U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–693 PDF 2009

PROTECTING AND RESTORING 

AMERICA’S GREAT WATERS: 

THE LONG ISLAND SOUND 

(111–67) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

October 6, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Brown, P.E., D.E.E., Jeanette A., Executive Director, Stamford Water Pollution Control Authority, Stamford, Connecticut ................................................. 5 

Crismale, Nicholas, President, Connecticut Commercial Lobsterman’s Association, Guilford, Connecticut .................................................................................. 5 

Esposito, Adrienne, Executive Director, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Farmingdale, New York ............................................................................ 5 

Marrella, Commissioner Amey, Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection, Hartford, Connecticut ....................................................................... 5 

Schmalz, Leah, Director of Legislative and Legal Affairs, Save the Sound 

at Connecticut Fund for the Environment, New Haven, Connecticut ............. 5 

Scully, Peter, Regional Director, Long Island Sound Regional Office, New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Tedesco, Mark, Long Island Sound Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Boozman, Hon. John, of Arkansas ......................................................................... 28 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 31 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 32 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 33 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Brown, P.E., D.E.E., Jeanette A. ............................................................................ 37 

Crismale, Nicholas ................................................................................................... 51 

Esposito, Adrienne ................................................................................................... 57 

Marrella, Commissioner Amey ............................................................................... 80 

Schmalz, Leah .......................................................................................................... 99 

Scully, Peter ............................................................................................................. 113 

Tedesco, Mark .......................................................................................................... 119 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Esposito, Adrienne, Executive Director, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Farmingdale, New York, supplemental testimony ................................. 65 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Long Island Sound Caucus, Rep. Israel, Rep. DeLaura, and Rep. Lowey, 

Representatives in Congress from the State of New York, letter to the 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environmental of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure .................................................... 128 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 52693.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 52693.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 52693.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 52693.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 52693.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 52693.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 52693.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 52693.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 52693.009
xv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 52693.010
xvi 


Insert offset folio 11 here 52693.011
(1) 

PROTECTING AND RESTORING AMERICA’S 

GREAT WATERS: THE LONG ISLAND SOUND 

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would like to call this Subcommittee to order. 

This morning we will be holding a hearing on Protecting and Restoring America’s Great Waters: The Long Island Sound. 

Good morning. Today’s hearing will focus on both the current 

state of Long Island Sound and ways to strengthen Federal programs to address continuing impairments to the Sound. I expect 

that today’s hearing will help the Subcommittee in its efforts to reauthorize the Clean Water Act, section 119—the Long Island 

Sound Study Program. 

The Long Island Sound is one of the Nation’s largest and most 

diverse estuaries, home to many types of fish and wildlife, including oysters, lobsters and over 120 species of fish. The Sound is also 

an incredibly important economic driver for the region, bringing in 

an estimated $5.5 billion annually for the more than 20 million 

people who live within 50 miles of its waters. 

The Sound provides a robust commercial fishing industry as well 

as a popular destination for recreational boating, fishing, and 

swimming. 

However, the Long Island Sound suffers from impairment. Every 

summer, the Sound experiences harmful algae blooms. These create large dead zones that starve the Sound’s plant and animal life 

of the oxygen they need to survive. In 2007, the area of the dead 

zone was four times the size of Manhattan. The dead zone in the 

Sound is caused by excessive loads of nitrogen, a nutrient that fertilizes the waters and causes the growth of excess algae. The decomposition of this algae consumes oxygen resulting in dead zone 

areas. 

The majority of nitrogen loadings come from wastewater treatment plants located within the Sound’s watershed, which stretches 

upstream, all the way to Massachusetts, New Hampshire and 

Vermont; but these wastewater treatment plants are not the whole 

picture in terms of nitrogen pollution in the Sound. 

2 

Urban runoff is a large and growing contributor of nitrogen and 

other pollutants to the Sound. The Long Island Sound is located in 

one of the most densely urbanized areas of the country. More than 

20 percent of the land in the Long Island Sound Study area is currently developed. Developed land creates impervious surfaces such 

as roads, bridges, buildings, which does not allow for the infiltration of precipitation into the soil. Instead, precipitation runs off 

these surfaces and into streams or storm drains, picking up pollutants such as fertilizers, heavy metals and pathogens with it. 

There are other major sources of nitrogen to the Sound that must 

still be addressed. These include atmospheric deposition, combined 

sewer overflows and agricultural runoff. One damaging result of 

the dead zone in the Sound is the loss of eelgrass, which is the essential habitat for many types of fish in the Sound. Eelgrass in the 

western Sound has virtually disappeared. These conditions were 

also determined to have contributed to the massive lobster die-off 

that took place in 1999, which decimated both the Sound’s lobster 

population and the regional lobster industry. As a result, annual 

lobster catches of 7 to 12 million pounds were reduced to less than 

1 million pounds. 

The Sound also experiences frequent beach closures along its 

shores due to high levels of pathogens that are transported into the 

Sound’s water after storms through combined sewer overflow 

events. Additionally, despite the dramatic reductions in toxic discharges to the Sound, atmospheric deposition and legacy contamination of sediment cause toxic contamination to the waters of the 

Sound. New York and Connecticut must still maintain consumption 

advisories for several types of fish because they are unsafe for humans to eat on a daily basis. 

It is because of these challenges that we are holding this hearing 

on the Long Island Sound. 

We have made significant progress in upgrading wastewater 

treatment plants in Connecticut and New York and in reducing the 

nitrogen loadings to the Sound. However, the Sound will not be 

fully restored unless there is more done to address the remaining 

problems. Chief among these problems are urban runoff and the integration of upstream States into the current program. 

I welcome our witnesses today, and look forward to hearing your 

testimony. Our ultimate goal is to use your suggestions and recommendations to create a Federal program that would better facilitate the restoration of the Long Island Sound. I thank you for being 

here this morning. 

I now yield to the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman 

of Arkansas. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony about a 

longstanding program under the Clean Water Act that is aimed at 

helping to restore and protect the Long Island Sound. Long Island 

Sound is unique, and is a highly productive estuary that is important to the ecological and economic bases of our Nation. 

Fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and tourism are heavily dependent 

on a healthy Long Island Sound and other estuarine systems. Yet, 

despite its values, most estuaries in the United States, including 

Long Island Sound, are experiencing stress from physical alteration 

3 

and pollution, often resulting from development and rapid population growth in coastal areas. 

In the 1980s, Congress recognized the importance of and the 

need to protect the national functions of our Nation’s estuaries. As 

a result, in 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act to establish the National Estuary Program. The National Estuary Program 

identifies nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by 

pollution, land development and overuse, and it provides grants 

that support the development of the Comprehensive Conservation 

and Management Plan to protect and restore them. The program 

is designed to resolve issues at a watershed level, integrate science 

into the decision-making process, foster collaborative problem-solving, and involve the public. 

Unlike many EPA and other Federal programs that rely on conventional top-down regulatory measures to achieve environmental 

goals, the National Estuary Program uses a framework that focuses on stakeholder involvement and interaction in tailoring solutions for problems that are specific to that region in order to 

achieve estuarine protection and restoration goals. 

Since its inception, the National Estuary Program has been a 

leading example of a collaborative institution designed to resolve 

conflict and to build cooperation at the watershed level. Today the 

National Estuary Program is an ongoing, non-regulatory program 

that supports the collaborative, voluntary efforts of stakeholders at 

the Federal, State and local levels to restore degraded estuaries. 

Currently, Long Island Sound is a part of the National Estuary 

Program, and it is implementing restoration plans developed at the 

local level through a collaborative process. 

The National Estuary Program has been beneficial in improving 

and protecting the condition of the estuaries in the program, and 

the program shows that a collaborative, voluntary approach can 

provide an alternative to the sole reliance on traditional command 

and control mechanisms. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, and look 

forward to hearing about the progress of the Long Island Sound 

program and how the National Estuary Program is working and 

about ways to improve the program in the future. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Are there other opening statements? 

Mr. BISHOP. Madam Chair, I thank you for holding this hearing. 

I represent the eastern end of Long Island, and the entire northern 

border of my district is the Long Island Sound, so it is a subject 

of great importance to me, to my constituents and to all of the residents of Long Island. 

The Long Island Sound and its watershed have sustained New 

York and Connecticut communities for hundreds of years. An estimated 8 million people live within the Long Island Sound watershed. Roughly 20 million people live within 50 miles of the Sound. 

Businesses dependent on the health and viability of the Sound account for an estimated $5.5 billion in economic activity annually. 

However, as our region has grown, so has the degradation of our 

precious water resources. Like so many other bodies of water 

4 

across the Nation, for years the Long Island Sound was exploited 

not only for its resources but also as a dumping ground for waste. 

Many of our panelists today will underscore the sensitivity of the 

Sound and how it can be irreparably harmed, either directly 

through carelessness or indirectly through point and nonpoint 

source pollution and other factors. 

Mr. Crismale’s testimony is especially troubling as he recalls the 

1999 lobster mortality event and how the degradation of the Sound 

as a resource has fundamentally altered the lobster and fishing 

communities that surround the Sound. 

