after 1982. The 105th Congress would make a terrible mistake by reopening that door in 1998. Thank you.

MAYAGU ̈EZANOS POR LA SALUD Y EL AMBIENTE, INC.

Mayagu ̈ez, PR, July 10, 1998.

HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, Chairman,

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

Washington DC 20510.

Re: H.R. 2207—Section 301(h) waiver for Mayaguez. PR Sewage Treatment Plant

DEAR SENATOR CHAFEE: This follows your question at yesterday’s hearing regarding the 12 years that it took EPA to conclude PRASA’s failed effort to obtain a

§301[h] waiver for the Mayaguez plant. In fact the process took 16 years, because

even after PRASA was curtly dismissed by EPA in 1991 (not even a hearing was

granted on PRASA’s patently deficient applications], PRASA filed administrative

and judicial appeals for four more years - all the way to the Supreme Court! The

next month they went to Congress for permission to begin the process all over again

[H.R. 1371, 94th Cong., introduced March 30,1995.]

Senator Rodriquez’s assertion that the Puerto Rico Senate would expedite the

next round of paperwork, even assuming that a legislative body could play such a

role, is at odds with the hard-ball litigation tactics that were being applied as recently as three years ago.

Having now failed for 19 years to obtain from EPA a waiver allowing it to [1 keep

the current discharge where it is, and [23 avoid secondary treatment, PRASA seeks

from your Committee what would amount to an open-ended waiver chat would allow

the same thing. In the meantime, they could file papers with EPA for another 12,

or 16, or 19 years. And the economy of the Mayaguez would continue to bear the

burden of EPA’s sewer hook-up moratorium.

Twenty-one years ago, Congress wisely set 1982 as the deadline for these waiver

applications. The Mayaguez matter is not the right context for taking chunks out

of what is probably the nation’s most effective environmental law.

Sincerely,

Juan C. Martı ́nez-Cruzado.

GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO

June 18, 1998

HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, Chairman,

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By this means I respectfully request your support for H.R.

2207 [the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act], legislation that will permit the Puerto

Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority [PRASA] to implement a Consent Order that

it has signed with the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and to apply for authority under the Clean Water Act to construct a deepwater outfall at the Municipality of Mayaguez on the west coast of Puerto Rico. If H.R. 2207 becomes law and

if the EPA determines that the environmental standards of the Clean Water Act are

met. then PRASA could relocate its wastewater treatment discharges to deep ocean

waters. That would eliminate the current discharge site, which is contributing

effluents to a sensitive coral environment in the polluted Mayaguez Bay: it would

likewise eliminate a deterrent to the region’s economic growth, by allowing the EPA

to lift its ban on development in the Mayaguez area.

For nearly 15 years PRASA and the EPA have been embroiled in litigation over

a solution to the problem of reducing stress on Mayaguez Bay’s delicate environment. Throughout the entire duration of my administration, dating back to 1993,

EPA has imposed a prohibition on new development in the area because of Clean

Water Act violations. Now, finally, PRASA and the EPA have signed a Consent

Order that offers two alternatives. The first of these would require the very costly

construction of a traditional secondary treatment facility that would continue to dis-
141

1Cosponsors include Senators Graham, Mack, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Chafee, Reed, Moynihan,

Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Murray, Faircloth, Landrieu, D’Amato, Gregg, Lieberman, Mikulski, and

Cleland.

charge wastewater into Mayaguez Bay. The second alternative would entail the construction of a deepwater ocean outfall that would release treated effluent several

miles offshore into deep ocean currents. A deepwater outfall would be less expensive

to build and much less expensive to operate than would a secondary treatment facility. Should a deep ocean outfall be constructed, the EPA will determine whether it

meets all Clean Water Act standards.

However, the process leading to creation of a new outfall - which both PRASA and

the Mayaguez community deem to be the environmentally preferable alternative --

cannot commence unless is H.R. 2207 is enacted by August 1, 1998: that is the date

which was agreed upon by PRASA and the EPA in their Consent Order, as a means

of guaranteeing that a permanent solution would not be delayed indefinitely.

