    [Senate Hearing 105-819]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 105-819

         ESTUARY RESTORATION AND COASTAL WATER CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 9, 1998

                                   __________

                                       ON

                                    S. 1222

        A BILL TO CATALYZE RESTORATION OF ESTUARY HABITAT THROUGH MORE
     EFFICIENT FINANCING OF PROJECTS AND ENHANCED COORDINATION OF FEDERAL
          AND NON-FEDERAL RESTORATION PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                    S. 1321

       A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO PERMIT
    GRANTS FOR THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM TO BE USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
    AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN,
      TO REAUTHORIZE APPROPROPRIATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAM, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   H.R. 2207

     AN ACT TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT CONCERNING A
     PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A DEEP OCEAN OUTFALL OFF THE COAST OF MAYAGUEZ,
                                  PUERTO RICO

                            ------------------------

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    52-625 cc                    WASHINGTON : 1999

    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
                                     20402

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
                     JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MAX BAUCUS, Montana
    ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire          DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
    DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho               FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            HARRY REID, Nevada
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BOB GRAHAM, Florida
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             BARBARA BOXER, California
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               RON WYDEN, Oregon
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
                         Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
                   J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  JULY 9, 1998
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island     1
    Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
      Connecticut....................................................     2
    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
      Jersey.........................................................     5
    Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama......     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Breaux, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana......    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    77
    Burkholder, Joann R., Research Coordinator, Botany Department,
      North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC...................22, 24
        Prepared statement...........................................    98
    Davis, Hon. Michael L., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil
      Works, Department of the Army..................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    86
        Reponse to additional question from Senator Chafee...........    88
    Faircloth, Hon. Lauch, U.S. Senator from the State of North
      Carolina.......................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    77
    Martinez-Cruzado, Juan C., Past President, Mayaguezanos for
      Health and Environment, Inc....................................    34
        Letter, followup to testimony................................   123
        Prepared statement...........................................   138
    Milon, J. Walter, Professor, Food and Resource Economics
      Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.............    26
        Appendices: Estimated value of the Indian River Lagoo 104, 113, 121
        Prepared statement...........................................   103
        Response to additional questions from Senator Chafee.........   123
    Morton, Ted, Counsel, Coastal Protection Program, American Oceans
      Campaign.......................................................    28
        Prepared statement...........................................   123
    Rodriquez, Hon. Charles A., President, Senate of Puerto Rico.....    38
    Romeu, Xavier, Executive Director, Puerto Rico Federal Affairs
      Administration.................................................    32
        Prepared statement of Perfecto Ocasio, Puerto Rico Aqueduct
          and Sewer Authority........................................   117
    Spalding, H. Curtis, Executive Director, Save the Bay,
      Providence, RI.................................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    89
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........    97
    Torricelli, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New
      Jersey.........................................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    78
    Wayland, Robert H., III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
      Watersheds, Environmental Protection Agency....................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    80
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........    84

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Bills:
        S. 1222, A bill to catalyze restoration of estuary habitat
          through more efficient financing of projects and enhanced
          coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration
          programs, and for other purposes...........................    40
        S. 1321, A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
          act to permit grants for the national estuary program to be
          used for the development and implementation of a
          comprehensive conservation and management plan, to
          reauthorize appropropriations to carry out the program, and
          for other purposes.........................................    66
        H.R. 2207, An Act to amend the Federal Water Pollution
          Control Act concerning a proposal to construct a deep ocean
          outfall off the coast of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.............    70
    Letters:
        Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., Resident Commissioner, Puerto
          Rico.......................................................   133
        Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc.................   140
        Rosello, Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico......................   140
    Statements:
        Association of National Estuary Programs.....................   141
        Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana    78
        Mills, David R., Sarasota, Florida...........................   144
        Ocasio, Perfecto, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority...   134
        Restore America's Estuaries..................................   142

         ESTUARY RESTORATION AND COASTAL WATER CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m. in room
    406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Chafee, Allard, Sessions, Lautenberg, and
    Lieberman.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                         STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Chafee. The committee will come to order.
        I would like to welcome everyone and thank all the
    witnesses for appearing here this morning.
        The purpose of this hearing is to learn more about three
    bills pending before the committee that pertain to the quality
    of the Nation's estuaries and other coastal waters.
        Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, we've
    made great progress in cleaning up the waters in our lakes and
    rivers and streams and the coastal waters of the U.S. It's
    really been remarkable. It hasn't just been the Federal
    Government, it's been the wonderful cooperation of industry
    and, obviously, the municipalities have been deeply involved
    with it likewise.
        Despite the marked success of the last 25 years, we still
    face many challenges. Two of the bills before us today, S.
    1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, and S.
    1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act, are dedicated to
    protecting and restoring estuaries in our coastal communities.
        Now, what are estuaries? Estuaries are bays and gulfs and
    inlets and sounds where fresh water meets and mixes with salt
    water from the ocean. They are some of our most valuable
    natural resources. Regrettably, in recent years millions of
    acres of estuarine habitat have been destroyed and degraded by
    pollution, development, or overuse.
        The good news is that estuaries can be brought back to
    life. I had the opportunity to visit an effort in connection
    with that in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island last Monday,
    where I saw the planting of eel grass that is taking place
    there. It's a small start, but it's a start.
        S. 1222, which I introduced in September of last year, will
    help rebuild degraded estuarine habitat by providing real
    incentives for communities to carry out estuarine restoration
    projects. That bill creates strong and lasting partnerships
    between public and private sectors and among all levels of
    Government to restore, hopefully, a million acres of estuarine
    habitat by the year 2010, which isn't so far away, that's only
    12 years from now. To ensure that restoration efforts buildupon
    past successes, S. 1222 brings together the existing Federal,
    State, and local restoration plans, programs, and studies.
        S. 1321, which was introduced by Senator Torricelli last
    year, would reauthorize the National Estuary Program under
    Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Since the establishment of
    the National Estuary Program, which is part of the Clean Water
    Act, in 1987, 28 estuaries of national significance have been
    designated to receive funds for the development of conservation
    and management plans. Senator Torricelli's bill would allow
    these plans to be set in motion.
        In addition to the two estuary bills, the committee will
    receive testimony on H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction
    Act, which the House passed last year. H.R. 2207 would allow
    the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, better known as
    PRASA, to apply to the EPA under Section 301(h) of the Clean
    Water Act for a waiver of its secondary treatment requirements
    for waste water. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been
    involved in a 15 year dispute with EPA over its failure to meet
    secondary treatment requirements under the Clean Water Act.
        The condition of estuaries and other coastal waters is an
    important national priority. I look forward to hearing our
    witnesses' views on the bills before us and their suggestions
    for what we can do to improve the quality of the Nation's
    estuaries and other coastal waters.
        Senator Chafee. I see our esteemed colleague is here.
    Senator Lieberman, if you have some comments, this would be a
    good chance.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR
                     FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

        Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
    holding this hearing. I would like to speak about two of the
    bills that we're considering this morning, S. 1222, of which
    you were the principal sponsor of, the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Partnership Act, and S. 1321, the National Estuary
    Conservation Act.
        These are especially important to the State of Connecticut
    and to our region. I'm very pleased to be a cosponsor of both
    of the bills. I particularly thank you for your leadership on
    them.
        I know, Mr. Chairman, that we share the view that our
    estuaries are national treasures which are often not adequately
    appreciated. Without a healthy and productive Long Island
    Sound, and might I add as well Narragansett Bay, the quality of
    life in our States would be greatly diminished.
        As John Atkin, the executive director of our Save the
    Sound, has said, ``Not only is Long Island Sound an invaluable
    economic and recreational resource, it is also a provider of
    immeasurable pleasure and happiness for tens of thousands of
    residents and visitors alike.'' I'm pleased to note that John
    is with us today. He came down to show his strong support for
    this legislation, and I thank him for the work that he has
    done.
        The water surface of Long Island Sound is an example. It
    measures 1,320 square miles. It is located in one of the most
    densely populated and developed areas of our country; 15
    million people live within 50 miles of its shores. Despite
    years of heavy industrial use, Long Island Sound is still known
    for its distinctive habitat types, including tidal wetlands,
    tidal flats, beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky tidal areas, eel
    grass, kelp beds, and natural and artificial reefs, and its
    shellfish and finfish production is extraordinary. The
    shellfish industry alone is a $70 million industry annually.
    And the Sound is actually the leading producer of oysters along
    the entire East Coast.
        The Sound supports more than $5 billion a year in water
    quality-dependent uses----a remarkable number----which includes
    beaches, swimming, and boating, but does not include the more
    difficult to quantify assessments of the importance of good
    water quality, the nature habitats, and near shore residential
    property values. Unfortunately, pollution has had an immediate
    impact on the quality of life and the economic benefits from
    Long Island Sound, which was described by one observer as an
    ``urban sea under siege.'' It is to turn back this siege and
    defeat it that I think these two pieces of legislation before
    us are devoted.
        The State of Connecticut itself has had an aggressive
    effort to restore the Sound which has certainly helped the Long
    Island Sound program, one of the most successful efforts under
    the National Estuary Program. After years of study and public
    participation, which has mirrored the public interest in the
    Sound, it has produced a comprehensive plan for action and, in
    fact, implementation is underway.
        Real progress is being made. In 1997, water quality
    monitoring results were among the best conditions ever
    observed. Of course, this is only a start. There is a lot more
    to be done. In February, the program adopted two critical
    elements of the clean up and restoration phase; a Phase III
    nitrogen reduction plan which calls for a 60 percent cut in
    nitrogen loadings over the next 15 years, and a habitat
    restoration plan. The effort is expected to cost New York and
    Connecticut $650 million, of which Connecticut has already
    pledged $100 million of its Clean Water State funds to
    implement the Phase III program.
        This is where I come to your bill, Mr. Chairman, because it
    will go a long way toward helping Connecticut meet the second
    goal of its Phase III program for Long Island Sound, which is
    habitat restoration. By making Federal funding available in
    partnership with local Government and private sector
    contributions, this bill can help meet the Long Island Sound
    Study Committee's goal of restoring more than 2,000 acres of
    critically important tidal wetlands and 100 miles of streams in
    Connecticut and New York.
        The fact is that Long Island Sound has already lost almost
    70 percent of its original wetlands, with far reaching impacts
    on the biological diversity of not just the Sound, but the
    region and, certainly, the water quality of the estuary. I'm
    very pleased that a major habitat restoration project is
    already underway in the Sound with grant money from the Long
    Island Sound program office which this committee, in its
    wisdom, established in 1990. Funding from your bill would
    greatly enhance those efforts.
        S. 1222 is based on I think a very sensible concept of
    community-based restoration efforts. It would leverage up to
    $10 of on-the-ground restoration work for every $1 in Federal
    funding, and would create market-based incentives for the
    private sector to work with community-based organizations and
    local Governments on restoration efforts.
        Mr. Chairman, the second bill, very briefly, we're
    considering today, the National Estuary Conservation Act, is
    also critical to our efforts to clean up Long Island Sound
    because the cost of implementing the Sound's comprehensive
    management plan is high; it cannot be met without Federal
    grants for implementation. S. 1321 would, to make a long story
    short, ensure that the funding is available.
        So these are two very important bills for the Sound, for
    the region, and I think ultimately for the country. I thank you
    for your leadership on them, and I hope we can move forward
    with them in this Congress. Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Sessions, we're delighted you are here. If you've
    got some comments, this would be a good chance.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                            STATE OF ALABAMA

        Senator Sessions. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
    leadership on this issue. I had the opportunity earlier this
    spring to tour the Mobile Bay Estuary program. We travelled in
    boats through the delta and observed what was going on there. I
    met the people who had been working on it.
        I am very favorably impressed with this concept of how to
    deal with environmental problems on an area like an estuary.
    What I have observed over the years is that the problem is
    complicated by so many different governmental agencies and
    private institutions that are involved. You may have two or
    three counties, several cities, regional boards and planning
    agencies, as well as Federal, State agencies involved.
        This estuarine program provides a way to have an inventory
    and an analysis and evaluation of the problems, what is causing
    them, and how to go about fixing them. I think it is a real
    good concept. I would like to see it continue, and I appreciate
    your leadership in this regard. It's a volunteer program. The
    only thing I think that would threaten it would be that if our
    program becomes some sort of management or directing agency
    rather than a community coordinating effort, because these are
    non-elected people, in effect, unaccountable to the public.
        So if we can create a way in which all the leadership in
    the whole estuary area can come together to identify the
    problems that are the primary threats to the estuary and
    develop a voluntary plan with some support from the Federal
    Government to help fix it, I think we can achieve great results
    and maintain harmony and maintain the voluntary support of the
    local governments and private industries. I think it is a very
    attractive program, and I appreciate your leadership.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Lautenberg, we're just about to start. Do you have
    a comment that you want to make at this time?