In my opinion, the character of eastern Long Island was built 

upon the fishing industry, aquaculture and the rural environment, 

and it is the very reason that we draw so many visitors today. It 

is this culture, based on our water resources, that supports our 

small businesses and that provides the bedrock of our local economy. If we allow the Sound to further deteriorate, the very nature 

of what makes eastern Long Island the destination for so many will 

also deteriorate and will be very difficult, if not impossible, to rebuild. 

In many ways, the Sound has been fortunate. Congress and the 

surrounding States recognize its importance to the region’s environmental, social and economic health. Building upon the goals of 

the Clean Water Act, the efforts of the Long Island Sound Study 

and the inclusion of the Sound into the national estuary system 

have driven decisions about how we care for this abundant yet delicate resource. 

Madam Chair, it is my hope that this hearing will bring attention to the innovative strategies that have been implemented by 

Federal, State and local entities to protect the Long Island Sound. 

I want to thank today’s panelists for all they do to protect the 

Sound, and I look forward to their testimony. 

I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The other Member, Mr. Hall, is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just briefly, I thank you and the Ranking Member for holding 

this hearing. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

When I was a young boy, I was taught to sail by my father, and 

we sailed up and down Long Island Sound on our summer vacations many times. I remember times when there were floating 

patches of sewage out in the middle of nowhere, where you are 

practically out of sight of land. This was during some of the worst 

times of contamination. 

Just as with the Hudson River which runs through my district 

today—another estuary in need of constant maintenance and 

help—when we clean up one type of pollution, which is kind of like 

playing whack-a-mole, you discover there is another source that 

comes along. You discover chemical pollutants or the atmospheric 

deposition of pollutants which needs to be guarded against. 

I completely concur with my colleague Mr. Bishop’s comments 

that this is not only a source of tourism, which is an important 

part of our economy, but that the health of our bodies of water, especially our major estuaries, will be and are indicators of the 

health of this planet, and of our country and its citizens. 

5 

With that, I yield back, and look forward to the testimony of our 

witnesses. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Our witnesses now can take their seats at the table. 

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Mark Tedesco, who is director of EPA’s Long Island Sound Office. 

Next to testify is Commissioner Amey Marrella. She is here 

today representing the Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

Our third witness, Mr. Peter Scully, is the regional director of 

the Long Island Sound Regional Office with the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Following Mr. Scully is Ms. Jeanette Brown. Ms. Brown is executive director of the Stamford Water Pollution Control Authority, located in Stamford, Connecticut. She is also the vice president of the 

Water Environment Federation. Ms. Brown testified before this 

Committee earlier this year, and we welcome her back. 

Our next witness is Ms. Leah Schmalz. She is the director of legislative and legal affairs with Save the Sound. Save the Sound is 

associated with the Connecticut Fund for the Environment. 

Our sixth witness this morning is Ms. Adrienne Esposito. Ms. 

Esposito is executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, out of Farmingdale, New York. 

Our final witness this morning is Mr. Nicholas Crismale who is 

the president of the Connecticut Commercial Lobstermen’s Association. 

So I thank all of you for attending today’s hearing. We look forward to your insights on the issues affecting the Sound. Your full 

statements will be placed in the record, so we ask you to try to 

limit your testimony to about 5 minutes as a courtesy to the other 

witnesses. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK TEDESCO, LONG ISLAND SOUND OFFICE, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; COMMISSIONER AMEY MARRELLA, CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT; PETER SCULLY, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, LONG ISLAND SOUND REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 

STONY BROOK, NEW YORK; JEANETTE A. BROWN, P.E., D.E.E., 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STAMFORD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT; LEAH 

SCHMALZ, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, 

SAVE THE SOUND AT CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT; ADRIENNE 

ESPOSITO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR 

THE ENVIRONMENT, FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK; AND NICHOLAS CRISMALE, PRESIDENT, CONNECTICUT COMMERCIAL 

LOBSTERMAN’S ASSOCIATION, GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Tedesco, you may proceed. 

Mr. TEDESCO. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for the 

opportunity to address the Subcommittee this morning. 

6 

Professor Glenn Lopez of Stony Brook University called Long Island Sound ′′the Nation’s first 21st century estuary.′′ That resonated to me. What it suggests is that the changes that have gone 

on in the Long Island Sound watershed over 400 years are the 

same changes that many other systems’ estuaries across the country have experienced or will experience. Long Island Sound, in essence, going through a cycle of agricultural development, industrial 

development, and urban and suburban development has seen many 

of the changes, again, that are occurring and that will occur in 

other systems. A positive aspect, I believe, is that some of the innovation and commitment that has been applied to Long Island 

Sound also provides some direction for how to approach issues elsewhere in the country. 

I am director of EPA’s Long Island Sound Office. We are located 

in Stamford, Connecticut. Our job as directed under the Clean 

Water Act is to coordinate the Management Conference, a bi-State 

partnership in Long Island Sound, and to support the implementation of the comprehensive management plan for the Sound. 

To do it, we take a comprehensive and inclusive approach. We 

look at Long Island Sound as an ecosystem, unhindered by political 

boundaries. We recognize that human use is a vital component of 

that system and that science must inform all of our work. We work 

through partnerships and collaboration, and we bring together the 

skills and resources of sister Federal agencies, State and local 

agencies, the private and nonprofit sectors, and our research institutions to develop a shared vision of where Long Island Sound 

should go, again based on sound science. 

What are some of the key activities that we support? 

We have State and Federal staff dedicated to Long Island Sound, 

working on many of the issues. We support research and monitoring to understand the status and trends in habitat and water 

quality and to connect these trends to causes. We support the implementation of water quality and habitat restoration, watershed 

planning, nonpoint source pollution abatement, and land protection 

activities, and we support an active education and outreach program to involve local communities. 

Let me mention briefly some of the tangible benefits from investments that have been made in the restoration of Long Island 

Sound. The discharge of toxic contaminants in the Sound’s watershed, as reported in the toxic release inventory, have decreased by 

90 percent since 1998. As a result of those decreases, we are seeing 

lower levels of many toxic contaminants in the sediments, in the 

fish and shellfish of Long Island Sound. 

A recent example—work supported by the Long Island Sound 

Study and work conducted by both the State of Connecticut and the 

State of New York—sampled striped bass and bluefish, and found 

that PCB levels have decreased by 50 percent compared to levels 

of the 1980s, and these data have been used by both State health 

departments to update finfish consumption advisories for Long Island Sound. 

Clearly we have identified the problem of nutrients to Long Island Sound. They have been greatly reduced through a nutrient 

production program, and there have been innovative approaches in 

New York and Connecticut: in New York, the bubble strategy for 

7 

aggregating permit reductions; and, in Connecticut, a Nitrogen 

Credit Exchange Program. 

There has been progress in habitat restoration, in restoring 

meadows of eelgrass to Long Island Sound and an understanding 

of broader changes of development throughout the watershed. 

Let me just touch on some of the key challenges that are ahead. 

One is certainly that we have the challenge of further reducing of 

pollution in light of continued development, increases of population 

in the watershed and continued development, and, clearly, limited 

resources at all levels of government. This is going to require us 

to focus on the most cost-effective ways to reduce nitrogen to Long 

Island Sound. 

Continued implementation in Connecticut and New York will 

need to be expanded to include the upland States of Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire and Vermont. We will need to incorporate those 

additional sources into a total maximum daily load that establishes 

load allocations for nitrogen reduction to Long Island Sound, and 

we will need to clearly stick to fundamentals in maintaining investments in the region’s water infrastructure, and we will also need 

to continue to foster a climate of innovation. 

There are some clear examples: the National NonPoint Education 

for Municipal Officials. The program actually started in the State 

of Connecticut through a Long Island Sound Study-funded project. 

There are the water quality trading programs both in New York 

and Connecticut, that I am sure our other panelists will talk further about, that will potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars 

and still help achieve nitrogen reduction goals. 

One avenue that we are quite interested in pursuing is looking 

at expanding the trading concept to include further additional 

States within the watershed, but also expand the concept to include 

what we call ′′bio-extraction technologies′′ to remove nitrogen from 

the Sound. The concept is using filter feeders, like oysters or seaweed, that can be harvested from the Sound; and, through the active culture, we can help support water-dependent jobs in Long Island Sound. We can improve the ecosystem through the functioning 

of these elements, as well as remove nutrients from Long Island 

Sound in a cost-effective manner. We have an international conference coming up, actually this December, to bring leading experts 

throughout the world to discuss this potential application for Long 

Island Sound. 

We are also working to integrate efforts to address climate 

change impacts to Long Island Sound, and we will continue to work 

with our sister Federal agencies, bringing staff into the program 

and making sure that we are integrating water quality habitat and 

management of living resources. 

I will just mention that one last item is a suggested technical fix 

to section 119 of the Clean Water Act, and that would be to add 

the word ′′cooperate′′ so that it would read: It would allow EPA to 

cooperate and coordinate activities and implementation responsibilities with other Federal agencies. 

This would give us specific legislative cooperative authority for 

Federal interagency agreements, again, to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the program. 