The legislation in question was passed by the House of Representatives last year

and has been endorsed by the EPA. Its enactment into law prior to August 1, 1998

would greatly benefit our precious environment, as well as the economic self-sufficiency aspirations of the 3.8-million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. Your leadership in

the attainment of this urgent objective will thus be deeply appreciated.

Thank you for your kind attention to this very important matter.

Sincerely,

Pedro Rossello.

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS

Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee: On behalf of the Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP), we

appreciate this opportunity to submit to this Committee our views on protecting and

restoring the Nation’s estuaries. The Association of National Estuary Programs is

a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting responsible stewardship and a common vision for the preservation of our nation’s bays and estuaries. ANEP’s citizen

members and grassroots supporters are working to ensure that Congress continues

to support the tremendous volunteer investment made by citizens, scientists, and

local decision makers in developing Comprehensive Conservation and Management

Plans (CCMPs) to protect the nation’s ‘‘estuaries of national significance.’’

We are pleased that this Committee is turning its attention to the plight of the

Nation’s estuaries, and offer our endorsement of S.1321, a bill to reauthorize the

National Estuary Program, and S.1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Introduced by Senator Torricelli, S.1321 is a bipartisan bill with 18 cosponsors 1 that would reauthorize the National Estuary Program through fiscal year

2004. The National Estuary Program is established by section 320 of the Clean

Water Act, and administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in close

partnership with the State and local governments, interested citizens, and the private sector.

It is well established that estuaries are the biologically essential, economically

priceless, but fragile connections between the continent and the oceans. The entire

nation is served by coastal estuaries in numerous ways such as commercial and recreational fishing, boating, wildlife habitat, transportation, and tourism. Through the

National Estuary Program, local governments and interested business and industry

groups come together with State and Federal governments to reach agreement on

long-term management plans that protect the future economic and biological productivity of our estuaries.

To date, there are 28 estuaries in the national program: Eleven programs are in

the developmental stage and 17 are in the implementation stage of their individual

‘‘Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans’’ (CCMPs). These 28 NEPs

contain 45 percent of the nation’s surface water area and are downstream from 26

percent of the nation’s watersheds. These programs are clearly an important factor

in at least a quarter of the nation’s inland and coastal watersheds. The management

plans for each of these 28 NEPs are each unique, but share many characteristics

in that they are all based on sound science, all written by local stakeholder groups

in partnership with the relevant regulatory agencies, and all approved by the local

and State governments that will be principal partners in implementation. Local citizens guide the development and implementation of their plans, and work to leverage

Federal and State dollars with contributions from local governments and the private

sector.
142

The Association of National Estuary Programs endorses S.1321. Through its ten

years of experience, the National Estuary Program has become an excellent model

for developing solutions to complex environmental problems. The 28 programs implement their management plans to improve water quality, habitat, and water

flows. Strong federal support is critical. By maximizing the federal investment on

the management plans and local partnerships that have been created, the National

Estuary Program provides real benefits to the health of the nation’s estuaries and

the people who live there. S.1321 offers a simple, straight-forward reauthorization

of the National Estuary Program.

Through the National Estuary Program, many environmental problems are already improving. A few examples of NEP success stories include:

• The San Juan National Estuary Program is reducing the number of unauthorized raw sewage discharges from boater pump out stations.

• The Massachusetts Bays Program led an interagency approach to shellfish bed

restoration that will restore and protect 13 shellfish beds along Massachusetts and

Cape Cod Bays.

• More than 32,000 acres of critical habitat area has been preserved in Barnegat

Bay, New Jersey. Over 35,000 acres of impounded marsh and mangrove wetlands

are being reconnected to the Indian River Lagoon on Florida’s eastern coast, one of

the most productive U.S. ecosystems.