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR
                      FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Lautenberg. I'm pleased to have a chance to
    participate in today's hearing on two important bills before
    the committee, both of which I'm happy to cosponsor, one
    drafted by the chairman, Senator Chafee, and the other by my
    New Jersey colleague, Senator Torricelli. They both address the
    vital need to protect and restore America's estuaries. They
    recognize that the problem is a national one, not just State or
    local concerns.
        The health of our estuaries is threatened from a variety of
    sources. In my own State of New Jersey, for instances, the most
    densely populated State in the Union, estuaries are coming
    under increasing pressure from exploding population growth. The
    673 coastal counties in the United States contain 53 percent of
    our population. More people want to live in coastal States.
    Especially as the baby-boomers begin retirement, we've got to
    focus more than ever on the protection of these estuaries.
        The Barnegat Bay Estuary, located off New Jersey's Ocean
    County toward the southern coast of our State, is an extremely
    delicate ecosystem that deserves increased protection. Despite
    tremendous population growth, the Bay continues to host a
    variety of life----plants, crabs, shrimp, minnows, wheatfish,
    bluefish, also some interesting bird life from herons to
    egrets. Yet, agricultural runoff, increased recreational
    activities, and a booming homebuilding industry continue to
    threaten the Bay.
        New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary, a major shipping
    channel, which is also home, despite the competition from
    industry, to a great array of wildlife, faces a problem of
    contaminated sediments. This important watershed was recently
    identified by EPA as an area of probable concern due to the
    abundance of toxins such as PCBs, mercury, and dioxin.
        Both pieces of legislation before us recognize that the
    Federal Government cannot protect and restore estuaries all by
    itself. We've got to work in partnership with States,
    localities, regional authorities, and dedicated citizens to
    restore these invaluable ecosystems. I look forward to hearing
    from the witnesses before us on how we can best maximize the
    resource of all these partners.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow committee members,
    for your indulgence.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
        Now, we have a distinguished colleague from North Carolina,
    Senator Faircloth. Senator Faircloth, why don't you just sit
    right here at the table. We're going to get right to you. We
    welcome you here.

    STATEMENT OF HON. LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
                      THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
    Sessions, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Lieberman. I thank you
    for giving me the chance to be here.
        Two years ago, the North Carolina Coastal Federation asked
    me to support what is now Senate Bill 1222, the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Act. I understand that Melvin Shepard, the
    president of the Coastal Federation is here today, and I hope
    he is.
        Although I have spent a good part of my life in and around
    the coastal sounds and rivers of Eastern North Carolina where I
    was reared, until I started looking at this bill and what it
    could do, I really had never realized the full importance of
    these waters to the State and to the Nation. We have over 2.2
    million acres of estuary in North Carolina. The commercial and
    recreational fishing industry is dependent upon these waters,
    and that is big industry at home. More than 90 percent of North
    Carolina's commercially important species of fish and shellfish
    spend part of their lives in North Carolina estuaries.
        Now, Senator Chafee and Senator Lautenberg and Senator
    Lieberman, 50 percent of the fish that you catch off the coast
    of Rhode Island, New Jersey, or Connecticut were spawned in
    North Carolina waters.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Faircloth. We send them to you.
        Senator Lieberman. Could you add a little salt.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Faircloth. We were thinking about putting a fee on
    it, but we haven't gotten around to it yet.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Faircloth. But, in short, our ability to have
    seafood in this Nation depends upon maintaining healthy and
    productive coastal waters. This bill will enable communities to
    work restoring degraded estuaries across the country. And as
    Senator Sessions says, it is going to do it in a very
    productive and forthright manner.
        It is vital that we target needed resources to restore and
    preserve our Nation's estuaries. The goal of the bill is
    ambitious; a million acres to be restored by the year 2010, and
    North Carolina is figuring on restoring 100,000 acres alone. So
    a tenth of the goal would be in North Carolina alone for the
    next several years. S. 1222 sets a new and innovative way of
    making this happen. It will help the communities to restore
    habitat critical to preserving the Nation's estuaries.
        The bill is also important because it sets out a new way of
    building a genuine partnership between our communities and the
    States and the Federal Government. This is maybe the most
    important part of it. It makes sure that we listen to the
    citizens, build from what we know, and coordinate and
    streamline the programs that are already there.
        The level of support the bill has received speaks well of
    the potential value of the legislation to so many American
    coastal communities and says a great deal about the stature of
    Senator Chafee, as chairman of the Senate Environment and
    Public Works Committee, and his work on behalf of the
    committee. I am committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to
    move the bill this year.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we move the
    estuary bill as part of the Water Resources Development Act
    Reauthorization to ensure that it gets done this year. I
    believe this would make good sense since the estuary bill makes
    the Army Corps of Engineers the lead agency in the restoration
    of the estuaries. We need to make sure that S. 1222 is a part
    of reauthorization. If we don't, a good bill, and one that
    builds bipartisan bridges as it restores the estuaries, could
    get devoured and bogged down in the much larger and more
    charged debate that we're going to have on the Clean Water Act
    next year.
        Last, I want to welcome a distinguished North Carolinian
    who will be testifying later today, Dr. Joann Burkholder. Dr.
    Burkholder is well-known as one of the Nation's leading
    research scientists and one of the discoverers of Pfiesteria,
    the microbe that has raised so much havoc among all costal
    waters, and Maryland and North Carolina have particularly been
    hit hard with it. She will be testifying to the serious
    consequences which can come from degraded estuaries.
        Dr. Burkholder, it's nice to have you with us today.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. I think there
    are several good points you made there in your testimony. I
    think it is important for us to realize that, as you said, 90
    percent of the commercial fish caught by North Carolina
    fishermen had spent a portion of their lives in the estuaries.
    That's true in the Gulf, for example, likewise. So, these
    estuaries are of extraordinary importance.
        Second, your suggestion about combining the bill with the
    other legislation that we will be considering later on is a
    thoughtful one. Let me think about that because the other
    legislation, the Water Resources Development Reauthorization,
    does look as though that's going to go somewhere, and I think
    your point is a good one. Let's think about that.
        And third, I would note that we have 26 cosponsors of this
    legislation, not only each of the Senators who are here today,
    but others likewise. So we're very optimistic on this
    legislation.
        Thank you for your help, Senator Faircloth.
        Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. It's my understanding that Senator
    Torricelli is going to drop by at some point, and we will take
    him when he comes by.
        But meanwhile, why don't we have Mr. Wayland, Director of
    the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. EPA, and
    Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works,
    U.S. Department of Army, come up.
        We will start with Mr. Wayland. Why don't you proceed.

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. WAYLAND III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
       WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                 AGENCY