8 

I want to thank you, the Committee, for the opportunity. EPA 

believes it is vitally important to the economy of the region and to 

the ecology of the Sound, its habitats and living resources, as well 

as its users, to reauthorize appropriations for section 119 of the 

Clean Water Act. The EPA clearly believes that the partnership, 

the innovation and the commitment I have characterized in the 

Long Island Sound Study have brought positive environmental results. 

I will be happy to answer questions at the end of all the panelists’ comments. Thank you for your time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

You almost doubled your time. We do read your statements, so 

you do not have to read them in their entirety, but if you could give 

us a strong summary, we would appreciate it. 

Ms. Marrella. 

Ms. MARRELLA. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair, 

Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Amey Marrella, and I serve as commissioner of the 

Department of Environmental Protection. I appreciate this invitation to speak to you about Long Island Sound. 

I am pleased to report that Connecticut DEP and our Long Island Sound Study partners have made great strides in managing 

the Sound despite resource limitations and the unparalleled difficulty to the task. Sometimes signs of progress come in unusual 

ways. 

This past June, a pod of nearly 200 bottlenose dolphins passed 

through the Sound for the first time in at least 30 years. We think 

this is an important symbol of the Sound’s improved water quality. 

There is widespread agreement that water quality is a primary 

issue of concern to the health of the Sound, and hypoxia is our primary water quality challenge. I was asked today to speak to Connecticut’s trading program as a means to reduce nitrogen, the pollutant most responsible for hypoxia. 

In Connecticut, our nitrogen trading program has accelerated 

progress with sewage treatment plant nitrogen control, while minimizing cost. We placed our municipal sewage treatment plants 

under a single general permit, and then required the aggregate discharges from all the plants to meet a nitrogen reduction target. An 

individual plant can meet the allotted reduction either through actual reduction or by purchasing credits generated by another facility. 

The trading program also recognizes that the impact of a plant’s 

nitrogen discharge depends on the plant’s proximity to the Sound. 

Trading ratios recognize that 100 pounds of nitrogen discharged in 

Greenwich will have a 100 percent impact on the hypoxic zone, 

while 100 pounds discharged in Hartford will have one-fifth the effect following natural attenuation. 

Trading thus provides a financial incentive for nitrogen reduction 

at plants whose discharge most directly impacts oxygen levels. 

Overall, we estimate that trading will save $300 to $400 million in 

construction costs when fully implemented in 2014 compared to the 

individual permit approach. 

In addition to hypoxia, other difficult and costly management 

issues facing the Sound include beach and shellfish bed closures 

9 

after rain events, which can only be addressed by addressing 

stormwater; land use patterns that impair the biological health and 

productivity of our ecosystems; requiring new land management 

techniques such as green infrastructure and low-impact development; the need to preserve and to protect undeveloped land; the 

need to negotiate protocols and processes for the environmentally 

responsible management of dredge sediments. 

Finally, underscoring the complexity of the Sound is the potential effects of climate change with its predictions that climate 

change will bring increased temperatures, increased water levels 

and more severe storm events. 

In summary, there is much we have done and much that remains 

for us to do. The Long Island Sound Study has been an excellent 

forum for collaboration among the States, Federal agencies and the 

public, providing funding and motivation. Your support has been 

instrumental to our progress, and we ask for continued support 

from this Subcommittee and Congress to help us build on our 

progress in protecting and improving Long Island Sound for dolphins and people alike. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Scully. 

Mr. SCULLY. Good morning. 

Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of New York Governor David A. Paterson and Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on New York State’s efforts to 

protect and restore Long Island Sound. 

I am the director of the Long Island Regional Office of the New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation. My testimony today will address the actions which New York State has 

taken, in concert with our counterparts in Connecticut and USEPA, 

to restore the Sound. I will also address the State’s recommendations for actions—which we encourage the Subcommittee to consider—to enhance our efforts to restore the Sound’s water quality 

and bountiful natural resources. 

The achievements we have made to date have occurred under the 

auspices of the Long Island Sound Study, a 24-year cooperative 

project that is part of the National Estuary Program. The study 

culminated with the approval of the Comprehensive Conservation 

and Management Plan for the Long Island Sound, a blueprint to 

improve the health of the estuary. 

The CCMP identified seven priority areas for implementation in 

the Sound: load dissolved oxygen, or hypoxia; toxic contamination; 

pathogens; floatable debris; health of living resources and their 

habitats; land use; and public outreach and involvement. 

As one of the CCMP’s key actions, municipalities which abut the 

Sound must upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities to virtually eliminate nitrogen discharges, which cause hypoxia, which 

impairs the feeding, reproduction and growth of aquatic life. 

Contaminated sediments impair resources, and make it more difficult to dispose of dredged material. Long Island Sound beaches 

are periodically closed, along with 73 percent of New York’s producVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:21 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52693 JASON
10 

tive shellfish beds, because of high levels of pathogens, potentially 

disease-causing organisms that reach the Sound through 

stormwater. 

New York State, county and local governments anticipate spending an estimated $1.1 billion on wastewater treatment upgrades in 

addition to the millions already invested. State and local funds also 

are being used to restore aquatic habitats, control nonpoint sources 

of pollution, acquire valuable open space, provide access, and to undertake many other essential projects, but New York cannot restore 

Long Island Sound alone. 

We appreciate our partnership with the USEPA, other Federal 

agencies, our counterparts in Connecticut, local governments, notfor-profit organizations, and most importantly, a very committed 

citizenry. 

In 2000, Congress approved the Long Island Sound Restoration 

Act so that the Federal Government could share in New York and 

Connecticut’s commitment to the Sound. LISRA funds can be used 

for a wide variety of projects, including habitat protection and restoration, sewage treatment plant upgrades, program management, 

monitoring, education, research, and special projects. 

New York appreciates the commitment Congress has demonstrated to the Sound, in particular, the advocacy of Congress 

Members Israel, Bishop and Lowey, Senator Schumer and Senator 

Gillibrand. We are grateful for USEPA’s consistent efforts to provide funding for Sound projects. Without continued congressional 

advocacy for this important estuary, however, we fear that efforts 

to restore Long Island Sound will continue to limp along. 

The issues I have raised, while important, are subsumed by the 

critical issue of sea-level rise and its potential impacts on Long Island’s natural resources, water supplies and communities. Sea-level 

rise is contributing to saltwater intrusion into Long Island Sound’s 

sole-source aquifer, which the entire region relies upon for its 

drinking water. Sea-level rise may determine future wastewater 

treatment needs. To prevent groundwater degradation, for example, it may be necessary to upgrade existing sewage treatment 

plants and to construct new plants to eliminate the use of aging 

and failing septic systems. 

While we need Federal support for wastewater treatment upgrades to reduce discharges to the Sound, it is also critically important to address stormwater discharges that have resulted in the 

closure of shellfish beds. Federal assistance is needed to restore 

habitats of this biologically productive region, such as tidal and 

freshwater wetlands, shellfish spawner sanctuaries, and to mitigate 

barriers to fish passage. Invasive species also must be targeted. 

Finally, I want to briefly mention LISRA’s sister statute, the 

Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. It was enacted to identify, 

protect and enhance special places around Long Island Sound. 

LISSA acknowledges the necessity of the Federal role in protecting 

habitats along the Sound, not only to preserve environmental quality but to ensure public access to it. To date, LISSA has not been 

as effective as its sponsors envisioned. New York believes that 

amendments could be made to streamline this law and possibly fold 

it into LISRA. We defer to the Subcommittee to determine whether 

11 

it would be feasible to consolidate both of these laws under one umbrella. 

Thanks again for this opportunity to address you today. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Good morning, Madam Chair Johnson, Ranking 

Member Boozman and the other Subcommittee Members. 

My name is Jeannette Brown, and I am the executive director of 

the Stamford Water Pollution Control Authority, one of the largest 

wastewater utilities in Connecticut. I am also vice president of the 

Water Environment Federation, which is devoted to the preservation and enhancement of global water environment. 

I am honored to be here today to discuss the Connecticut Nitrogen Credit Trading Program and its impact on the water quality 

of Long Island Sound. 

Since the late 1980s, I have spent a great deal of time working 

on ways to optimize nitrogen removal at wastewater treatment 

plants, not only to benefit Stamford and Long Island Sound but 

also the wastewater community at large, and I have served on the 

Nitrogen Credit Trading Board since its inception. 

When the trading program was proposed, several municipalities 

in Connecticut were opposed to it. Many did not understand the 

concept of the trading program. Some wanted a free market system 

rather than a State being the bank. The Connecticut Conference of 

Mayors conducted several meetings between municipal government 

leaders, treatment plant managers and the State environmental 

agency. Through those meetings, a better understanding of the program arose, and municipal leaders began to understand the potential value of the program. 