• The programs in both Corpus Christi Bay, Texas and Tampa Bay, Florida are

developing long-term dredged materials management plans to provide environmental protection and to maximize beneficial uses of dredged materials. Tillamook

Bay NEP watershed, the largest milk producing region in Oregon, has performed

a study that identifies sources of bacteria associated with water pollution and links

land use practices to water quality.

The National Estuary Program will be valuable both as a model and as an implementation mechanism for S.1222. Habitat restoration and preservation is critically

needed in many of the nation’s estuaries of national significance; fish and wildlife

habitat loss is one of the greatest problems in our estuaries and it deserves immediate attention and action.

We would like to provide two comments on S.1321. First, we endorse the provision

that would allow funding to be used for both the development and implementation

of the CCMPs. However, we must express our concern that increasing the State

share of funding in the implementation stage from 50 percent to 75 percent because

it diminishes the total effort that is needed to implement the CCMPs. Maintaining

the current level of federal partnership conveys a commitment that attracts local

sponsors and actually assists in leveraging additional local dollars for the projects

that improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and conserve water supplies.

For this reason we urge the Committee to maintain the State’s funding share for

implementing the CCMPs at 25 percent.

Second, we applaud S. 1321’s authorization of $50 million for this national program. In years past there were just a dozen NEPs receiving around $12 million to

develop CCMPs, about $1.0 million per NEP. Unfortunately, today there are 17

NEPs implementing CCMPs with another 11 in the developmental stage while the

total funding to the program has not increased proportionally. The increased funding authorized by S.1321 is necessary because there are now 28 National Estuary

Programs, and solid federal support is needed to fully advance the mission and goals

of each NEP. At the same time, however, S.1321 does not include a provision that

we think it should, namely, holding firm EPA’s administrative expenses. We want

the funding increase to go toward restoring the nation’s estuaries - implementing

the local programs.

We thank the Committee for providing us the opportunity to share our views with

you. The Association of National Estuary Programs stands ready to assist the Committee as it works to pass this vital legislation.

STATEMENT OF RESTORE AMERICA’S ESTUARIES

John Atkin, Stamford, Connecticut,

Executive Director, Save the Sound,

Long Island Sound.

Will Baker, Annapolis, Maryland,

Chairman of Restore America’s

Estuaries, President, Chesapeake Bay

Foundation.

Dery Bennett, Highlands, New Jersey,

Executive Director, American Littoral

Society.

Peter Clark, St. Petersburg, Florida,

Executive Director, Tampa BayWatch.

Mark Davis, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,

Executive Director, Coalition to

Restore Coastal Louisiana.
143

Kathy Fletcher, Seattle, Washington,

Vice Chair of Restore America’s

Estuaries, Executive Director, People

for Puget Sound.

Doug Foy, Boston, Massachusetts,

Executive Director. Conservation Law

Foundation.

Todd Miller, Newport, North Carolina,

Executive Director, North Carolina

Coastal Federation.

Barry Nelson, Oakland, California,

Senior Fellow, Save the San Francisco

Bay Association.

Linda Shead, Webster, Texas, Executive

Director, Galveston Bay Foundation.

Curt Spalding, Providence, Rhode Island,

Executive Director, Save the Bay,

Narragansett Bay.

On behalf of Restore America’s Estuaries, we would like to thank Senator Chafee

and the committee for the opportunity to present written testimony in support of

the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, S. 1222. The members of Restore

America’s Estuaries welcome the opportunity to express our organizations’ strong

support and appreciation for Senator Chafee’s leadership and vision in introducing

legislation that will help our communities preserve and restore our.nation’s ’ coastal

heritage.

Restore America’s Estuaries is a coalition off 11 community-based coastal environmental organizations with a combined membership of over 250,000. Our mission is

to save and restore America’s estuaries and coastal heritage for our children, before

it disappears.