        Mr. Wayland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
    morning, members of the committee. You have a great sense of
    timing. This hearing occurs during the International Year of
    the Ocean and the Nation is examining its stewardship
    responsibilities toward our coastal waters. Very recently at
    the National Oceans Conference in Monterey, the President
    committed to a series of actions in recognition of those
    responsibilities and again pledged the Administration to
    implement, with assistance from Congress, a Clean Water Action
    Plan. That plan, undertaken in recognition of the progress made
    and challenges remaining after a quarter of a century----
        Senator Chafee. I wonder if you could hold 1 minute. I
    didn't see Senator Allard come in. I'm sorry. Did you have any
    comment to make?
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any comments. I
    appreciate the chair recognizing me. Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. I apologize for not catching you.
        All right, Mr. Wayland, why don't you proceed.
        Mr. Wayland. As I was saying, the Clean Water Action Plan,
    which the Administration has developed, recognizes the many
    challenges and the significant progress made since the Clean
    Water Act was first authorized a quarter of a century ago. It
    contains numerous actions directed to marine and estuarine
    protection and restoration. Those actions have been
    significantly influenced by our experience over the last decade
    in implementing the National Estuary Program.
        That program was established by Congress in 1987 to
    demonstrate a new framework to address serious environmental
    problems faced by these valuable ecosystems. Estuaries are
    particularly vulnerable because they often serve as sinks for
    pollutants originating upstream within the watersheds and the
    airsheds overlying them. In addition, estuaries are directly
    impacted by human activity. Well over half the people in this
    country live, work, or play near the coast. The NEP seeks to
    protect and restore the health of estuaries and their living
    resources, and in so doing, the recreation, fishing, and other
    economic activities that take place in or depend on healthy
    estuaries.
        Just a few indications of how valuable these resources are:
    Coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54
    billion in goods and services every year. The coastal
    recreation and tourism industry is the second largest employer
    in the Nation, serving 180 million Americans visiting the coast
    each year. And the commercial fish and shellfish industry
    contributes $45 billion to the economy every year, while
    recreational fishing contributes $30 billion to the U.S.
    economy annally.
        A recent national assessment concluded that the most common
    problems NEPs are dealing with are nutrient over- enrichment,
    pathogen contamination, toxic chemicals, alteration of
    freshwater flows, the loss of habitat, and declines in fish and
    wildlife as well as the introduction of invasive species. We
    have every reason to believe that these problems are common to
    most coastal watersheds throughout the United States. And the
    impacts are serious. Pathogens cause shellfish bed closures,
    nutrient over-enrichment contributes to----
        Senator Chafee. What is a pathogen?
        Mr. Wayland. Pathogens are microscopic organisms that are
    destructive to other living organisms; it may be fish, it may
    be human beings.
        Introduction of invasive species adversely affects native
    species. Many of you are familiar, of course, with the zebra
    mussel which is a freshwater invasive species. Our coasts are
    afflicted with invasive species transported in ballast water.
        Changes in land use and the introduction of pollutants and
    toxic chemicals results in habitat loss and declines in water
    quality and ecosystem health overall. And we're all familiar
    with the impacts of harmful algae blooms. Pfiesteria outbreaks
    have occurred in several tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay and
    North Carolina rivers in recent years resulting in fish kills,
    fish lesions, and suspected human impacts. The death and decay
    of algae blooms can lead to partial oxygen depletion, known as
    hypoxia, or total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the
    water, resulting in widespread mortality of fish, shellfish,
    and invertebrates.
        There's evidence that associates these algae blooms with
    nutrient pollution, excess nitrogen and phosphorous in the
    water. The source of these pollutants varies widely from one
    location to another. However, in general, we see three
    significant sources: human waste from septic systems and sewage
    treatment plants; agricultural runoff, including fertilizer and
    manure from agricultural operations; and air deposition of
    nitrogen and toxic pollutants from motor vehicles and electric
    utilities.
        Unlike early approaches to environmental protection that
    targeted specific pollutants or categories of discharges, the
    NEP acknowledges that the problems affecting our estuaries are
    exacerbated by combined and cumulative impacts of many
    individual activities and that the significance of these
    activities varies greatly from watershed to watershed. The
    principal cause of nutrient over-enrichment in Albemarle-
    Pamlico NEP, for example, is agricultural, while in Long Island
    Sound nutrient loadings come principally from domestic
    wastewater.
        In order to address watershed wide concerns, the NEP
    encourages the use of a combination of traditional and non-
    traditional water quality control measures and resource
    management techniques. The NEP has strongly influenced our
    evolution toward watershed management more broadly in clean
    water programs.
        A cornerstone of the National Estuary Program is that
    management decisions are made through an inclusive process
    involving multiple stakeholders, as Senator Sessions observed
    earlier. This emphasis on public participation not only ensures
    a balanced approach to resource problems, but encourages local
    communities to take the lead in determining the future of their
    own estuaries, thus bolstering the program's success through
    community support. At the present time, 17 of the 28 NEPs are
    in the implementation stage, 1 additional program is scheduled
    to have an approved plan by the end of 1998, and the 10
    remaining programs should have their management plans completed
    in 1999.
        The National Estuary Program has been very successful and
    several of those successes are presented in my full statement.
    EPA is working actively to ensure that we use what we've
    learned from these programs to protect and improve the health
    of coastal ecosystems overall.
        With respect to the legislation that is the topic of this
    hearing, I would like to emphasize the Administration's
    position supporting comprehensive amendments to the Clean Water
    Act that would strengthen the protection of the Nation's
    waters, a position recently reiterated by the President when he
    announced the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan.
        That having been said, let me comment briefly on S. 1321,
    S. 1222, and H.R. 2207.
        First, the National Estuary Conservation Act and also a
    provision of H.R. 2207. Both of these bills would amend Section
    320(g) of the Clean Water Act and increase the authorization of
    the National Estuary Program. EPA supports the flexibility that
    would be provided by giving us the authority to allow grantees
    to use Section 320 funds for managing the implementation of
    CCMPs as well as for developing them.
        We believe it is important, however, that State and local
    Governments take primary responsibility for implementing CCMP
    actions, and that consistent with the current law, grants
    authorized by Section 320 not be seen as the primary source of
    implementation funds. EPA and its other water quality programs
    have an important role in implementation.
        Section 320 provides that the management plans, once
    approved by the Administrator, can be implemented using funds
    from the State Water Revolving Loan Fund or the nonpoint source
    grants. Many CCMP implementation actions are appropriate for
    such funding. These programs should continue to be the primary
    source of implementation funds authorized under the Clean Water
    Act. The Administration has recently proposed to increase
    Section 319 grant funds to $200 million.
        EPA also supports an increase in authorizations over the
    original $12 million given the increased number of estuarine
    programs since the program was last authorized.
        With respect to S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
    Partnership Act, we believe that the goals and purposes of this
    bill are laudable----a national goal of restoring a million
    acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. Many of our National
    Estuary Programs have identified the need to actively restore
    degraded habitats consistent with the Clean Water Act's broad
    goal to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and
    biological integrity of our Nation's water.
        S. 1222 would compliment other provisions of the Clean
    Water Act and move us in a direction of implementation
    provisions more attuned to restoration and physical integrity
    aspects of the Clean Water Act's goal. Chemical and physical
    improvements are needed to restore the conditions under which
    aquatic species can thrive in our estuaries.
        We look forward to the opportunity to work with the
    committee as you continue your deliberations on this bill.
        With respect to H.R. 2207, the Coastal Pollution Reduction
    Act, I need to stress that much of the progress toward our
    Clean Water Act goals has been realized through the investment
    of the private sector and local governments in achieving near
    universal compliance with the baseline of technology-driven
    pollution control and prevention requirements. That's best
    available technology for industry and secondary treatment for
    municipalities.
        Secondary treatment isn't sufficient, however, to achieve
    nutrient control needs for such water bodies as Long Island
    Sound and the Chesapeake Bay where relatively shallow, poorly
    mixed waters are sensitive to nutrient inputs. In these
    instances, and many others, municipal treatment facilities are
    using advanced wastewater treatment technology or biological
    nutrient removal.
        Congress provided for a narrow waiver from the general
    requirement in Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act for cases
    where a community discharging to ocean waters could
    demonstrate, among other things, that less than secondary
    treatment would not have significant adverse consequences. Few
    municipalities were eligible for this waiver by its very terms.
    Fewer still sought the waiver. And even fewer were able to make
    the necessary showings and were approved. The waiver provision
    required municipalities to apply by December 29, 1982, and
    didn't provide for reapplication in the event of a final
    denial.
        H.R. 2207 would reopen the window for an application for a
    deep ocean outfall serving Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, but would
    require EPA to apply the same substantive standards for
    considering such a waiver that had applied to previous timely
    applicants.
        The Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewage Authority first sought
    a waiver for the Mayaguez wastewater treatment plant to
    discharge into Mayaguez Bay, not a deep ocean site, in
    September 1979. EPA tentatively denied the application in 1984
    and again in 1986. A final determination denying the
    application was issued in 1991. The applicant pursued appeals
    which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding EPA's decision
    in February 1995.
        In a Consent Agreement to resolve process violations of,
    among other things, the effluent discharge limits on the
    existing plant, the Federal Government recognized PRASA's
    intent to seek this legislation but made no commitment
    regarding our position on the legislation.
        Mayaguez Bay, in general, and the coral reefs, in
    particular, are severely stressed. Conditions may be such that
    PRASA may be able to provide information to support a decision
    that, based on construction of a deep ocean outfall, it can
    meet the nine part test established in Section 301(h). However,
    EPA neither endorses nor opposes H.R. 2207. We're generally
    opposed, however, to reopening the opportunity to seek 301(h)
    waivers given the widespread benefits of secondary treatment
    and the need to do more, not less, to control nutrients in many
    coastal areas.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
    working with you and your staff as you continue your work on
    these bills. I'd be pleased to respond to questions.
        Senator Chafee. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Wayland.
        Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil
    Works, Department of the Army.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

        Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
    Michael Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.
    I'm also very pleased to be here today to present the
    Department of the Army's views on S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Partnership Act. With your permission, I will
    summarize my statement that I have submitted for the record.
        Senator Chafee. We've never denied anybody the opportunity
    to summarize their statements.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Davis. I'll try to be brief. For over 200 years the
    Nation has called upon the Army Corps of Engineers to solve
    many of its water resources problems. Historically, the Corps
    has emphasized its flood damage reduction and navigation
    missions. In recent years, however, pursuant to Water Resources
    Development Acts, we have elevated our environmental
    restoration and protection mission to a level equal to our more
    traditional missions.
        The Corps now uses its engineering, project management,
    real estate, and environmental expertise to address
    environmental restoration and protection problems throughout
    the Nation and the world. The Corps has a powerful tool kit of
    standing authorities and programs that can be brought to bear
    to help solve environmental problems.
        Over the last decade alone, the Corps has helped to restore
    hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, benefiting hundreds
    of fish and wildlife species. Examples include 28,000 of
    habitat restored for the Upper Mississippi River, hundreds of
    acres of coastal wetlands restored in Louisiana, 35,000 acres
    of flood plain and wetlands restoration underway along the
    Kissimmee River in Florida, and hundreds of acres of coastal
    wetlands restored by beneficially using dredged material.
        If enacted, S. 1222 would add to the Corps' environmental
    portfolio. Specifically, S. 1222 would allow the Corps to use
    its unique skills to restore and protect estuarine habitat and
    help achieve an economically and environmentally sustainable
    future for the Nation and the world.
        Throughout the world estuarine and coastal areas serve as
    focal points for human use and development. These same areas
    also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective,
    providing habitat and food for myriad fish and wildlife
    species. There is an urgent need to protect and restore these
    fragile ecosystems, recognizing the economic, social, and
    environmental benefits they provide.
        As with many environmental issues, future generations
    depend upon our actions today. In this regard, we applaud the
    cosponsors of S. 1222 for their vision and leadership in this
    area.
        The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance
    coordination and efficiently financed environmental restoration
    and protection projects. The goal of restoring one million
    acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010 is consistent with
    the President's Clean Water Action Plan and the goal of
    restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands annually beginning in the
    year 2005.
        The proposed national framework, our national estuarine
    habitat restoration strategy should help partners identify and
    integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping
    plans, and identify processes to develop new plans where they
    are needed. This framework document could help us maximize
    incentives for participation, leverage limited Federal
    resources, and minimize duplications of efforts.
        The legislation is also consistent with the Coastal
    Wetlands Preservation, Protection, and Restoration Act, also
    known as the Breaux Act. This legislation has created a unique
    multi Federal and State agency partnership which is working to
    restore and protect approximately 73,000 acres of coastal
    wetlands in Louisiana over the next 20 years.
        Thus, with a relatively few minor but important changes,
    the Department of the Army would be pleased to support S. 1222.
    I will note a few of the changes and clarifications that we
    would recommend.
        First, it is unclear which, if any, agency is to lead the
    collaborative council. The language implies a lead role for the
    Department of the Army and directs the Secretary to convene
    meetings. Funds are also authorized to be appropriated to the
    Department of the Army to implement estuarine restoration and
    protection projects.
        While S. 1222 does not explicitly state your intent,
    Department of the Army is prepared to take a leadership role if
    that is the desire of the committee and the Congress.
        In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I
    recommend that the bill's cost-sharing provision be amended to
    a 65 percent Federal cost share in accordance with WRDA 1986
    and WRDA 1996. This is especially important since the bill
    states that estuarine restoration projects could be implemented
    under our aquatic ecosystem restoration authority pursuant to
    Section 206 of WRDA 1996.
        We are concerned that S. 1222 deviates from the basic cost-
    sharing policies established in the Water Resources Development
    Acts for environmental restoration projects, and that the
    variation and range of the possible Federal cost- shares from
    25 to 65 percent could cause confusion and reduce non-Federal
    participation.
        Section (d)(1) of S. 1222 states that the collaborative
    council shall not select an estuarine habitat restoration
    project until each non-Federal interest has entered into a
    written cooperation agreement in accordance with Section 221 of
    the Flood Control Act of 1970. Our experience is that while the
    need to meet Section 221 requirements are still valid for most
    civil works projects, there are situations where these
    requirements eliminate potential non-Federal sponsors from
    consideration and reduce opportunities for environmental
    projects. For example, certain well-known and established
    environmental organizations could not serve as sponsors for
    environmental restoration projects under S. 1222 as introduced.
        The Corps has put policies in place to enable consideration
    of nongovernmental organizations for Section 1135 projects, and
    our WRDA 1998 proposal contains provisions that would amend
    Section 206 of WRDA 1996 and Section 204 of WRDA 1992 to allow
    the Corps to consider where appropriate nongovernmental
    organizations as sponsors for environmental restoration and
    protection projects. Because of the similarities between these
    environmental authorities, we recommend revising S. 1222 to
    allow NGO's to sponsor estuarine habitat restoration projects.
        Turning to the factors to be taken into account in
    establishing criteria for determining project eligibility, we
    recommend that the legislation require consideration of quality
    and quantity of habitat restored in relation to overall project
    costs. This will help with benchmark performance reviews and
    provide a context for providing trade- off decisions amongst
    various alternatives.
        Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches
    are new, and when dealing with natural systems there is a need
    to test new ideas, learn from successful projects, and learn
    from those that are not successful, and manage adaptively to
    adjust to ever-changing conditions. Adding a requirement for
    non-Federal sponsors to manage adaptively would encourage the
    partners to try out new ideas and learn more about how to
    restore and protect estuarine and coastal areas.
        In conclusion, the Corps has been increasingly involved in
    recent years with efforts to protect and restore our estuaries.
    We are especially proud of our efforts in conjunction with
    Coastal America initiatives, such as a restoration of a coastal
    salt marsh area in the Galilee Bird Sanctuary in the chairman's
    home State of Rhode Island, the restoration of tidal wetlands
    in California's Sonoma Bay lands, and the Sagamore Salt Marsh
    restoration project in Massachusetts. Our fiscal year 1999
    budget request includes study funds for ten potential projects
    directed at protecting or restoring the important functions of
    estuaries, as well as funding for many other activities that
    would be beneficial to the environment in or adjacent to our
    estuaries.
        In short, Mr. Chairman, the Corps is serious about its
    environmental responsibilities and its environmental mission.
    With just a few minor modifications, S. 1222, if enacted, would
    add an important new tool to help us all protect and restore
    the Nation's estuaries.
        My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff
    on S. 1222 and other legislation before your committee,
    including our Water Resources Development Act proposal for
    1998. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work
    on this important legislation continues.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may have.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
        What we'll do now, I see Senator Torricelli is here, we
    will proceed with his comments and then we will get back to
    some questions to Mr. Wayland and Mr. Davis.
        Senator we welcome you.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                          STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Torricelli. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Rarely have I given testimony on legislation where I felt more
    confident, noting that I'm here to testify on S. 1321 and my
    two cosponsors are the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee,
    and the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. So I feel
    assured of fairly supportive commentary. I would also like to
    note that S. 1321 is cosponsored by Senators Moynihan, Graham,
    Lieberman, and Boxer.
        Mr. Chairman, dealing generally first with the issue of our
    coastal maintenance and protection, let me offer both my
    support and congratulations for the committee in dealing under
    difficult circumstances. It is time in our country to recognize
    that our beaches and coastal areas are national resources, as
    important to our infrastructure as roads and schools and other
    items that we depend upon for commerce and our quality of life.
    Indeed, since the 1930's the Federal Government has recognized
    this with the creation of the Beach and Erosion Board. And yet
    in recent years, it is becoming increasingly more difficult.
        The current funding formula set by the 1986 Water Resources
    Development Act established the Federal contribution for beach
    replenishment at 65 percent. This is being threatened by an
    Administration proposal to have a Federal share of 35 percent.
    Let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, in the State of New
    Jersey, to which Senator Lautenberg will attest, the economic
    life of the State of New Jersey and the quality of life of our
    people is directly related to the maintenance of our beaches.
    Our beaches are important to the economic life of New Jersey,
    as the Pennsylvania Turnpike is for the economy of its State,
    or the New York Throughway is for the people who live in that
    State. It is used for commerce, it is used for our massive
    tourist industry, and for our quality of life. This kind of
    declining Federal contribution would be a direct threat to many
    coastal communities.
        I am, however, here for a related subject, and that is the
    maintenance of our threatened estuaries. Estuaries of our
    States, Mr. Chairman, from which Rhode Island is centered, are
    an important part not only of our tourist industry but also our
    fishing industry--75 percent of commercial fishing in the
    United States rely on estuaries--in New Jersey this is
    particularly true with the Raritan Bay, the Delaware Bay, and
    Barnegat Bay. In our country today, 14.5 million jobs and 10
    percent of our GDP is related directly to these coastal
    centers. My State of New Jersey has a $25 billion tourist
    industry, including boating and fishing industries that rely on
    these areas.
        The size of these estuaries and the pressure upon them by
    development is extraordinary. To take one example, the Barnegat
    Bay in New Jersey, 400,000 people live on this precious
    environmental resource. The same things that have attracted
    clam and fish populations to be in these protected waters also
    attract people to develop their lands and use them for tourist
    purposes. In the summer, that 400,000 population doubles to
    800,000 people. This very precious resource is also shared with
    116 marinas and boatramps, a third of all boats in the State of
    New Jersey are registered in this one small estuary.
        As one would imagine, this causes considerable pollution
    threats. Barnegat Bay alone in 1995, 1997, and as recently as
    last month has had problems with brown tide algae blooms
    caused, in part, by stormwater runoff. Another example of
    pollution threats, as I'm sure you've experienced in Rhode
    Island, is in the New York-New Jersey Harbor----we found 730
    combined sewage overflows in that Harbor alone. It would take
    $2 to $6 billion to correct them.
        Mr. Chairman, as I am certain you and I know Senator
    Lautenberg are aware, the single largest water pollution
    problem remaining in the United States are the combined sewage
    overflows. This is a major problem of these estuaries. It is
    the reason for the compromise of the water quality, the
    continued destruction of our fisheries, and the unavailability
    of some of these waters for tourist purposes.
        In 1987 the Clean Water Act Amendments established a
    National Estuary Program. That was an important beginning in
    saving these estuaries. Over the years, 28 estuaries were
    designated, 3 alone in the State of New Jersey. The plan was
    the Federal Government would provide funds to the State and
    local governments to develop plans to save these endangered
    estuaries. Seventeen of the 28 estuarine plans have now been
    completed. The NEP has not been reauthorized since 1991 and
    today States cannot receive any Federal funding to implement
    their plans.
        Our legislation, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. We have
    designed 17 of these plans to protect the estuaries, the
    Congress for two decades has recognized these plans as a
    priority, now it's time to actually begin the work. Under our
    legislation, we would begin authorizing $50 million to the
    State and local Governments to start implementing their plans.
    These plans obviously rely heavily on doing something with
    combined sewage overflow.
        Mr. Chairman, it is simply time to begin to act. We know
    what needs to be done. We understand the science, we understand
    the engineering, and we know the threat. I believe $50 million
    is a modest beginning, but in some estuaries somewhere in the
    country we will at least begin to prove that these valuable
    resources can be saved. It is better now to begin in a modest
    method rather than not to begin at all.
        Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if we prove by these modest amounts
    that a few estuaries can be saved, fish populations will begin
    to return, tourists will enjoy the benefit of improvements to
    water quality, then we can begin to mount the kind of political
    coalition that will help us do this on a larger scale.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate
    your thoughts.
        Senator Lautenberg. I just want to thank Senator Torricelli
    for his interest in protecting our estuaries, as evidenced by
    this legislation. I think that he is absolutely right. We have
    done a sufficient amount of planning and I think now getting
    the funds, getting some assistance for the implementation of
    these programs is important. I once again salute the effort and
    will work hard with you to try to get it into place in New
    Jersey.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, the comparisons between our
    States go beyond size. We have a lot of coastline for a
    relatively small land mass. Our problems are not different. We
    invite habitation, we invite tourism, but that brings problems
    along with it. As Senator Torricelli aptly pointed out, sewage
    overflow occurs. I'm not sure which gets the prize for being
    the worst source for pollution--agricultural runoff, combined
    sewer overflows, or nonpoint source pollution. We know one
    thing--we see the constant degradation of fish population,
    damage to our recreational use, and the loss of an important
    asset. It does compare very favorably with basic infrastructure
    in our States and in our country.
        Mr. Chairman, I welcome Senator Torricelli's comments and
    his active interest on the issue.
        Senator Chafee. I think it was you, Senator Lautenberg, who
    mentioned in your opening statement that something to the
    effect that 55 percent of the population in the United States
    lives in coastal areas.
        Senator Lautenberg. Right.
        Senator Chafee. I suspect that percentage is growing, not
    declining. So it's a tremendous challenge.
        Well, thank you very much, Senator Torricelli.
        Senator Torricelli. Mr. Chairman, if I could just note in
    response to Senator Lautenberg's comments, as difficult as this
    problem is, there is reason to be hopeful. Last year, in
    visiting in the Barnegat Bay, after years in our State of
    dealing with industrial sources of pollution successfully, the
    fish populations were increasing. Crabs and clams were seen in
    areas where they had not been recognized for years. Nature is
    resilient if we give it a chance.
        Senator Chafee. But we've got to give it the chance.
        Senator Torricelli. You have to give it the chance. And
    that's all we're asking, some modest resources now to deal with
    these remaining threats to these estuaries. Nature will come
    back if we will do our parts.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, the clams that were such
    an important marine crop in New Jersey now get put into a
    natural washing machine. They're taken out of beds where there
    may be some pollution and put into other clean water areas and
    left there for a bit and nature takes care of it. So nature is
    working right along side of us and we have to just give her a
    little boost.
        Senator Chafee. Right. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Now, Mr. Davis, in your testimony, you outline some of the
    areas of success. Over the last decade the Corps has helped to
    restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, 28,000 acres
    of habitat restored for the upper Mississippi, hundreds of
    acres of coastal, and so forth. What principally have you done
    to do that restoration? What steps have you taken? And what
    constitutes restoration?
        Mr. Davis. Restoration, let me answer that part of the
    question first. Let's look at wetlands restoration, I think
    that will put it in the right context. If you look in the
    Southeast, hundreds of thousands of acres that have been diked
    off and drained. Former wetlands are now crop lands. You can go
    into these areas and plug up some of those ditches, knock down
    some of these little dikes, and restore the hydrology in that
    area, thus restoring what was formerly a wetland area versus
    creation, which is going into an area that was never a wetland
    and trying to do it there.
        Senator Chafee. You mention invasive species. We're
    certainly seeing that up in my section of the country. We've
    got something called ``phragmites'' which, in my judgment, is
    overpowering many brackish ponds. What do you know about
    phragmites? Have you got a cure?
        Mr. Davis. I've seen phragmites. I've seen a lot of it.
        Senator Chafee. Oh, I've seen it, too. But that's not a
    qualification.
        Mr. Davis. It is a problem. We've spent a fair amount of
    time just recently up in the Hackensack Meadowlands, which is a
    large wetlands complex that essentially has been overtaken by
    phragmites, and we're looking at ways to restore that area to
    the proper hydrologies and salinities that would preclude
    phragmites from growing and allow the native vegetation to
    return. It can be a problem. It is very much an invasive
    species.
        There are a lot of invasive species. It's an issue we've
    got to deal with. Recently I looked at the Kenilworth Marsh
    restoration project that we did here on the Anacostia River
    using dredged material. We have a problem there with the plant
    the purple lustrife which is also an invasive species. It's an
    issue we're grappling with. I think in some cases we have made
    some progress but we've got a lot of work to do.
        Senator Chafee. Any thoughts, Mr. Wayland?
        Mr. Wayland. I just wanted to supplement that. Mr. Davis
    referred to Coastal America, and one of the Coastal America
    projects that I participated in helping to launch in Senator
    Lieberman's State was actually being facilitated with ISTEA
    funds. I think that the work that you and this committee did on
    the new TEA-21 legislation is going to continue some of the
    opportunities.
        Senator Chafee. Better keep it a secret that we're using
    the highway trust fund money to fight phragmites.
        Mr. Wayland. Well, what happened in that instance was the
    phragmites was very much encouraged by the railbed that had
    been laid in the Northeast corridor without any opportunity for
    tidal flushing. No culverts, so that you walled off the tidal
    flushing and the fresh water areas.
        By the Corps of Engineers designing appropriate placement
    of culverts and the use of ISTEA money to place those culverts,
    the hydrologic regime was restored such that the natural marsh
    grasses could come back and once again occupy that habitat
    rather than phragmites. And that's certainly appropriate.
        Senator Chafee. Are you saying that if you can get a tidal
    flow in an area where phragmites is, that will kill it off?
        Mr. Wayland. In some cases, there has to be more active
    management than that. In some cases there has to be hand
    removal. I'm not a big believer in herbicide use to try to
    restore the balance of nature, but in some cases that's been
    employed to help the process along. But if you don't do
    something to improve the salinity regime, you're probably going
    to be back where you were. That's why some of these measures
    like the one that we looked at in Connecticut are extremely
    important. And that's part of the plan for the Hackensack as
    well, to open up channels of flowing water to help reduce the
    problem.
        Senator Chafee. OK. Let me just ask this question of both
    of you. One, I appreciate your support for S. 1222. The bill as
    drafted would, as you know, require EPA, the Corps, and other
    relevant Federal agencies, for example Fish and Wildlife or
    NOAA, to develop an estuarine habitat restoration strategy. Do
    you think it's possible for all of these Federal agencies to
    develop a strategy within the parameters of the bill?
        What do you say to that, Mr. Wayland?
        Mr. Wayland. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that we've
    got a history of cooperating in a number of cases on smaller
    scale efforts. I think this is an opportunity to try to look
    comprehensively at needs and opportunities to try to buildupon
    the smaller scale efforts that may have been undertaken in the
    context of a particular estuary. I think the agencies have a
    good track record of working together through Coastal America
    and other collaborative approaches.
        Senator Chafee. Mr. Davis, what do you say?
        Mr. Davis. I agree completely with that. I think the bill
    brings together the right mix of agencies, each of which can
    come to the table with kind of a unique perspective and unique
    tools and talents.
        Senator Chafee. Now, Mr. Wayland, you commented on the
    Puerto Rico bill. If we pass that and EPA denied the
    application for a waiver, what is your best estimate for the
    expected time period for the construction and operation of a
    secondary treatment plant?
        Mr. Wayland. The deadline that is specified in the Consent
    Agreement that the Government reached with PRASA is that there
    would be a secondary treatment facility on line by December 31,
    2001. That's a pretty ambitious timeframe in which to site,
    construct, and operate a secondary plant.
        Senator Chafee. You did make a point in your testimony, I'm
    not sure I can put my finger on it right now, where you pointed
    out that where the waivers have been granted in the past, I
    guess you're thinking of San Diego, it is an deep ocean outflow
    as opposed to this.
        Mr. Wayland. San Diego was another legislative exception to
    the general requirements of the Clean Water Act that we
    grappled with after the standard window had closed. But there
    are many other waivers that were entertained under Section
    301(h) and some were approved, many were denied, several were
    withdrawn.
        In instances where those waivers were approved, we
    generally are finding deep water, a lot of mixing as a result
    of currents, and----
        Senator Chafee. It seems to me that was the San Diego
    situation. It was a deep ocean.
        Mr. Wayland. Yes. I believe the outfall is at 300 feet. The
    locations of the outfall that are being studied at least with
    respect to Mayaguez I understand would be on the order of 600
    feet of water.
        Senator Chafee. OK. Fine. Thank you very much gentlemen.
        Now, we'll have the next panel. We have now four witnesses.
    There are liable to be some votes which will interrupt this,
    but let's get started.
        We will start with Mr. Spalding, executive director of Save
    the Bay. Mr. Spalding, we welcome you here.