The Stamford treatment plant receives wastewater from Stamford but also from the neighboring town of Darien, and we serve 

a population of about 100,000. In December of 2001, we began a 

project to upgrade and expand the treatment plant at a cost of 

$105 million, of which approximately $50 million was devoted to nitrogen removal. Stamford discharges to the area in Long Island 

Sound known as the ′′hotspot,′′ the most impaired region. Our 

mayor, Dan Malloy, felt it was critical to the health of Long Island 

Sound that we proceed with the upgrade quickly, and the major 

selling point to our governing boards was the nitrogen trading program and the fact that we would receive revenue to help offset our 

user charge. 

The Stamford treatment upgrade was completed in late 2005. By 

mid-2006, we were removing considerable amounts of nitrogen. So 

far, we have been able to offset some of the incremental costs of 

nitrogen removal by selling nitrogen credits—45 percent offset in 

2006, 58 in 2007, and 73 percent in 2008. Between 45 and 73 percent of the incremental costs of operation and maintenance for nitrogen removal is covered by the revenue obtained by selling credits. Now, that is just the incremental O&M costs, and it does not 

reflect the total cost. 

This is very significant, however, when you understand that we 

would have been required to remove nitrogen whether or not there 

was a trading program. After working with the trading program for 

the past 7 years, I am totally supportive of the program, not just 

12 

because we are a big seller of credits, but the program is an economical and fair way of meeting water quality standards. It is important to understand that municipalities have to comply with environmental regulations whether or not they can afford to do them. 

In Connecticut, the treatment plants are required to remove nitrogen, and soon many of them may be required to remove phosphorus. Upgrading treatment plants is expensive, and there is limited grant money available to help offset improvements. Even with 

grants, there is still significant debt service. 

The trading program allows officials and towns to evaluate the 

cost of upgrading versus the cost of continually purchasing credits. 

In some cases, town officials are putting off upgrades for a short 

period of time—5 years. In other cases, they determine that it is 

more economical to purchase credits long term. To this point, I 

have been focusing on point sources, but there is a major concern 

about how we deal with nutrients and pollutants being carried by 

nonpoint sources. 

This is a critical issue that does not have an easy fix, and will 

cost significant amounts of moneys. Many times, impaired bodies 

of waters cannot be helped by regulating the wastewater discharges, but because most of the pollutant comes in through 

stormwater discharges, stormwater management is very expensive 

and complex. Trading programs may play a big part in managing 

stormwater discharges of nutrients also. 

It is important to have highly trained regulators, engineers and 

operators, and the Water Environment Federation is taking a very 

active role in training engineers and regulators. We are currently 

doing a document for EPA, talking about nutrient removal at secondary treatment plants, and we are also providing training documents for operators who have to operate the treatment plants and 

for designers who design the plants. 

As you can see, I strongly believe that Connecticut’s training program is a cost-effective and administratively viable approach to addressing nitrogen discharges from wastewater treatment facilities. 

As vice president, I will note that beyond Connecticut Long Island Sound, watershed base trading is a potentially cost-effective 

and efficient approach to achieving and maintaining water quality 

goals and providing net water quality benefits to pollutant load reductions. It is very important that we consider trading programs 

when we are looking at the overall health of bodies of water such 

as Long Island Sound. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Schmalz. 

Ms. SCHMALZ. Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking 

Member Boozman, Congressman Bishop, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to be here today, and 

thank you for taking this time to consider the reauthorization of 

the Long Island Sound Restoration Act. 

Since we cannot take you on an historic sailing expedition aboard 

New Haven’s tall ship, I thought a few snapshots might help you 

experience the degree modern technology will allow the Sound’s 

wonder and culture as I highlight some of the challenges still 

plaguing our great water body. 

13 

In 1994, the region rallied around the sixth goal captured in the 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The Long Island Sound Restoration Act has come to be the premier tool in that 

CCMP’s implementation toolbox. Section 119 is a solid statute that 

is, at once, broad, providing the needed flexibility to adapt and 

change resource management course as research around Long Island Sound develops, and it is specific enough to ensure restoration 

efforts continue to be measurable. 

However, there are four broad areas we perceive as hindrances 

to addressing water quality issues still impacting Long Island 

Sound: funding, enforcement, bi-State legislative coordination, and 

an aging management plan. For the last 10 years, section 119 has authorized $40 million 

each year for activities associated in the furtherance of the CCMP. 

Unfortunately, the historical record also indicates that only a small 

fraction of that figure is ever allocated with the highest appropriation in 2005 yielding less than a sixth and the lowest in 2007 yielding less than a 30th. Even more, section 119 is identified as a 

source to fund expensive sewage treatment plant nitrogen reductions. 

While Connecticut has employed clean water fund reinvestment and an innovative nitrogen trading program, it has a staggering $5 

billion sewage infrastructure need over the next 20 years. In New 

York, the situation is more alarming. With only a modest State allocation in 1996, the entire burden of required upgrades in New 

York City and Westchester County, if and when they are accomplished, will fall squarely on the shoulders of residents. 

Full LISRA funding for each of the next 5 years, paired with ongoing State investments, could substantially dent the upgrade price 

tag and provide for progress in other CCMP-related efforts. 

Equally important and inextricably linked to adequate funding is 

adequate compliance and enforcement. Currently, the best laid 

plans are merely that—plans. While binding interim milestones, incorporated into a CCMP, are an option to ensure enforceability, the 

teeth for the Long Island Sound plan are derived from the various 

statutory and regulatory programs used to regulate existing facilities and projects or to evaluate new activities that could impact the 

Sound’s watershed. It is the way we use and enforce those basic 

Federal, State and local laws that will dictated the timing and sufficiency of the Long Island Sound cleanup. 

Unfortunately, enforcement becomes tougher as State budgets 

get tighter and agency staffing shrinks. In the last 2 years alone, 

Save the Sound has been forced to initiate legal enforcement actions against five industrial polluters in Bridgeport, Connecticut. 

Even more troubling is the lag in reducing nitrogen loadings that 

appear to be surfacing. In New York City and Westchester County, 

consent orders have potentially granted a 3-year TMDL compliance 

extension. In Connecticut, limited clean water funding led to a reissued and relaxed nitrogen general permit. Section 119 specifies 

that ongoing special emphasis in granting be given to four key 

areas. Unfortunately, support of ongoing enforcement programs 

seems to have gotten the short shrift. 

While compliance and enforcement are critical, they are only as 

good as the underlying laws. In a water body co-owned by two 

14 

States, regulatory parity is essential. Section 119 requires that 

State legislatures be convened to assess potential coordinated legislative efforts. 

Just last year, New York and Connecticut did come together. 

Legislators discussed clean water funding at the Long Island 

Sound summit, but those efforts are limited and voluntarily attended. 

A true bi-State, if not multi-State legislator committee is needed, 

not only one that will identify existing differences in State environmental quality statutes, stormwater programs, fisheries management, and coastal policies, but one that will have the power and 

wherewithal to map and enact coordinated legislative policy. 

Lastly, the CCMP should be a living document, one that can and 

does adapt to changing or improved science. It has worn well with 

age, but there is need for review, refresh and recommitment. Within this context, the Citizens Advisory Council is embarking on 

sound vision, an effort to create a unified picture of our progress: 

what we have spent, where it has gone, the new issues that have 

arisen, what our next steps are, and what it might take to get to 

the envision. While section 119 requires that modifications to the 

CCMP be reported to Congress, it does not prescribe any mandated 

revisitation. 

The management conference should be commended for recognizing the need to retrace the region’s steps. However, a provision 

requiring a designium review and a revision of the CCMP would 

simultaneously create accountability, transparency and a consistent venue to incorporate adaptive management lessons. 

It is true that challenges remain. However, in the last 5 years 

of LISRA, the region has made great strides. Stormwater pilot programs and miles of newly restored fish runs in Connecticut and 

two prominent cases of hard-fought coastal policy defenses in New 

York remind us that this is a region filled with innovation and willpower. If it can be done, it will be done; and we are confident that 

the reauthorization of LISRA will guide us through the key years 

of the CCMP and TMDL implementation. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Esposito. 

Ms. ESPOSITO. Good morning, Members of Congress. Thank you 

very much for holding this hearing. 

My name is Adrienne Esposito. I am the executive director of 

Citizens Campaign for the Environment. We are a bi-State organization with six offices throughout New York and Connecticut and 

80,000 members. 

I am going to just make three points. I do not want to be redundant. You have heard a lot. I think the point here is: What can you 

do? Well, thank you for asking. We do have some suggestions. 

The first thing we need to talk about is funding. As you may 

know, two Federal laws allow there to be $65 million per year allocated to our Long Island Sound restoration programs. The Stewardship Act allows up to $25 million, and the Long Island Sound 

Restoration Act allows up to $40 million. These are not arbitrary 

numbers, but rather, these numbers were identified from the need. 

15 

What is the need to carry on those programs? Well, the need is 

$65 million per year. Ah, yes, but what have we received? Not that. 

In 2006, we were allocated $2.2 million; in 2007, $2.7 million, and 

in 2008, $5.5 million. We are receiving between 2 and 4 percent of 

the identified need. 

Some Members of Congress recently in the U.S. Senate have said 

to me, Adrienne, why haven’t we done better with restoring the 

Sound? 

I said, Give us more. You will get more. 