Galvanized by their love of our coastal waters, citizens established the R.A.E. organizations to mobilize their communities in protecting these special places. The

R.A.E. members have been working for more than 30 years to protect this coastal

heritage. Despite the significant accomplishments of the past generation of environmental efforts, we share a deep concern that many species of fish, birds. and other

animals are not recovering as we had expected. We are also troubled by the fact

that some coastal areas not previously affected by water pollution, are now in serious decline’. These continued problems are caused by the ongoing loss of habitat for

fish, birds, shellfish and plants along our shorelines. In order to bring abundant life

back to our bays, sounds, and lagoons, our communities must do more than protect

the remaining habitat. We must restore the valuable habitats which have been destroyed.

That is what our organizations and their members have been doing over the past

three decades. From Seattle, Washington, to Galveston, Texas, to Rockland, Maine,

the R.A.E. members have identified and targeted the habitat resources in their own

estuaries that are threatened and in need of restoration. Working with school children, neighborhood organizations, and a variety of civic groups, we are helping our

communities restore this estuary habitat one acre at a time.

Together, we have pledged to restore one million acres of estuary habitat-by the

year 2010. The need is great. in coastal states, 55 million acres of wetlands have

been destroyed. We need to turn the tide of this devastating trend and actually foster the rebirth of our estuaries and their life nurturing habitats.

Although, each estuary is unique, they all suffer from significant habitat loss. 92

percent of San Francisco Bay’s original wetlands have been destroyed. In Texas,

Galveston Bay has lost 85 percent of its sea grass meadows. Louisiana loses 25,000

acres of coastal salt marshes every year, and the Chesapeake Bay’s oyster harvests

have plummeted from 25 million pounds in 1959 to only a million pounds in 1989

while 90 percent of its seagrass has disappeared. As the pfisteria crisis has demonstrated in North Carolina and the Chesapeake Ray, these losses have dire consequences for our environment, our economy, and our way of life.

When our estuaries suffer these loses of habitats our communities risk the loss

of a wondrous heritage and a prized way of life. Estuaries from Long Island Sound

to San Francisco Bay are a vital part of what makes our communities special. They

serve as the focal points for our community life and traditions, hosting everything

from harvest festivals to busy ports.

Joining together land, saltwater, and freshwater ecosystems, estuaries provide a

vital link to a healthy environment. Forming a critical buffer between our land and

waters, estuary habitat filters pollution from runoff and protects our homes from

flooding. Estuaries shelter a tremendous quantity and diversity of wildlife, providing

essential habitat for 75 percent of America’s commercial fish and shellfish species,

75 percent of the United States’ migratory waterfowl and 45 percent of our endangered and threatened species depend upon estuary habitat for shelter’ food, and

breeding grounds. So, when these habitats are destroyed, the impact is felt far beyond local estuaries as it diminishes our wildlife, water quality and the health of

our land.
144

Estuaries do more than shelter our families and enrich our lives, they are also a valuable economic resource. One acre of estuary habitat produces more food than

the richest Midwestern farmland.

Commercial and recreational fishing, boating and tourism provide Americans with 28 million jobs. The fishing industry alone contributes $111 billion to the nation’s

economy. Our coastal waters welcome 150 million tourists who, in just 6 states, contributed more than $105 billion to local economies during their 1994 visits.

In short, estuaries are national treasures. They nourish.our environment,

strengthen our economy, enhance our leisure time, and protect our children’s futures. We need to care for our estuaries and invest today to preserve and restore

them.

Our communities are already making this investment. They are hard at work restoring small pieces of habitat in estuaries like Tampa Bay, Puget-Sound, and the

Chesapeake, but the resources for restoration lag far behind the number of excellent

restoration projects available. Senator Chafee’s

Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act will provide communities with the

resources they need to invest in the health of our estuaries and save our coastal

heritage.

Effectively leveraging limited federal resources by matching them with local funding, S. 1222 will restore one million acres of estuary habitat over the next 13 years.