     STATEMENT OF H. CURTIS SPALDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAVE THE
                          BAY, PROVIDENCE, RI

        Mr. Spalding. Thank you, Senator Chafee. I have a chart I
    would like to put up here. As long as we brought it all the way
    from Rhode Island, I thought I better show it.
        I gave the committee a longer statement, and I have some
    brief comments I would like to make now.
        Senator Chafee. Fine.
        Mr. Spalding. On behalf of Save the Bay and Restore
    America's Estuaries, I would like to thank Senator Chafee and
    the committee for the opportunity to present testimony in
    support of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
    Act. Save the Bay is a member-supported nonprofit organization
    with 20,000 members. Our mission is to restore and protect
    Narragansett Bay and its watershed. Restore America's Estuaries
    is a coalition of 11 regional coastal community-based
    environmental organizations, with a combined membership of over
    250,000. Restore America's Estuaries' mission is to save and
    restore America's estuaries and coastal heritage for our
    children before it disappears.
        Five years ago, over 20 estuary advocacy organizations met
    to discuss the future challenges of our Nation's estuaries and
    to set a course of action to meet these challenges. Many of our
    coastal areas were beginning to reap the benefits of the Clean
    Water Act. In Narragansett Bay, harbor seals and oysters were
    starting to return after decades of absence due to polluted
    water. Despite similar limited recoveries in many of our
    Nation's estuaries, we shared a deep concern that many species
    of fish, birds, and other animals were not recovering as we had
    expected. Also troubling, some of coastal areas not previously
    affected by water pollution were now in serious decline.
        After months of inquiry and discussion, we saw that the
    problem with the health of our estuaries was no longer simply
    grossly polluted water, but the ongoing loss of habitat for
    fish, birds, shellfish, and plants along our shorelines and in
    our watersheds. Thus, in late 1994, Restore America's Estuaries
    was formed. It is a current partnership of 11 nonprofit
    organizations, from Seattle to Galveston to Maine, that compose
    Restore America's Estuaries. Over the past 4 years, each
    organization has identified and targeted the habitat resources
    in its own estuarine and coastal environment that are
    threatened and in need of restoration. Restore America's
    Estuaries has pledged collectively to restore one million acres
    of habitat in our Nation's estuaries by the year 2010.
        The need is great. In coastal States, 55 million acres of
    wetlands have been destroyed. We need to turn the tide on this
    devastating trend and actually foster the rebirth of our
    estuaries and their critical wetlands.
        In the estuary I know best, the need is especially
    critical. Narragansett Bay's natural systems contain eelgrass
    beds, salt marshes, and fish runs which allow it function
    healthily, but they are severely damaged or disappearing. The
    chart I brought down describes the percentage of salt marshes
    affected by different activities. Invasive plants, cutting/
    mowing, tidal restrictions, filling, ditching, and inadequate
    buffer zones are causing the decline. As you can see, all these
    impacts generally exceed 50 percent in our salt marshes. We
    only have 100 acres of eelgrass left in the Bay which once
    supported thousands of acres. Eelgrass prevents shoreline
    erosion, filters pollution, and provide clean water, food,
    shelter, and nurseries and breeding grounds for fish,
    shellfish, juvenile lobsters, and young fish.
        We have a problem with fish runs, too. To survive, many
    fish must be able to get to the fresh water up the rivers to
    spawn. One of our Bay's greatest historic fisheries, the
    Atlantic Salmon, can now only be read about in books due to the
    destruction of their fish runs.
        The Bay is much like the human body; the decline in our
    eelgrass, salt marshes, and fish runs are warning signs not so
    different from changes in a person's vital signs. We would not
    ignore a loved one's complaint of chest pains, shortness of
    breath, or numbness in their arms and legs because these are
    signs of potentially deadly heart attack or damaging stroke.
    Likewise, we cannot ignore these symptoms in our estuaries.
        If eelgrass, salt marshes, and fish runs continue to
    decline and disappear, the Bay will be little more than an
    empty body of water. The quantity of Bay life that depends on
    these areas----the lobster, shellfish, birds, fish, plants----
    will diminish. Many people who make their livelihoods off the
    Bay will have to find other work. This is not the kind of Bay
    we would want or should leave to our children.
        Narragansett Bay is not alone in this health crisis.
    Although each estuary is unique, they all suffer from habitat
    loss. In San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of the Bay's original
    wetlands have been destroyed. Galveston Bay in Texas has lost
    85 percent of its seagrass meadows. Louisiana loses 25,000
    acres of coastal salt marshes----that's an area the size of
    Washington, DC----every year. In Chesapeake Bay, the oyster
    harvest crashed from 25 million pounds in 1959 to only 1
    million pounds in 1989, and of course the Pfiesteria crisis is
    well known to everyone down here. These losses have dire
    consequences for our environment, our economy, and our way of
    life.
        On September 22, 1997, Senator Chafee, the chairman of this
    committee, came to a small boatyard in Narragansett Bay to
    announce the introduction of the Estuary Habitat Restoration
    Partnership Act, S. 1222. This legislation is a vital component
    of our efforts to bring back healthy conditions not only in
    Narragansett Bay, but in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound,
    Puget Sound, and many of the other vital estuaries in the
    United States. At that press conference, Senator Chafee said
    ``Narragansett Bay is good for the soul.'' No truer words have
    ever been spoken about the meaning of Narragansett Bay to all
    Rhode Islanders and no one in Rhode Island's history has more
    credibility to say these words.
        Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from
    its shore, it is part of what makes Rhode Island special. The
    Bay is our lifeline, it nourishes our environment, strengthens
    our economy, enhances our leisure time, protects our children's
    futures. We need to care for the Bay and invest today in its
    health and very survival. The investment will help ensure a
    secure future for Rhode Island and all the Nation's estuaries.
        In the interest of time, I'm going to jump to the end of my
    comments, Senator Chafee, and talk somewhat about the
    connection to the WRDA Act.
        Despite all that's been done, as I've said, Narragansett
    Bay and most of our estuaries remain in crisis. The migration
    of millions of people to the shores of estuaries has had its
    impact. Rhode Island and many other regions have only a limited
    time to take action and reverse the situation. If we do not
    markedly increase our effort to restore America's estuaries
    soon, more species of fish, plants, birds may become memories
    just like the Atlantic salmon and Bay scallops have become in
    Narragansett Bay. Without action now, jobs will be lost and the
    quality of life will suffer.
        We applaud you for your leadership on this critical issue,
    and we applaud the support of Senator Faircloth and now the
    support of the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. Not only has
    Senator Faircloth come to the issue, but 26 colleagues from
    both sides of the aisle understand the situation and have
    cosigned as sponsors.
        If we truly want to preserve our coastal heritage, we must
    give our Federal Government agencies the opportunity to
    actually help with this task, not just with more funding, but
    with tools to break down the barriers of bureaucracy and to
    build partnerships with local community efforts. The
    coordinated community-based approach prescribed in S. 1222 will
    set a powerful example for solving the more complicated
    environmental challenges ahead in the next century. It will
    also help refocus the Army Corps on the restoration of natural
    systems, just as is intended in the current draft of the Water
    Resources Development Act that is currently under
    consideration.
        Because S. 1222 affects the Army Corps' mission and
    purpose, and because the health of America's estuaries cannot
    afford years of delay, we respectfully urge immediate
    consideration of S. 1222 as part of the WRDA reauthorization.
    We know this is a tall order but we believe strongly that the
    need justifies the request.
        Your attention to my remarks today is appreciated very
    much. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my
    perspective on why estuarine habitat restoration is so
    important for Narragansett Bay and the estuaries throughout the
    country that add so much to our coastal environment and
    heritage.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Spalding. We
    appreciate that.
        And now Dr. Burkholder. They have started this vote and
    I'll have to leave in about seven or 8 minutes, but we can get
    started. Why don't you proceed.

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

        Ms. Burkholder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
    honor to be invited to speak before your committee. I would
    like to tell you that personally I have very much admired you
    for a long time and all your efforts.
        Senator Chafee. Well, that's fine. Did everybody hear that?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Burkholder. The litany of all the enormous values of
    our Nation's estuaries is familiar to many people of all ages.
    There are three basic reasons for my testifying here today.
    First, as a scientist knowledgeable in technical aspects of
    estuarine degradation, I am pleased to testify on behalf of
    these valuable resources and their enormous importance to all
    of us in this country. I've stressed to you the need to
    strengthen our understanding not only of obvious impacts from
    human influences, many of us know about floating garbage, but,
    of greater importance, the more insidious chronic impacts of
    our actions in degrading our estuaries.
        Research from every coast of this country has shown, for
    example, that fish suffer higher incidents of bleeding sores,
    malignant tumors, loss of reproductive ability, and immune
    system suppression in estuarine waters near urban centers.
        Senator Chafee. Dr. Burkholder, I'm afraid they have now
    gone to the last part. So we're going to recess for a few
    minutes. I'm not sure, there may be a couple of votes back to
    back. But as soon as I get back, we will continue with you.
        The committee will be in recess for a few minutes here.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Chafee. The committee will return to order.
        I notice Senator Breaux is here. Senator Breaux has been
    deeply interested in these issues for many years. Senator, if
    you have some comments you would like to make, now is the
    chance.