That is really the truth, but there is a bigger truth, and that is 

that the year-to-year way that funding is allocated acts as a roadblock to initiating some of the long-term projects that are needed 

to restore the Sound. From year to year, we do not know how much 

money we are getting. In some years, it was threatened we were 

not getting any at all; and when you do not know if you are going 

to get between $2 million or $5 million or $6 million, it is hard to 

start programs and projects that will take 4 and 5 years for the results to come in if you do not know if you are going to have funding 

4 or 5 years down the line. 

So we are asking Congress for two things. One is we need more 

money, but we also need for you to think differently about how you 

allocate money for our great water bodies. We need it in 3 to 5 

years of increments, not year to year, because that has acted as a 

roadblock to the larger holistic programs that need to be implemented. 

The second thing I want to talk about is lobsters. Why, you may 

ask? Well, the reason is that every water body has that one species 

that identifies and characterizes the water body. For that and for 

Long Island Sound, that is lobsters. I am sure Mr. Crismale will 

talk about that, being a lobsterman. But we want to say that the 

Federal Government, unfortunately, has been absent in the restoration of the lobster population, with the exception of funding 

that was provided in 1999 or the year 2000. 

Maine has a successful V-notch program. New York has nothing. 

Connecticut, to their credit, has worked to emulate Maine’s V-notch 

program and to put some local characterization on it. Every year, 

we battle in Connecticut to get the money for the V-notch program. 

It is in the budget. It is out of the budget. It is in the budget. It 

is not an expensive program; $300,000-$400,000 per year is needed 

for 3 consecutive years. New York does not have this program. We 

cannot V-notch half the lobsters that are on the Connecticut side 

and do nothing on the New York side. It does not work that way. 

I hope you will agree with me when we say lobsters move, and 

they do not pay attention to the political boundaries. We need one 

V-notch program that will allow for the females to be thrown back 

into the water for 3 consecutive years so we can build up our lobster population. In the heyday, it was $40 million of resources. We 

believe this would not be an expenditure of funds but, rather, an 

investment of funds from our Federal Government. 

The last thing I just want to mention that no one has mentioned 

yet is that the one thing the Federal Government can do is have 

a large-scale, cohesive, comprehensive, bi-State, public education 

campaign. It is not just the government’s responsibility to care for 

16 

and protect the Long Island Sound. We have a job, too. The public 

needs to be enlisted, and yet they have not been so. 

Let me just tell you that the Long Island Sound Study released 

a public perception survey back in 2006. It is not very good news. 

What the results found is that 90 percent of residents agree that 

humans severely are abusing our environment, but yet only 70 percent of the residents felt that they did anything that abused the 

environment, that they did nothing. So 70 percent felt that it 

wasn’t their fault, it was the other people’s fault. They also found 

that there wasn’t anything that they could do to improve the quality of water on Long Island Sound, but their neighbors could do 

things that would improve the water. 

So we are getting it a little bit as members of the public, but the 

public is not really engaged in how they can help and how their 

actions are meaningful in the protection of the water body. So 

whether it is not using fertilizers, not using unnecessary pesticides, 

disposing of waste—whether it is cigarette butts or the ubiquitous 

plastic bag—these are all things that people can be doing to enlist 

in protection of the Sound, and yet the message is not getting 

through. 

Westchester County has done some good educational components, 

and so have many of the nonprofit sector, but really we need some 

Federal leadership in this area as well. Other great water bodies 

have this. The Chesapeake has unified messaging. We do not have 

that for the Long Island Sound. 

So, if I had to choose three things, I would say to you we need 

consistent funding for 3- to 5-year intervals. We need a V-notch 

program that is sponsored by the Federal Government which helps 

our lobstermen and our lobster populations, and we need to engage 

and enlist the behavior of the public to change and become stewards of the water body. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Crismale. 

Mr. CRISMALE. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak 

before your Committee this morning. 

My name is Nicholas Crismale. I live in Guilford, Connecticut, 

and I have been a commercial lobsterman and shell fisherman in 

Long Island Sound for 37 years. I have so much to say and so little 

time to say it. In the interest to avoid a redundancy of my testimony, I would just like to highlight a few points. 

Prior to a significant mortality event in 1999, the lobster fishery 

was the most important commercial fishery in Connecticut and 

Long Island Sound. In 2000, just after the mortality event in the 

fall of 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce declared the lobster 

fishery in Long Island Sound a commercial fishery failure due to 

a resource disaster. 

The general consensus of the Long Island Sound lobstermen was 

the mortalities were related to water quality and to the spraying 

of mosquito control pesticides during the West Nile virus crisis in 

the fall of 1999. 

Following this mortality event, an initial assessment of the economic and human impact was conducted by Human Ecology AssociVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:21 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52693 JASON
17 

ates in January of 2000, and it found that approximately 70 percent of the western Sound lobstermen had lost 100 percent of their 

fishing income in the following year, and the remainder lost 30 to 

90 percent of their income. The study also noted that, because of 

the severity and suddenness of the die-off, the lobstermen found it 

difficult to switch to other fisheries or to new vocations. 

The basic fishing infrastructure of lobster wholesalers, bait dealers, equipment suppliers, restaurants, were all impacted. And to 

this day, the few remaining lobstermen have to travel out of State 

to get bait and supplies. 

At present, the few remaining lobstermen in Long Island Sound 

are not optimistic about their future in the lobstering industry. 

What is happening to our lobster now is something that is pretty 

specific to Long Island Sound. You are not going to find some of 

these problems that we now experience in other northern waters, 

for example. 

A recent study done, the economic assessment of a Connecticut 

commercial lobster fishery done by the Connecticut Sea Grant Program—and I just received this, so it was not in my testimony, and 

it was several survey questions. I just want to focus on survey 

question number 11, which asks: What do you envision for your 

fishery in 5 to 10 years? 

The response of the majority of the fishermen was that most of 

the respondents felt that the industry would be extinct in 5 to 10 

years or that it would continue to deteriorate. 

The lobster from the eastern end of Long Island Sound continue 

to see a large percentage of their catch with shell disease. At times, 

40 to 50 percent of their catch is affected. It is a disease whereby 

the lobster develops lesions and pitting on the carapace, caused by 

external bacteria that digest the minerals in the lobster’s shell. 

Lobstermen believe that the coincidence of the continued use of 

chitin inhibitor pesticides to control moths and the compromising 

of the lobster’s immune system prevent the lobster from producing 

the enzymes necessary to produce chitin, which is needed to harden 

its shell, not to mention the economic issue of attempting to sell a 

shell-diseased lobster to a wholesaler. They are not very appetizing 

looking creatures for a customer’s dinner plate. 

Preliminary data from a University of Connecticut researcher 

shows that female lobsters have a higher rate of incidence of shell 

disease in that affected females carrying fertilized eggs under their 

tails may molt prematurely before the eggs are released, ending 

any chance of larval survival. 

Municipalities continue to use the pesticide methoprene to control mosquito larvae. They actually have programs where slow-release briquettes are placed in drainage basins to kill mosquito larvae. What happens is the pesticide eventually makes its way to 

Long Island Sound. This chemical is designed to kill mosquito larvae, which, very much like lobster larvae, the chemical impacts it. 

It does not discriminate between the anthropoids. 

The lobster resource has all but disappeared from the near-shore 

areas of the central Long Island Sound basin. Since 1972 up until 

1999, I and fellow lobstermen remember setting traps within a 

stone’s throw of the shore areas, and now find the lobster popuVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:21 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52693 JASON
18 

lation has moved off to the areas more center to the Sound from 

the shoreline. 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has determined that the southern New England lobster stock is depleted. 

However, overfishing is nonexistent, which can only lead to the 

conclusion that the stock is being impacted by water quality issues 

which are impacting the ecosystem; but this same determination of 

the ASMFC does not address the collateral impacts of water quality but, rather, chooses to implement regulations limiting the 

lobsterman’s catch, which is already below the sustainable economic level of the fisherman. 

What we will lose will be the true stewards of Long Island 

Sound—the lobstermen who fish their area-specific waters yearlong 

and who are the first to observe changes to the Sound and the ecosystem. In the last few years, the fish trawling industry has been 

all but eliminated, and the fresh fish brought in daily by these 

boats to local Connecticut ports is gone. 

As we develop aquaculture programs in schools and encourage 

our children to seek involvement in the fishery, it is our obligation 

to ensure that those opportunities exist for them in the future. One 

has only to read ′′Our Stolen Future′′ by Theo Colburn and John 

Myers to be reminded how fragile our ecosystem is. And if we neglect action now, we will have eliminated our children’s opportunities in these fields. 

In closing, I believe we need broad acceptance of the fact that the 

sources of the problem are extremely difficult ones to address and 

will require sustained collaboration between administrative and 

regulatory agencies, legislatures, coastline residents, boaters, recreational and commercial fishermen, and those with commercial interests. Difficult choices will have to be made by surrounding communities, farming and other entities that impact sewage and 

nonpoint source water runoff if we are to sustain the ecosystem 

necessary to retain Long Island Sound’s viability. I fear that Connecticut may get an unpleasant surprise one spring, finding that 

the fragile Sound that they look so forward to enjoying every year 

can no longer be utilized because we may breach the threshold at 

which the Sound can sustain living aquatic life. 