This goal will be accomplished by funding voluntary estuary restoration projects

which are driven from the community up. Using this coordinated community-based

approach, S.1222 gives our communities the tools they need to finish the work they

have begun and bring life back to our estuaries.

This legislation goes beyond providing communities with much needed funding. It

gives federal agencies the tools to break down the barriers of bureaucracy and work

together to build partnerships with local communities. In a recent report, Restore

America’s Estuaries catalogued 71 different, often overlapping, federal programs

which implement some habitat restoration. By creating nets ways for agencies to coordinate their efforts, S. 1222 encourages our governments to make better use of

scarce funding and work more effectively. This translates into as much as $10 of

on-the-ground restoration for every $1 in new federal funding.

Despite all that’s been done, our nation’s estuaries remain in crisis. The migration

of millions of people to the shores of estuaries has had its impact. Our coastal communities have only a limited rime to take action and reverse this situation. If we

do not markedly increase our efforts to restore America’s estuaries soon, more species of fish, plants, and birds may become memories just like the Atlantic salmon

which once swam in Narragansett Bay, the sea otter which once thrived in San

Francisco Bay, and the bay scallops which were once harvested in Long Island

Sound. Without action now, jobs will be lost and the quality of life will suffer.

When, last September, Senator Chafee introduced S. 1222, he recognized that the

need for habitat restoration is acute and our coastal communities are poised to eagerly respond to this challenge. Restore America’s Estuaries applauds Senator

Chafee for his leadership on this critical issue. Twenty-six cosponsors, from both

sides of the aisle, have also demonstrated that they understand the needs of our

estuaries and the coastal communities that depend on them. If we truly want to restore our nation’s fisheries, preserve our coastal heritage, and improve our economy,

we must give the federal government the opportunity to help with this task.

The coordinated community-based approach prescribed in S. 1222 will also set a

powerful example for solving the more complicated environmental challenges of the

next century. It will help refocus the Army Corps on the restoration of natural systems, just as is intended in the draft of the Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) that is currently under consideration. Because S. 1222 affects the Army

Corps’ mission and purpose and because the health of America’s estuaries can not

afford years of delay, we respectfully urge immediate consideration of S. 1222 as

part of this year’s WRDA reauthorization.

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act presents a vision of great promise. It gives our communities the opportunity to leave our children bays and sounds

that are healthier than when we found them. We want to thank Senator Chafee for

providing the vision for this bill and setting such a high standard for the future

stewardship of our nation’s coastal resources.

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MILLS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FL

Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you and all the members of the Committee for

giving me the opportunity to offer testimony on the status and future of the Na-
145

tional Estuary Program in general and the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program

in particular.

Estuaries are very important in both environmental and economic terms. They

provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife. Seventy five percent of the U.S.

commercial fish catch depends on estuaries during at least some stage of their life.

The fishing industry provides $111 billion to the nation’s economy annually and

supports 1.5 million jobs. Because of their beauty and intriguing biodiversity, estuaries are also an asset to the nation’s tourism industry.

Ironically, some of the things that make estuaries so precious are the very reasons

they have become threatened. Due to their natural beauty and hence their popularity, the overall capacity of our nation’s estuaries as healthy and productive

ecosystems is declining. Increased land development and activity associated with increased population in these areas has, in turn, caused increased stormwater runoff

and other discharges that contribute to siltation, increased nutrients and other contamination.

In 1987, Congress recognized the threats to these important coastal areas and included the National Estuary Program in amendments to the Clean Water Act. The

purpose of the program is to facilitate state and local governments’ preparation of

comprehensive conservation and estuaries covered management plans, or CCMPs,

for under the program. To date, 28 estuaries have been designated. Section 320 of

the Clean Water Act authorized the EPA to make grants to states to develop their

plans. However, the law does not provide for resources to facilitate implementation

of the plans and 17 of these 28 plans are already complete.