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

        Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
    witnesses at the table for allowing me just to make a comment
    or two. First, I thought it was important to come and say
    congratulations to you for this effort. You've been a leader in
    this area as long as I have been around the Congress and
    working in these particular areas. I think this legislation,
    which I am very proud to be a cosponsor of, is extremely
    important.
        When some people in the country think of estuarine areas,
    they think of marsh lands or wetlands and they don't really
    understand the productivity of these areas and how valuable
    they are, from two standpoints. They are valuable because
    they're part of our country and esoteric beauty that is found
    in estuarine areas is incredible and it is extremely important.
    Second, and equally as important, is the economic value of
    these areas. They are extremely valuable. Most of Louisiana is
    an estuarine area, my entire State practically. About 40
    percent of the Nation's wetlands are found in my State, one
    State. We're also losing about 80 percent of all the wetlands
    in all of North America in my one State. So any legislation
    dealing with estuarine areas and wetland areas is incredibly
    important.
        Just as a note for the record, the economic value of these
    areas in my own State of Louisiana is extremely significant.
    Wildlife and resources are estimated to bring almost $6 billion
    annually to the economy of my State. That's because we produce
    over 15 percent of the Nation's commercial fish harvest out of
    Louisiana. Without the estuarine areas, this could not happen.
    These are the breeding grounds for all of the fish resources--
    --fin fish and shellfish----and things that are produced that
    ultimately end up in the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately end up
    all over the world. So without the estuarine areas as these
    nurseries, all of this would not occur.
        So your Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, which
    is now before your committee, is extremely important. It is a
    very positive step, and 1 day, hopefully, we will be able to
    look back at this legislation as a key to ensuring the
    continued viability of these very important areas. I commend
    you for your action.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator Breaux. I want to
    reciprocate by expressing our appreciation for your long work
    in this area because you've been a stalwart. We look forward to
    your continued support. Thank you.
        Now, Dr. Burkholder, if you would be good enough to
    continue. I don't think there are going to be any more
    interruptions. Now that's said with not great certitude as far
    as votes go. I don't know, I think that we're good for a while
    anyway. So go to it.

    STATEMENT OF JOANN R. BURKHOLDER, RESEARCH COORDINATOR, BOTANY
       DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NC--
                               CONTINUED

        Ms. Burkholder. Thank you. There are three basic reasons
    for my testifying here today, as I mentioned. First, as a
    scientist, I would like to stress to you the need of
    strengthening our understanding not only of obvious impacts of
    human influences on our estuaries, but, of greater importance I
    think, more insidious and chronic impacts of our actions in
    degrading our estuaries.
        As I was beginning to say earlier, research from every
    coast of this country has shown that fish suffer higher
    incidents of bleeding sores, malignant tumors, loss of
    reproductive ability, and immune system suppression in
    estuarine waters near urban centers. Such subtle and chronic
    impacts are likely much more serious to fish than an obvious
    fish kill that usually affects only a small number of fish
    relative to the total population size.
        The chronic effects of our actions in degrading estuaries
    also extend beyond fish to our own health, as shown by the
    story of Pfiesteria. This microscopic toxic creature thrives in
    waters that are over-enriched from sewage, animal waste, lawn
    and cropland fertilizer, and other sources. People who breath
    the airborne toxins from Pfiesteria over waters where it is
    attacking fish can suffer from severe learning disabilities and
    memory loss for months afterwards. This provides just one
    example of the fact that estuarine water quality, fish health,
    and human health impacts can be strongly linked.
        My second reason for speaking here today is to state my
    strong support for S. 1222 and also S. 1321. As a citizen who
    has been involved in policy recommendations about strengthening
    wise use of estuarine resources, I believe that the partnership
    cost-sharing approach that is outlined in S. 1222 will be
    highly constructive in bringing all stakeholders together, from
    industries and municipalities to individual citizens, in
    working to achieve major restoration of our estuaries.
        Within this context, I envision four goals. First, we
    should accelerate river and watershed cleanup through a strong
    incentive program which is encouraged by S. 1222. This program
    should encompass both point and nonpoint source contributors.
    This effort must also target reestablishment of more natural
    flow patterns in watersheds to enhance pollutant filtering and
    breakdown rather than the ditching and channelization that
    deliver pollutants more directly to our rivers.
        Development of strong water reuse programs will also help
    combat both pollution and salt imbalances created by coastal
    aquifer depletion. The phragmites problem and others are
    related to that. And we should work to expand coastal reserves
    in order to increase protection of fish nursery grounds.
        The second goal that I envision is that we will need to
    improve and update resource inventories, hence my strong
    support for S. 1321 as well as S. 1222. This will really help
    us to establish baselines where they're not available so that
    we can mark our progress. For example, accurate maps of
    submersed aquatic vegetation, wetlands, shellfish beds, fish
    nursery and spawning grounds are needed in many regions.
        Achievement of major estuarine restoration will also
    require additional tools that must be provided by research. For
    example, we need to develop improved indicators of chronic
    impacts of pollutants on key species in estuarine food webs,
    including young as well as adult stages. We will need improved
    techniques for increasing natural functions of both constructed
    and restored wetlands and seagrass meadows. We must improve our
    ability to create value-added products from our wastes rather
    than viewing them as materials to be discarded. And I think
    especially, and it is often overlooked, we need strengthened
    research in natural resource economics so that the full
    benefits of all the goods and services provided by estuaries
    can be both accurately valued and imparted to our citizens.
        The third goal that I see is that we should work to
    strengthen enforcement of existing laws for estuarine resource
    conservation or wise use. Again, this needs to be accomplished
    hand-in-hand with development of strong incentive programs and
    also provision of support through development of innovative
    fundraising programs.
        We also need to work to improve upon some legislation. For
    example, land use plans under the Coastal Area Management Act
    should be strengthened to require consideration of the ability
    of adjacent waters to handle the wastes that accompany our
    increasing coastal population growth. Currently, these land use
    plans do not contain that provision.
        And fourth, we should work to promote development of
    comprehensive environmental education and outreach programs
    about the importance of good water quality and healthy
    habitats, such as wetlands and seagrass beds, both in estuaries
    and upstream in the watersheds that drain into them. These
    programs should begin in preschool, extend to high school and
    college, and continue to touch all citizens throughout their
    lives.
        My third and final reason for speaking for to you is much
    simpler than the others----to help fishermen and other coastal
    folk who are a big part of my State and our country's heritage
    and also for our children in the battle for estuarine
    restoration and wise resource maintenance.
        I am also very pleased to join you and especially to join
    my Senator, Senator Faircloth, on this issue. This committee
    and he have shown strong depth of caring for our estuaries and
    for all of us who depend upon them in our State and country in
    support of these bills. Thank you again for the privilege of
    addressing this Senate committee on this important issue.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Dr. Burkholder. We
    appreciate that. I'm impressed by the number of papers that
    you've written and had a part in writing, as shown in the back
    of your testimony. Congratulations.
        Ms. Burkholder. Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. Dr. Milon, professor, food and resource
    economics department, University of Florida, Gainesville.
    Welcome, Doctor.

      STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MILON, PROFESSOR, FOOD AND RESOURCE
      ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE, FL

        Mr. Milon. Thank you very much, Chairman Chafee. I thank
    you for the opportunity to present a brief summary of some
    research on the economic value of the Indian River Lagoon, an
    estuary of national significance and part of the Environmental
    Protection Agency's existing National Estuary Program. I come
    to you not so much as an advocate of any particular
    legislation, but more as, if you will, a reporter from the
    academic community about some research that this particular NEP
    program conducted and to give you some insights from that
    research.
        This information is derived from a study I coordinated as
    part of a team organized by Apogee Research Inc., a nationally
    recognized leader in environmental and natural resource
    economics. This study was sponsored by the Indian River
    National Estuary Program and the St. Johns Water Management
    District, the State sponsor for the Indian River NEP. The study
    is presented as one documented example of the value of
    estuaries nationwide.
        The Indian River Lagoon, one of the Nation's most
    biologically diverse estuaries, stretches 156 miles along
    Florida's east coast spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian River,
    St. Lucie, and Martin counties. These five counties are home to
    more than 1 million residents and host more than 6 million
    visitors each year. The number of visitors in the five counties
    of the Lagoon is expected to increase from 1.25 million to
    almost 1.5 million between 1995 and 2005.
        In developing estimates of the economic value of an
    environmental resource such as an estuary, it is important to
    consider the scope and extent of human activity related to that
    resource. I offer to you the accompanying Table 2-4 which is
    condensed from a much larger report which I've included as
    different addendums as part of my testimony here. That Table 2-
    4 is on page 16 of Addendum A, if you have an opportunity to
    look at that. The table shows the scope of activities which are
    considered in the Indian River Lagoon study. These activities
    range from traditional economic uses such as the value of
    commercial and recreational harvests from the Lagoon to more
    intangible economic values such as the enhancement of land
    values adjacent to the resource and individuals' values for
    preserving the resource. The full report, as I mentioned,
    presents the valuation methodologies and data collection used
    in the study, so I'm not going to describe those here.
        These results that are summarized in Table 2-4 show the
    importance of the Lagoon to the economy of the region in 1995.
    Recreational fishing by residents and tourists was estimated to
    contribute approximately $340 million to the regional economy,
    swimming, boating, water sports, and nature observation
    activities around the Lagoon contributed another $287 million.
    Commercial harvesting of shellfish such as clams, oysters, and
    crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually. In addition,
    residential land values were enhanced by the presence of the
    Lagoon in the amount of approximately $825 million which can be
    expressed as an annualized value of about $33 million.
    Collectively, the direct values associated with the Lagoon on
    an annual basis amounted to more than $725 million.
        The Lagoon-dependent activities create additional indirect
    impacts on the regional economy. Businesses related to
    recreation, tourism, and fisheries generate nearly $4 billion,
    or about 17 percent of total output within the region. And
    again, for this information I refer you to Addendum B,
    additional information that's provided in there. I'll leave
    that to whoever is interested in digging out the individual
    details on that. Resident and tourist spending for Lagoon-
    related activities accounted for more than 19,000 jobs in the
    region.
        These measures of the economic contribution of the Indian
    River Lagoon can be compared to the costs of implementing the
    comprehensive conservation and management plan developed as
    part of the Indian River NEP. This comprehensive plan includes
    recommendations to maintain and restore the Lagoon through
    water quality management and habitat protection. These costs
    are estimated to be less than $18 million annually, indicating
    that the costs of sustaining the activities dependent on the
    Lagoon are modest relative to their economic contribution
    within the region.
        Properly designed funding plans could spread these costs
    equitably so that the average citizen in the region would pay
    no more than $10 per year. In addition, public surveys
    conducted for this study showed that residents would be willing
    to pay more than three times the estimated annual cost to
    implement CCMP.
        The results of the study, while limited to a single
    estuary, help to illustrate the economic importance of
    estuaries in regional economies and the linkage between
    environmental quality and economic development. The economy of
    the Indian River Lagoon region depends upon the ecosystem
    services provided by the estuary and future development within
    the region will be linked to adequate maintenance of the health
    of this ecosystem.
        Studies such as the one I am reporting to you are an
    integral link in helping citizens and public officials
    understand the linkage between the health of the estuaries and
    local economies. On this score I refer you to a letter from the
    St. Johns River Water Management District which, as I
    mentioned, is the State sponsor for the Indian River NEP. In
    that letter they discuss their own thoughts on the legislation
    before you and also reiterate this point about the importance
    of studies dealing with the economic value of these resources.
    And as you and other members of the committee have pointed out,
    this kind of information is extremely important in building
    local support and local understanding of the role of these
    estuaries in the region, and for building political support,
    they are absolutely vital to the local citizenry.
        I hope this information will be useful to the committee. I
    will gladly provide you with any details about this study or
    any other information about economic valuation of environmental
    resources that would assist the committee in its deliberations.
    Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Dr. Milon. I think
    what's helpful to the others is the methodology that you used
    in arriving at your conclusions. I must say, it seems to me
    that you were modest and cautious in the land value figure you
    used, because certainly in our State there's a whale of a
    difference between somebody whose got an ocean or an estuary
    view from their property and someone who doesn't in the value
    of his or her land.
        Mr. Milon. Yes. Part of what we were trying to do, as I
    mentioned, was to build this local support and, if you will,
    local credibility. We wanted in the study to use as many
    conservative assumptions as we could so that these valuation
    estimates, if you will, could not be challenged on the grounds
    that they were excessive. That in part led to some of that
    conservatism. But you're correct, the ratios are enormous
    between residential property in particular on waterfront which
    is obviously highly valuable relative to non-waterfront
    property, but also there's a difference between those areas
    that have very high water quality and those that have degraded
    water quality.
        Senator Chafee. No question about that.
        All right, Mr. Morton, counsel, Coastal and Ocean Program,
    American Oceans Campaign. Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF TED MORTON, COUNSEL, COASTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM,
                        AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN

        Mr. Morton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ted
    Morton. I am the Coastal Protection Program counsel for
    American Oceans Campaign which is a national, nonprofit
    organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing our Nation's
    oceans and coastal resources. On behalf of my organization and
    its members, I wish to express my thanks to Senators Chafee and
    Baucus and to the other members of the committee for inviting
    me to testify on legislative proposals to improve estuarine
    protections.
        As you know, last year marked the 25th anniversary of the
    Nation's premier water quality law----the Clean Water Act.
    Across the Nation, communities used the anniversary to assess
    the condition of their lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal
    waters. Many communities discovered that significant progress
    had been achieved. However, 25 years after the passage of the
    Clean Water Act, we will have not achieved one of the Act's
    principal goals----to make all waters swimmable and fishable.
    Coastal waters are particularly troubled. A recent EPA report
    disclosed that about 38 percent of the Nation's surveyed
    estuaries are not clean enough to support basic uses such as
    fishing and swimming. In addition, estuarine habitat is
    threatened by unwise development, sedimentation, destructive
    fishing practices, and other threats.
        In order to improve the state of estuaries, it is
    imperative to develop and follow a comprehensive national
    strategy that addresses water quality improvements, habitat
    restoration, public education efforts, and greater investments.
    I believe that a combination of Senator Chafee's Estuary
    Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, S. 1222, and
    Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays' Water Pollution
    Control and Estuary Restoration Act, H.R. 2374, provides a
    significant start to ensure that a comprehensive national
    strategy for estuarine protection is put in place.
        The American Oceans Campaign joins other leading estuarine
    protection organizations across the Nation in support of the
    Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, the bill that
    Curtis Spalding has so eloquently discussed today. The bill
    would greatly improve efforts to restore estuarine habitats. In
    particular, I am very supportive of the call for the creation
    of a collaborative council that will direct a national
    estuarine habitat restoration strategy.
        Rather than echo the comments of Senators, Curt, and
    others, I would like to spend much of my time discussing the
    National Estuary Program and H.R. 2374. Since the creation of
    the NEP in 1987, 28 nationally significant estuaries have been
    the focus of intense study and planning. Community leaders in
    these particular estuaries have collaboratively crafted
    comprehensive estuarine management plans, called CCMPs, that
    are designed to restore their local estuary. Seventeen of the
    twenty-eight estuaries have approved CCMPs and local
    communities are hard at work to implement their plans. However,
    most communities are finding implementation a challenge.
        H.R. 2374, the Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill, corrects the
    most glaring weakness of the National Estuary Program----the
    lack of consistent, adequate Federal funds to assist States and
    localities in implementing approved estuary plans. This bill is
    very similar to bills introduced in the Senate in previous
    years by Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, D'Amato, and Dodd.
        The Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill will strengthen protections
    for estuaries by requiring implementation of approved estuarine
    management plans. It assures a more sizable and dependable
    Federal funding source for NEP implementation activities. The
    bill increases authorization levels for the Clean Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998,
    gradually increasing this level to $4 billion in fiscal year
    2004. The bill requires that States with approved estuarine
    plans set aside a percentage of the SRF increases for
    implementing approved plans.
        To be part of the National Estuary Program an estuary is
    determined to be nationally significant. It should therefore be
    in the national interest to ensure that plans to restore these
    waters are fully implemented. The Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill,
    by establishing a dependable source of Federal funds to help
    States implement CCMPs, substantially advances efforts to clean
    estuaries and restore estuarine habitat.
        The NEP is also the focus of the National Estuary
    Conservation Act, S. 1321, introduced by Senator Torricelli. S.
    1321 allows NEP grants to be used to develop and implement
    CCMPs and increases authorized levels for the NEP to $50
    million a year. Senator Torricelli's bill is a stride in the
    right direction. However, the bill could potentially create
    additional hurdles for the NEP. First, the annual Federal
    allocation of $50 million to be divided among 28 programs for
    both planning and implementation purposes is not a sufficient
    level to ensure substantial progress in implementing priority
    actions of CCMPs.
        Second, the bill could create conflicts between newer
    programs still developing their CCMPs and older programs
    needing funds for implementation. Just as current
    authorizations for the NEP are routinely targeted for earmarks,
    it is highly likely that the additional funds will also be
    earmarked for special estuarine projects, thereby squeezing
    dollars from programs still developing their plans.
        Finally, I'm concerned that with additional NEP grant
    dollars available, EPA might succumb to pressure to use
    portions of the increased authorizations to add new local
    programs rather than fund implementation of existing ones.
        In conclusion, it is time for the United States to
    establish a comprehensive national strategy for estuarine
    protection. The beginnings of a strategy are already in place.
    Local estuarine programs of the NEP have identified numerous
    priority actions needed for cleaning estuaries and restoring
    habitats. In addition, coastal communities, States, and
    nonprofits like Save the Bay and Chesapeake Bay Foundation have
    initiated successful estuarine habitat restoration projects and
    have identified several more projects needing immediate
    attention.
        I encourage this committee to mark up a comprehensive
    estuarine protection bill that includes both the Chafee and the
    Lowey, DeLauro, Shays bill. This comprehensive bill would
    foster beneficial estuarine habitat restoration activities,
    augment efforts to minimize water quality impairment from both
    polluted runoff and point sources, encourage broad-scale
    meaningful public participation, and increase Federal financial
    contributions to ensure estuaries will remain special
    productive places in the future.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Morton.
        One of the problems that comes up constantly is nonpoint
    source pollution, particularly with agricultural runoff, which
    I think you touched on, Dr. Burkholder, and others have
    likewise. What can we do about that, Dr. Burkholder? We don't
    want to get in a conflict with the farmers and yet there's no
    question but the agricultural runoff is a very serious thing. I
    think Mr. Spalding touched on it, too. Got any suggestions?
        Ms. Burkholder. I think that we should develop some very
    strong incentive programs we have not developed in the past,
    and also we need to enforce the legislation we already have in
    place to try to control nonpoint pollution. Often when we try
    to enforce it, we find that we haven't really given the
    polluters the recourse to be able to follow best management
    practices or the existing laws.
        So, as I mentioned earlier, I think we need not only to
    enforce the legislation that we have, but also to develop much
    better incentive programs that are backed by appropriate
    funding for, for example, the little farmers in the middle of a
    concentrated animal operation situation to be able to do better
    in handling waste.
        Senator Chafee. I think handling the waste is one thing. In
    other words, you talked about incentives. I suppose a form of
    incentive would be to help contribute to the farmers to build
    some holding ponds of some type. That's OK for the waste to
    attempt to control the waste. But what do you do with the
    fertilizer that they put on their fields, the pesticides and so
    forth, plus the manure that they scatter on their fields which
    they done from time immemorial?
        Ms. Burkholder. Again, there are a lot of things that are
    being tried right now in my own State. One is to do much better
    in trying to figure out how to make value-added products of the
    wastes so, instead of spraying them or putting them on fields,
    we can market them in some way. The current practices that we
    have, for all their best intentions, often still treat wastes
    just as wastes, so there has to be somewhere to put them,
    somewhere to get rid of them and waters have always been a
    repository.
        So we need much, much more innovative methods to turn these
    into value-added products. Some of those technique applications
    and research efforts are being tried but they need a lot more
    support. A lot of the research that I talked about I don't even
    do, so it's certainly not anything that would benefit my
    laboratory but it is research that would benefit the country
    because we have such a burgeoning problem with animal wastes in
    certain areas and with urban runoff as well.
        There should be other incentives that we can try. Tax
    incentives are commonly done and there are some innovative
    funding things that we could do that. For instance in my State,
    we don't even have an environmental license plate like some
    States do. So, some very easy things that would really help to
    get some funding into these sorts of programs could be done.
        Senator Chafee. Any thoughts, Mr. Spalding?
        Mr. Spalding. Yes, I do, Senator. One of the best examples
    of an approach for dealing with nonpoint source pollution comes
    from your home State, in fact in a city you're familiar with.
    The city of Warwick ran something called the Greenwich Bay
    Initiative. Greenwich Bay was suffering severely from nonpoint
    pollution----failing septic systems, farms, those sorts of
    things----and through a comprehensive watershed approach,
    they've done great things. It was demonstrated this past month.
    We've had this unbelievable amount of rain in Rhode Island, as
    you know, and nonpoint pollution closed the beaches all the way
    down the Bay. Well, Greenwich Bay's beaches came back much
    faster than people thought and I think in large part because of
    the work that had been done there on a watershed basis.
        Buffer zones can be built. Restoration of marshes can be
    part of that strategy in the long run, because marshes have the
    capacity to filter pollutants coming off of farms and open
    spaces such as golf courses and parks. In our Rhode Island
    context, we don't have nearly the farmland they have in North
    Carolina. So with a watershed approach that is accountable----
    it's very important for all of us to remember we've got to meet
    the goals and objectives. You can't say let's just plan, plan,
    plan and not get things done.
        Senator Chafee. I think one of the things they did in that
    Greenwich Bay was also to provide assistance to those who had
    poor septic systems, didn't they?
        Mr. Spalding. Absolutely right. Several innovative ideas
    such as wastewater management districts. In fact, we used some
    EPA support to connect people to existing interceptors. In that
    situation you had sewer lines that people were not connecting
    to. So there's a number of opportunities.
        The big solution though was that there was a farm that was
    a problem. They pinpointed it and gave assistance to the
    farmer; dealt with some waste management problems, and also
    worked on a long term acquisition strategy with this farmer so
    that his land can stay open but also be better managed.
        Senator Chafee. OK. Thank you all very, very much. Dr.
    Milon, I'm familiar with your area. My father-in-law for years
    and years sent us oranges from Indian River.
        Mr. Milon. Indian River Lagoon. Yes, that's the same one.
        Senator Chafee. Indian River Orchards. So I look on Indian
    River with great favorability.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Chafee. Thank you all very much.
        Now we'll have Panel III, Mr. Xavier Romeu and Dr. Juan
    Martinez-Cruzado.
        Mr. Romeu, welcome. And I believe you have the Majority
    Leader of the Senate with you.
        Mr. Romeu. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Majority
    Leader of the Senate of Puerto Rico to accompany me.
        Senator Chafee. Maybe you could just introduce him.
        Mr. Romeu. Charles Rodriquez is the President of the Senate
    of Puerto Rico who has travelled here specifically on the
    particular legislation before the committee.
        Senator Chafee. Fine. Thank you. Glad you're here. I
    understand that you had to go to particular effort to get here
    because of the strike you're having down there in Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romeu. Everything is under control, Senator.
        Senator Chafee. Good. OK. Proceed, if you would.