I would like to leave you with one thought. When those pilgrims 

landed and Plymouth Rock, you don’t think they survived on turkeys that they found on the beach that winter. They were lobsters. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and Members of the Committee. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I am going to yield to Mr. 

Hall for his questions. I know you have to leave. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you all for your testimony. I am also familiar with 

New Bedford, Massachusetts’ problems with PCB contamination 

and their lobster population. And I guess I would concur with Ms. 

Esposito’s comments about the need for an education program, 

which all of your agencies or nonprofit organizations can help with, 

and we in government at all levels of government need to help 

with. 

This weekend I was fortunate to be able to announce, along with 

our State and D.C. officials, the planning of two stormwater control 

19 

runoff, filtration and retention programs that are being funded 

with stimulus dollars that came from the Federal Government to 

the State government through the counties and to the towns, one 

in Orange County, which runs ultimately into the Hudson, and one 

in Dutchess County. My hometown in eastern Dutchess County has 

a 10-mile river running through it that actually runs into Connecticut and winds up in Long Island Sound more directly. I have 

many questions, and more than we have time for, but I would ask 

first of all, maybe starting with Ms. Esposito, A, how do we go 

about getting people to realize that each individual, their family, 

and their children are a part of the ecosystem? This is not a situation where it is just a matter of lobstermen losing their livelihood; 

it is that we ultimately are all drinking the same water. In this 

past appropriations cycle, for the first time in the 2 years and 9 

months that I have been here, the number one item we have been 

asking for has been water, either clean drinking water or wastewater treatment. And so you know, we are starting, even though 

it is further away from the Sound, to realize that whatever we put 

in the water, whether it is lawn chemicals or whatever we flush 

down our septic systems or municipal sewage treatment, sooner or 

later it all winds up in the same body of water. The water cycle 

continues on, and includes micro-contaminants, like the insecticides that we just heard about and prescription drugs and caffeine 

and acetaminophen and everything else. We never thought that we 

could affect the oceans in the manner we are. This is not even to 

mention what is precipitating out of the atmosphere. So how can 

we all collaborate to better inform the public that we are all literally connected and living in this environment together with the 

lobster? You know, our brother and sister lobster? 

And second, how does this affect, or how does the projected sea 

level rise, this I guess would go to Mr. Scully and Mr. Tedesco first, 

how would we be affected by and how should municipalities plan 

for the projected sea level rise--say the medium scenario, not even 

the worst case scenario? I am hearing some pretty scary numbers 

in terms of infrastructure going underwater, boardwalks and promenades and shoreline, you know, towns where they beautified their 

waterfront and put restaurants and shops in pretty close to the 

water level. And what is likely to happen to them, not to mention 

railroad beds and highways? So this is part of the education process that needs to go on. It is not just education regarding contamination of the water, but all of us being involved in preventing the 

worst case climate change from happening so we don’t see that 

level of sea level rise. And the same question to as many people 

as can answer in the next 38 seconds. 

Ms. ESPOSITO. Well, I will just start with the public education 

question which you asked. And I would say, I mean, as a grassroots 

specialist for the last 25 years—I started when I was 10—I can tell 

you that the most challenging thing to do is to change public behavior. It is very difficult. However, it also reaps the best and the 

biggest rewards, because then you have sustained change. 

And right now, we don’t have any specific messages that we are 

giving to the public in a cohesive, collaborative manner throughout 

the Long Island Sound watershed. So to answer your question succinctly, I didn’t mean to imply it would be easy, but I do mean to 

20 

imply it is doable, that we would have to have messages, much like 

a marketing campaign, that would empower the public to know 

that their actions matter and their actions do actually impact, either beneficially or adversely, the water quality in the Long Island 

Sound. 

So we would need one message throughout the whole watershed, 

including New York and Connecticut, which is why I think we need 

some Federal guidance on this to have one message, to have one 

set of actions people can do that we start with. And once that 

starts to permeate and filter into the public action, we can expand 

it. But we need to start somewhere. 

Mr. HALL. Madam Chair, if I may, could Mr. Scully and Mr. 

Tedesco answer briefly? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Does someone else have a response? 

Mr. SCULLY. Thanks for the opportunity. I can’t say it any more 

succinctly what Adrienne said about the public education aspects 

of it that you correctly raise. With regard to the sea level rise concern that you raise, I think that is a daunting challenge. In New 

York, our State legislature created a Sea Level Rise Task Force 

that generated a report for policymakers to consider. It addresses 

all of the issues that you had raised—and they are daunting— 

about the implications of sea level rise and how the there are implications for every level of government and infrastructure along 

the waterfront, whether it be wastewater treatment or other. The 

significance of the economic implications having to redo infrastructure, it is just daunting. 

So I think that—I have no real answer other than to say policymakers and government officials on all levels I think have a responsibility to try and keep that issue and the need to plan ahead 

front and center. And that is not going to be an easy thing to do, 

because as you know, particularly in a time of fiscal crisis, getting 

policymakers to focus on those types of issues, long-term planning 

as opposed to the crisis of the day, is inherently difficult and something we need to, as environmental agencies, try to keep focused 

on. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. TEDESCO. Just real briefly, change is here. Sea level is rising. 

Water temperatures are increasing. Some key things that we need 

to focus on are in the context of protecting habitat. We need to protect land that is upland of some critical tidal wetlands along the 

Long Island shoreline so that we can allow migration of these wetlands. We need to monitor changes in Long Island Sound so we can 

anticipate the types of changes and potential impacts that would 

occur. And we have a sentinel monitoring program being established to help us better forecast the kinds of changes that will 

occur in Long Island Sound. And third, we do need to have planning across Federal, State, and local levels. We have a project 

working with the State of Connecticut for the City of Groton to develop a climate change adaptation plan across all levels of government, working very closely on the local level, that could be a model 

then for other municipalities in Connecticut and in New York. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

21 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to 

all of the panelists for both your excellent testimony and also for 

the work that you have put in for a great long time in terms of improving the Sound. 

My first question is for Mr. Tedesco and Mr. Scully. We know at 

least two things. We know that the majority of the nitrogen loading 

in the Sound comes from discharges from wastewater treatment 

plants, and we also know that a great many of our wastewater 

treatment plants are in need of upgrade or repair. And so my question is what, if any, coordination is there between the Long Island 

Sound Study office and the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, which as you know controls and allocates the 

funding for wastewater infrastructure projects? Peter, if we could 

maybe start with you and then Mr. Tedesco. 

Mr. SCULLY. An honest answer, Congressman, is that I am not 

familiar with what level of coordination there is between the Long 

Island Sound Study and EFC. But clearly, it falls to us at DEC to 

implement the TMDL and the permit modifications for the wastewater treatment plants. So we are very much on top of that aspect 

of the wastewater treatment plant piece of this. And we know 

where the economic needs are in terms of phase two upgrades for 

some of the facilities. And we have been supportive of efforts by 

those owner-operators to obtain whatever financial assistance they 

can through EFC. I can’t tell you what level of coordination there 

is between the Long Island Sound Study office. Mr. Tedesco may 

be able to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Tedesco? 

Mr. TEDESCO. I think one of the positive outcomes of the regulatory organization under the TMDL that has been established is 

that the priorities of the Long Island Sound Study have been incorporated fundamentally within the clean water programs of both 

New York and Connecticut. So speaking of New York, the needs regarding Long Island Sound are incorporated within the statewide 

need assessment in New York so that priorities are reflected within 

the Environmental Facilities Corporation funding. Some recent examples of that are some of the recent stimulus funding was directly 

applied to Long Island Sound, and it points out then the close cooperation—this was an example of both the Greenpoint plant in 

eastern—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Greenport. 

Mr. TEDESCO. Greenport, pardon, Greenport in eastern Long Island Sound, as well as facilities in Westchester County, and also 

some of the facilities in New York City, where those funds were 

targeted at some of the wastewater treatment plant upgrades necessary for nitrogen removal. 

Mr. BISHOP. With reference to the Greenport plant, let me just 

make a point. The stimulus has been roundly criticized by a great 

many. Greenport is a community with a year-round population of 

2,200 people. They have their own wastewater treatment facility. 

They were under a court order to improve it. Through the stimulus 

package, they were able to get close to $4 million to upgrade that 

plant. It does not take a genius to figure out what the tax impact 

on 2,200 families would be of a $4 million obligation. This is an exVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:21 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52693 JASON
22 

ample of the stimulus being used to both improve our environment 

and to relieve local tax burden. Quite the contrary from the way 

the stimulus has been presented. 

Second question, I am running out of time, both the States of 

Connecticut and New York have made significant investment in 

improving and maintaining the quality of Long Island Sound. Both 

the States of Connecticut and New York, particularly New York, 

are in serious financial difficulty. Let me start with you, Commissioner Marrella. How do you anticipate the ability of your state to 

continue to fund Long Island study projects? 

And then, Mr. Scully, if you could talk with respect to New York. 