One of the plans that has been completed is for Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County,

Florida, the county I serve. While each of the estuaries in the National Estuary Program is unique in terms of their physical attributes and their diverse inhabitants,

they are equally unique in the varying threats that are posed to them. A common

estuary pollutant in Sarasota Bay is nitrogen, an overabundance of which causes

increased growth of algae. The algae reduces light penetration to the other organisms in the water and, through chemical and biological processes, depletes the

water of oxygen. It has been determined that the amount of nitrogen in Sarasota

Bay has tripled since intensive development began. The source of the increased levels of nitrogen in the Bay has been both small and large wastewater treatment

plants, groundwater contaminated by septic systems and fertilizers used in lawn

care and agriculture. Without remedial action, the EPA claims that the nitrogen

level would increase 16 percent in the next 20 years when the area is fully developed according to existing plans. However, by implementing the restoration plan for

Sarasota Bay, these levels of nitrogen can be 23 percent lower than they are today.

In addition to the introduction of nitrogen into estuaries, surrounding development has also introduced an array of viruses, bacteria and parasites that can pose

a threat to swimmers, surfers, divers and seafood consumers. Sources of these microbial contaminants include leaky septic tanks, boat and marina waste, recreational vehicles and campers, animal droppings, combined sewer overflows and

urban and agricultural runoff. Fish and filter feeding organisms such as shellfish

can concentrate these pathogens in their tissues and can cause illness to people who

consume them. As a result, shellfishing areas and bathing beaches are often closed.

Several estuaries are experiencing contamination problems that require extensive

research into their origins and effects, such as the toxic microbe Pfiesteria piscicida,

which has broken out in rivers that drain into estuaries in Maryland and Virginia.

Phillippi Creek, which feeds into Sarasota Bay, is posted with warning signs of

the potential health risks associated with exposure to its waters. Scientific studies

done on Phillippi Creek have shown the presence of fecal coliform and human viruses. There are 7,500 septic tanks along Phillippi Creek that will have to be replaced with a central wastewater treatment system in accord with the proposed plan

at a cost of some $100 million.

The plan that has been developed for the Sarasota Bay Estuary is an integral one

that seeks to stem environmental impacts and enhance natural systems. Most past

environmental regulatory efforts in Florida have concentrated on the larger, regional wastewater treatment plants. While these programs have been successful in

reducing nitrogen loads from those facilities, the 45,000 septic tanks and the 55

small wastewater treatment plants in the Sarasota County area contribute nearly

twice as much pollutant as the regional facilities, despite handling less than half

of the volume. Since the focus has not historically been on septic tanks and smaller

facilities, that is where the biggest problem lies, especially for Sarasota Bay. The

Sarasota Bay NEP’s overall recommendation for this problem is the aforementioned

replacement of a significant number of these tanks with a central wastewater treatment system along Phillippi Creek as well as other small treatment plants.
146

Additionally, the Sarasota Bay CCMP calls for revised regulation of septic tanks

and small wastewater treatment plants, programs to reduce the use of fertilizers

and pesticides in the area, using artificial reefs as fisheries to replenish marine populations and restoring the intertidal wetlands. Effectively managed recreational use

of the Bay is also recommended, as it will foster a sense of stewardship for the estuary with both tourists and residents alike.

S. 1321 will take the next step by giving EPA the authority to make grants for

plan implementation and authorizing annual appropriations of $50 million. There

is also language in this bill that emphasizes and insures that the program remain

a partnership with a matching requirement so that the funds will be available to

upgrade sewage treatment plants, fix combined sewer overflows, control urban

stormwater discharges and reduce polluted runoff into estuarine areas. We in Sarasota are committed to this partnership. Last November, a 1 percent sales tax levy

was passed to generate funds and we already have preliminary engineering work

underway for this project. In other words, we come to Washington ready, willing

and able to shoulder our share of the partnership envisioned by s. 1321.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your assistance and that of all

the members of this Committee to ensure the preservation of our nation’s estuarine

areas not only as a natural wonder, but also as an environmental and economic

asset to the regions in which they exist. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit our views on this important issue.

Æ