Ms. MARRELLA. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss that 

topic. I am actually very pleased to report that Connecticut is quite 

committed to clean water. Even in these tight times, we have continued with bond authorizations that are substantial for clean 

water improvements. We have general obligation bonds in fiscal 

year 2010 for $65 million and $40 million and fiscal year 2011 as 

well as revenue bonds of $80 million each year. That contrasts with 

the last recession cycle, where it went down to zero. So I think the 

commitment is there. And thanks to in large part our nonprofit organizations, who have continued to make clear how important this 

is. So I am confident that while the dollars won’t be as substantial 

as they have been in the past, they are continuing, which is extraordinary in these economic times. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, could Mr. Scully just have 10 seconds? 

Mr. SCULLY. I think I would generally echo what the commissioner said. There is no indication at all the State of New York 

would back away from its longstanding commitment to the Long Island Sound. One can’t predict really what the budget situation will 

be like in the coming weeks and days ahead, but I think that as 

a State the administration is firmly committed to continuing its 

role. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for the indulgence, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Tedesco, would you describe any 

relationship, formal relationship that you might have with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, in currently reducing the 

water quality impairments in the Sound? 

Mr. TEDESCO. Currently, they have been working very closely 

with us. We have staff in all three States that have been working 

on a Connecticut River work group. They all do contribute nutrient 

pollution to Long Island Sound through the Connecticut River. 

Massachusetts also through the Thames and Housatonic Rivers. 

There are going to be some tough decisions ahead. They do contribute. They need to be part of the solution. And they need to be 

incorporated into a comprehensive program. 

At the same time, they look—they have a host of other water 

quality needs, their own coastal waters, their own drinking water. 

And we need to develop a program that meets Long Island Sound’s 

needs but takes into account, again, some of the flexibility needed 

to do it in a cost-effective, sensible manner. And as suggested, 

there are opportunities to try to expand the pollutant trading program so that, again, we make investments as wisely as possible, afVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:21 Mar 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52693 JASON
23 

fect the sources that have the greatest impact, allow them to be 

partners but in a way that makes economic and environmental 

sense. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Scully, in your testimony, you noted that a number of Federal programs exist to support the restoration of the Sound. Are 

the Long Island Sound Restoration Act, the Long Island Sound 

Stewardship Act and the Clean Water Act’s, section 119 and section 320 programs, fully seamlessly integrated? If not, should there 

be some other action to achieve this integration? 

Mr. SCULLY. In my comments I spoke about the potential for consolidating two of the statutes into a single piece of legislation, 

something that the State would ask the Committee to consider. 

Past that, I am not familiar enough with it to make any specific 

recommendation. 

Ms. JOHNSON. If there was a program that included Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, do you feel we would have a 

comprehensive approach, or a single program, that everyone followed? 

Mr. TEDESCO. Madam Chair, certainly I think, again, we need to 

have all States, all contributing sources at the table and contributing. It is no different than the challenge that I know you are familiar with in the Chesapeake Bay, where again a five-State solution is needed. For Long Island Sound, a five-State solution is 

needed as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Esposito, on page 5 of your testimony, you state that there 

is no cohesive stormwater management plan for the entire Sound 

watershed. Would you describe what you had in mind that might 

achieve that? 

Ms. ESPOSITO. Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that 

right now the stormwater management plans are really implemented by the local municipalities, whether it be a village or a 

town or the county. And it is really done kind of in a hodgepodge, 

mishmash fashion. And funding is applied for by the State. The 

State then allocates the funding. And then there is not even, for 

instance, Madam Chairwoman, a yearly report that would tell us 

what programs were implemented, where stormwater filtration devices were put in, and what kind of impact they have had. 

We used in our testimony a model program in Norwalk which we 

felt reaped great results and can provide those results on a scientific basis. So I guess to answer your question, we would say that 

at least we could start with a yearly report telling us where 

stormwater filtration devices have been implemented, what kind of 

green infrastructure has been used to avoid the need for 

stormwater filtration devices, and what are the plans for next year. 

Even if we had that, it is a start. But right now, because of the 

localized municipal implementation, it is extremely difficult to get 

a handle on an overall stormwater program or programs that are 

being used right now for Long Island Sound. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Congressman Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess the follow up to that would be—well, first 

of all, it seems like, as I said in the opening, there are some things 

24 

that you guys are doing really well. And we want to compliment 

you on that. I am going to ask about the TMDL, because it seems 

like that is one of the things that is working well. This, though, 

what you are referencing about doesn’t seem to be working well. 

You know, if you have got reporting problems and things, and I 

will be honest, that is something that you mention that money is 

a challenge. I know it is in the States. It is a great challenge here 

also. And it has been a challenge for you, even in good times, relatively speaking. So I think probably the reality is that is going to 

continue to be the case. Not that you don’t have very sympathetic 

ears. 

But the other, you know, this is a difficult problem. I mean, that 

sort of thing is something that maybe you need to look to some of 

the other watersheds as to how they have come about and solved, 

you know, that problem of kind of getting everybody on the right 

page. Again, that is just local politics, and that is very, very difficult. 

Tell me about the TMDL. Again, we have heard testimony from 

many watersheds and things and this and that. Your all’s seems 

to be working. Why is it working better than some of the other 

areas that we have heard about? 

Mr. TEDESCO. If I could just start, really, the State of New York 

and Connecticut deserve a lot of credit. The Long Island Sound 

TMDL is still the most comprehensive, complex TMDL in the Nation to my mind. It may be eclipsed shortly by one being developed 

for Chesapeake Bay, but the States of New York and Connecticut 

had the foresight to realize that that was a necessary approach, 

and to complete that in 2000. And it has been the guidepost then 

that can be translated into an enforceable program that sets clear 

expectations. We do—it has been pointed out by other panelists, it 

is not a solution for every challenge, and that there are many 

sources that are unregulated that do require educational approaches, local level commitment. And we need to remain focused 

on those elements and to improve the accountability structure so 

that we do know how well we are progressing toward elements that 

are not so easily regulated and enforced. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Is there any willingness—and this kind of goes 

back to the others—is there any willingness to expand, you know, 

have more, oh, a wider variety in regard to point and nonpoint in 

that regard? Are you getting a lot of push back? There was probably initial push back from the very start, wasn’t there, you know, 

as did you this? But it does seem to be working. 

Ms. MARRELLA. If I could, Madam Chair, I just would speak to 

the fact that definitely there was substantial push back, as Ms. 

Brown testified, from municipalities when they were brought under 

the trading program in Connecticut. A lot of conversation helped us 

to get to the right end point. There have begun to be discussions 

about whether additional sources should come under the trading 

program. That is just a start. 

But one of the things I am most excited about, as was mentioned, 

which is a way to use oysters, seaweed, others as commercially viable options that can be natural ways to reduce nitrogen in the 

Sound, at the same time providing an agriculture, an aquaculture 

opportunity for the folks in Connecticut and New York. 

25 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. SCULLY. If I could mention, the only thing I would add is you 

would envision that the most significant concern of local government officials who are responsible for the wastewater treatment 

plant upgrades would be the economic implications of that. And in 

New York, using the 1996 Clean Water Clean Air Bond Act, what 

the state did was use a carrot and a stick approach, basically explained to folks that these modifications are required to protect the 

Sound but at the same time making substantial grant awards to 

the people who are responsible for making the upgrades. And as we 

move now to focus on stormwater as the next big challenge, I think 

we are going to be facing those same types of concerns. And that 

is the reason we raised stormwater as the next big challenge. The 

implications for local government are also significant. 

Ms. BROWN. I would like to just pick up on something that Commissioner Marrella said, because I think it is really significant. For 

a long time developers did away with salt marshes and wetlands. 

Those wetlands not only allowed for natural nutrient removal, sediment traps, pathogen traps, and nurseries for fishermen. And I 

think that is one of the big things that needs to be looked at is restoration of salt marshes and critical areas like that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Good. Well, thank you very much. I have enjoyed 

the testimony and really gotten a lot out of it. 

You know, something that we might do, Madam Chair, fearless 

leader, we really have, you know, we have had a lot of different testimonies now from lots of different watersheds. We might consider 

at some point having some sort of a conference, you know, on getting them together and getting us together with them. And like I 

say, I am always struck one area seems to be doing such a good 

job and then struggling in another area. If we could get everybody 

sitting around the same table maybe talking about some of these 

things, it might be a good thing to do. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. ESPOSITO. Could I just comment on that? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Ms. ESPOSITO. I wanted you to know, in case you were unaware, 

to date, the environmental community already has had a conference, working to come up with ideas to address America’s great 

water bodies. And we are in the very beginning stages of working 

across the Nation, from Puget Sound to the Everglades to Long Island Sound, of bringing together the nonprofit communities that 

have worked to restore and preserve the great water bodies. 

So to do it in collaboration with you would be most ideal, I think 

beneficial, and would really help to move all of our agendas forward, which is eventually to restore and protect these water bodies. 

So I would encourage you to do so. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Let me just ask each of you 

to comment on what you would like to see, or what policy changes 

would you like to see us make as we consider reauthorizing the 

Clean Water Act as it relates to the Long Island Sound program? 

Mr. TEDESCO. Madam Chair, I already mentioned in my testimony one which seems like a very minor fix, but it points to the 

need that the solution, as mentioned by some of the other panelists, has to be integrated in that we need to work effectively across 

26 

many Federal agencies. So that little fix that I had suggested in 

terms of expanding the cooperative authorities to make sure that 

we have the ability to work effectively with other Federal agencies 

so that we are focusing on clean water, restored habitats, and 

healthy and vibrant living resources together is what is needed to 

really restore Long Island Sound. 

Ms. MARRELLA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would just like to piggyback on Ms. Esposito and say that I 

fully support the funding to the $65 million figure, as well as multi 

year funding. And I also would support bringing the other States 

to the table that impact the Sound. They do not have as much daily 

responsibility, but they certainly contribute. So a forum for that 

discussion would be helpful. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SCULLY. I agree with the commissioner’s comments. We do 

think that the—you know, these are regional programs that are 

ground-up in nature, and that the real critical need for the program, which is working, is resources, and resources that are repeating over a multiyear period, as has been suggested by Ms. 

Esposito, because some of the research needs to take place over 

several years or it would have no value. So finding a way to address that multiyear need I think would be critical. 

Ms. BROWN. I would like to see funding for public education and 

mandates for public education. As was stated earlier, the public 

does not many times understand the impact that they have on a 

body of water. And if we could mandate somehow that communities 

must introduce public education programs in order to be eligible for 

whatever I think is a very critical item. And to the conference, I 

am sure the Water Environment Federation would be very happy 

to help put something together. I think it is a great idea. 

Ms. SCHMALZ. I think I would reiterate the multistate approach 

to the watershed. I think the Long Island Sound Study has done 

a fantastic job of trying to incorporate watershed management in 

Long Island Sound between New York and Connecticut, and reaching up into the reaches, and I think it is about time that those 

States step up and join the party. 

Ms. ESPOSITO. Three things. I, agree multistate involvement; it 

is called ecosystem-based management. Our Nation is moving towards ecosystem-based management, which means a holistic approach for our oceans and our estuaries. Long Island Sound could 

be a leader in this. 

Number two, again with the public education, I agree, but it 

needs to be cohesive. It needs to be a cohesive message to maximize 

public involvement. Handing out a brochure just doesn’t cut it. 

And the third one of course is 3- to 5-year blocks of funding so 

that the large tasks can be completed from beginning to end and 

have meaning and substance in the restoration process. 

Mr. CRISMALE. I can only speak on behalf of the lobster industry 

in Long Island Sound. We do have agencies that can take care of 

the Long Island Sound restoration, but what I am interested in is 

Long Island Sound V-notch program. The industry has put together 

along a collaborative effort with legislatures, industry, and departments, the DEP in Connecticut, a great program, an unprecedented 

27 

program throughout New England that has been monitored by 

other fisheries. 

I am a member of the Lobster Institute, on the advisory panel, 

and they closely monitored this. Unfortunately, we didn’t receive 

the funding in time. But this has an education component. I mean, 

we had the kids on the boat. And this is where education begins. 

You want to educate the public, then let’s educate the students. 

And where to best do this is in our aquaculture schools. We put the 

kids on the boat. They provide much-needed information to DEP 

and the DEC to make administrative decisions. This program, for 

$300,000, we were looking for. We needed this program. I know it 

is a lot of money in this economic climate, but look at the value 

you are getting for it: sustainability for an industry, an education 

component, and much-needed information to make the proper decisions for our fisheries in Long Island Sound. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Let me say thanks to all 

of you for coming. We will be happy to receive any additional information that you might have. 

And I would really request that you let us see the final document, Ms. Esposito, of the group’s recommendations. 

Ms. ESPOSITO. Okay. Great. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you so very much for coming. Committee 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

28 


Insert offset folio 12 here 52693.012
29 


Insert offset folio 13 here 52693.013
30 


Insert offset folio 14 here 52693.014
31 


Insert offset folio 15 here 52693.015
32 


Insert offset folio 16 here 52693.016
33 


Insert offset folio 17 here 52693.017
34 


Insert offset folio 18 here 52693.018
35 


Insert offset folio 19 here 52693.019
36 


Insert offset folio 20 here 52693.020
37 


Insert offset folio 21 here 52693.021
38 


Insert offset folio 22 here 52693.022
39 


Insert offset folio 23 here 52693.023
40 


Insert offset folio 24 here 52693.024
41 


Insert offset folio 25 here 52693.025
42 


Insert offset folio 26 here 52693.026
43 


Insert offset folio 27 here 52693.027
44 


Insert offset folio 28 here 52693.028
45 


Insert offset folio 29 here 52693.029
46 


Insert offset folio 30 here 52693.030
47 


Insert offset folio 31 here 52693.031
48 


Insert offset folio 32 here 52693.032
49 


Insert offset folio 33 here 52693.033
50 


Insert offset folio 34 here 52693.034
51 


Insert offset folio 35 here 52693.035
52 


Insert offset folio 36 here 52693.036
53 


Insert offset folio 37 here 52693.037
54 


Insert offset folio 38 here 52693.038
55 


Insert offset folio 39 here 52693.039
56 


Insert offset folio 40 here 52693.040
57 


Insert offset folio 41 here 52693.041
58 


Insert offset folio 42 here 52693.042
59 


Insert offset folio 43 here 52693.043
60 


Insert offset folio 44 here 52693.044
61 


Insert offset folio 45 here 52693.045
62 


Insert offset folio 46 here 52693.046
63 


Insert offset folio 47 here 52693.047
64 


Insert offset folio 48 here 52693.048
65 


Insert offset folio 49 here 52693.049
66 


Insert offset folio 50 here 52693.050
67 


Insert offset folio 51 here 52693.051
68 


Insert offset folio 52 here 52693.052
69 


Insert offset folio 53 here 52693.053
70 


Insert offset folio 54 here 52693.054
71 


Insert offset folio 55 here 52693.055
72 


Insert offset folio 56 here 52693.056
73 


Insert offset folio 57 here 52693.057
74 


Insert offset folio 58 here 52693.058
75 


Insert offset folio 59 here 52693.059
76 


Insert offset folio 60 here 52693.060
77 


Insert offset folio 61 here 52693.061
78 


Insert offset folio 62 here 52693.062
79 


Insert offset folio 63 here 52693.063
80 


Insert offset folio 64 here 52693.064
81 


Insert offset folio 65 here 52693.065
82 


Insert offset folio 66 here 52693.066
83 


Insert offset folio 67 here 52693.067
84 


Insert offset folio 68 here 52693.068
85 


Insert offset folio 69 here 52693.069
86 


Insert offset folio 70 here 52693.070
87 


Insert offset folio 71 here 52693.071
88 


Insert offset folio 72 here 52693.072
89 


Insert offset folio 73 here 52693.073
90 


Insert offset folio 74 here 52693.074
91 


Insert offset folio 75 here 52693.075
92 


Insert offset folio 76 here 52693.076
93 


Insert offset folio 77 here 52693.077
94 


Insert offset folio 78 here 52693.078
95 


Insert offset folio 79 here 52693.079
96 


Insert offset folio 80 here 52693.080
97 


Insert offset folio 81 here 52693.081
98 


Insert offset folio 82 here 52693.082
99 


Insert offset folio 83 here 52693.083
100 


Insert offset folio 84 here 52693.084
101 


Insert offset folio 85 here 52693.085
102 


Insert offset folio 86 here 52693.086
103 


Insert offset folio 87 here 52693.087
104 


Insert offset folio 88 here 52693.088
105 


Insert offset folio 89 here 52693.089
106 


Insert offset folio 90 here 52693.090
107 


Insert offset folio 91 here 52693.091
108 


Insert offset folio 92 here 52693.092
109 


Insert offset folio 93 here 52693.093
110 


Insert offset folio 94 here 52693.094
111 


Insert offset folio 95 here 52693.095
112 


Insert offset folio 96 here 52693.096
113 


Insert offset folio 97 here 52693.097
114 


Insert offset folio 98 here 52693.098
115 


Insert offset folio 99 here 52693.099
116 


Insert offset folio 100 here 52693.100
117 


Insert offset folio 101 here 52693.101
118 


Insert offset folio 102 here 52693.102
119 


Insert offset folio 103 here 52693.103
120 


Insert offset folio 104 here 52693.104
121 


Insert offset folio 105 here 52693.105
122 


Insert offset folio 106 here 52693.106
123 


Insert offset folio 107 here 52693.107
124 


Insert offset folio 108 here 52693.108
125 


Insert offset folio 109 here 52693.109
126 


Insert offset folio 110 here 52693.110
127 


Insert offset folio 111 here 52693.111
128 


Insert offset folio 112 here 52693.112
129 


Insert offset folio 113 here 52693.113
130 


Insert offset folio 114 here 52693.114
131 


Insert offset folio 115 here 52693.115
132 


Insert offset folio 116 here 52693.116
133 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 117 here 52693.117