      STATEMENT OF XAVIER ROMEU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO
     FEDERAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION, ON BEHALF OF PERFECTO OCASIO,
     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTHORITY,
       SAN JUAN, PR; ACCOMPANIED BY: HON. CHARLES A. RODRIQUEZ,
     PRESIDENT, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO AND HAGUB SHAHABIAN, ENGINEER

        Mr. Romeu. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. My name is Xavier Romeu. I am the executive director
    of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, essentially
    known as the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico in the
    continental United States. I appear before you today on behalf
    of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, better known
    as PRASA, the public corporation that serves almost all of the
    3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico with portable
    water and wastewater services. PRASA's executive director,
    Perfecto Ocasio, as has been noted, was unable to travel last
    night. Please excuse his unforeseen unavoidable absence from
    this important hearing.
        We appreciate your understanding and willingness to
    consider our views. I thank you for giving me the opportunity
    to comment on the need for this legislation which would benefit
    the environment and the economy of Puerto Rico. Also with me is
    Dr. Hagub Shahabian, a distinguished engineer with an expertise
    in hydrology and wastewater treatment issues.
        First, I would like to present to the committee a letter
    from Governor Pedro Rossello urging quick Senate action on H.R.
    2207, as a matter of urgent importance to the people of Puerto
    Rico. I understand also that Congressman Romero- Barcelo has
    submitted a letter of support for the record. As you know,
    Congressman Barcelo was instrumental in passing this
    legislation in the House. He could not attend the hearing today
    due to prior engagements which required his presence also in
    Puerto Rico.
        Under Section 301(h) of the 1977 Clean Water Act, coastal
    communities, including islands, were given the opportunity to
    apply for an alternative to the requirements of secondary
    treatment for ocean discharges that met stringent environmental
    equivalency requirements. All applications were initially
    required to be submitted to the EPA by December 31, 1982. PRASA
    submitted seven applications. Of those seven, six were
    tentatively approved; only one, the Mayaguez treatment plant
    outfall, was denied finally in 1994. The application was
    rejected because of the location of the outfall in the
    sensitive coral environment of Mayaguez Bay.
        H.R. 2207, passed by the House last October, would allow
    Puerto Rico to apply to the EPA for authority under Section
    301(h) of the Clean Water Act to construct a new, state-of-the-
    art deep ocean outfall at a location that avoids this sensitive
    coral environment of Mayaguez Bay. This would be an alternative
    to secondary treatment at the current outfall location in
    Mayaguez Bay.
        This option is specifically embodied, as was noted before,
    in a recent Consent Decree between the EPA and PRASA, which
    resolves essentially a 15 year old legal dispute. The Consent
    Decree, supported by EPA and PRASA, requires PRASA to meet a
    detailed schedule for the construction of facilities necessary
    to achieve compliance with all of the requirements of the Clean
    Water Act.
        As is known, the Decree provides two alternatives. One is
    the construction of a traditional secondary treatment plant, at
    a high cost and energy consumption, which will continue to
    discharge effluents into the Mayaguez Bay. The second
    alternative, illustrated in the accompanying chart, is the
    construction of a deep water ocean outfall sending primary
    treated effluents several miles offshore into deep ocean
    currents, thus relieving the stress on the Bay and its
    sensitive coral ecosystems. The deep water outfall would be
    less expensive to build and much less expensive to operate than
    a secondary treatment plant. EPA would determine whether the
    deep ocean outfall meets all Clean Water standards. However,
    because of the urgent need for a solution, the Consent Decree
    permits EPA consideration of the outfall alternative only if
    Congress authorizes the approach by August 1, 1998. Therefore
    time is of the essence.
        The current legislation provides Puerto Rico the same
    opportunity that Congress has given other coastal communities
    in unique situations to implement Section 301(h). The bill does
    not in any way change any applicable standards of the Clean
    Water Act. Without authority to submit a waiver application to
    the EPA, PRASA may be required to spend millions of dollars for
    a secondary treatment plant that will have no beneficial effect
    on the stressed marine environment of Mayaguez Bay. These funds
    could be used for the renovation and upgrade of Puerto Rico's
    water facilities infrastructure and other water supply
    treatment and wastewater projects urgently needed in the island
    of Puerto Rico.
        Indeed, just last month, the President issued an Executive
    Order on Coral Reef Protection. The legislation also provides
    Congress and the EPA with an early opportunity to further the
    goals of this initiative. That order which is designed to
    protect and preserve coral reef ecosystems requires all Federal
    agencies to use their authorities to reduce impact on affected
    environments from pollution and sedimentation. H.R. 2207 will
    allow EPA the opportunity to determine whether a deep ocean
    outfall can protect the Bay.
        Without this bill, EPA and PRASA have no options except an
    immediate and inordinately expensive one, a course of action
    that would continue pollution and sedimentation of the coral
    ecosystem. This bill does not authorize construction of a deep
    ocean outfall. It will simply allow us to conclude the
    necessary studies and complete an application for EPA review.
        Indeed, PRASA is already proceeding to ensure a thorough
    environmental review of all options under Law No. 9, Puerto
    Rico's local equivalent of the National Environment Policy Act.
    PRASA and the Puerto Rico Environment Quality Board are
    preparing an environmental impact statement. A draft EIS was
    completed in April recommending a deep ocean outfall as
    environmentally preferable. A copy of the EIS is being
    submitted to the committee. The entire EIS record will be
    available to EPA as it considers the strict standards of
    Section 301(h).
        There are precedents for limited amendment to Section
    301(h). The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
    amendments of 1981 included a provision that specifically
    permitted the city of Avalon, California to file. The 1981
    provision concluded, ``Failure to broaden eligibility risks
    requiring treatment for treatment's sake involving the
    expenditure of funds which would better be used to achieve
    additional water quality benefits elsewhere.'' This bill does
    not grant variances. It simply allows variances to be sought
    with the burden on the applicant to make his case on
    environmental grounds.
        The Water Quality Act of 1987 also included a specific
    provision for the Irvine Ranch Water District, a California
    public agency, that permitted the district to file for a
    Section 301(h) waiver. More recently, in 1994, Congress passed
    H.R. 5176, which allowed the city of San Diego to apply for a
    waiver under Section 301(h) within 180 days of enactment. This
    action precisely parallels the provision here.
        The Government of Puerto Rico urges the committee to act
    quickly. A legislative solution must be in place before August
    1, 1998. This will allow us to put to rest years of litigation
    and focus our energies and capital resources on implementing an
    environmentally sound solution for Mayaguez and other urgent
    priorities.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you for
    your time and consideration of this important issue for Puerto
    Rico.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much for that testimony.
        Now, Dr. Juan Martinez-Cruzado.

        STATEMENT OF JUAN C. MARTINEZ-CRUZADO, PAST PRESIDENT,
      MAYAGUEZANOS FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, INC., ON BEHALF OF
    ROBERTO PEREZ-COLON, PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY OF MAYAGUEZ,
                              MAYAGUEZ, PR

        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. Good morning.
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. I am Dr. Juan Carlos Martinez-
    Cruzado, former president of and spokesperson for Mayaguezanos
    for Health and Environment. We thank this committee very much
    for this opportunity to express our views to you even though we
    are not constituents of any of you. I am giving my testimony on
    behalf of the Mayor of the city of Mayaguez, Mayaguezanos for
    Health and Environment, and a Legal Cologica de Rincon. We
    prepared one copy of this package for each member of this
    committee. It includes our testimonies, a letter of support
    from most of the major environmental groups here on the
    mainland, and other important materials. My statement will
    differ a little bit from the written testimony.
        In Mayaguez, we hold our Bay in very high regard and dream
    of the day in which we may be able again to swim in it without
    skin rashes, ear infections, and other ailments. We must stress
    for the record that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the
    Virgin Islands is categorized by indifference and negligence
    and a much less pro-environmental position than is generally
    the case on the mainland. The agency's handling of 301(h)
    waivers is a very good example.
        Since that provision was----
        Senator Chafee. Doctor, could I hold up 1 minute here. I
    want to make certain I have your testimony. I lost you there.
    Are you speaking from this testimony that you submitted?
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. I submitted that testimony on behalf
    of Mayaguezanos for Health and Environment. The problem is that
    Victor Negrone, from the Council of the city of Mayaguez----
        Senator Chafee. Yes, I've got a copy of the Mayor's letter
    here.
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. I am speaking on behalf of both.
        Senator Chafee. But I was just trying to get what you were
    working from. OK. I think I have it here. Go ahead, please.
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. Thank you. We must address for the
    record that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
    Islands is characterized by indifference and negligence and a
    much less pro-environmental position than is generally the case
    on the mainland. The agency's handling of 301(h) waivers is a
    very good example. Since that provision was first added to the
    Act in 1977, more than 200 applications for waivers were
    submitted. EPA has made its final determinations on all but
    seven of those applications. Not coincidentally, the remaining
    seven are all in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. In the
    meantime, partially treated sewage continues to be dumped into
    the Caribbean and the Atlantic.
        As Hispanics, we are very aware of discrimination by EPA.
    So we were very pleased that President Clinton signed an
    Executive Order on Environmental Justice in 1993. However, the
    problem remains a very real one for us. After all, we do not
    believe that there has ever been any other Consent Decree but
    that of Mayaguez in which EPA agrees to sit on the law for 1
    year explicitly to give the defendant a chance to weaken the
    law that EPA is called on to enforce. We cannot, and we do not,
    trust EPA.
        Because of the Mayaguez sewage treatment plant's
    noncompliance, EPA has imposed a moratorium on new sewer
    hookups. This is depressing our economy. There is a deficit of
    new housing that has been built in Mayaguez since 1993. Because
    of this, there is a dire need for low and middle income housing
    in our municipality. Many persons have moved away to nearby
    towns, thereby affecting our economy.
        Even though EPA concluded 7 years ago----seven years ago--
    --that the water of Mayaguez Bay was already so stressed and no
    further impairment could be tolerated, PRASA is still
    discharging the same barely treated wastewater at the same site
    and causing the same effects on our beaches and corals. Tourism
    along the entire Bay coastline is the lowest in 10 years. No
    seaside recreational development has occurred in the past 10
    years. The city's own plans to develop a promenade along the
    beachfront have been postponed due to the water's dirty
    appearance and foul smell. This has stymied our efforts to
    replace decreasing industrial employment opportunities with
    tourist related jobs.
        And here we are now considering turning the clock back to
    1979 and giving PRASA another opportunity to engage in a long
    301(h) waiver application procedure. The people of Mayaguez,
    who are sick of waiting for action, can only regard this bill
    as an excuse to keep doing nothing about the sewage in
    Mayaguez, and an attempt to condemn our city and our corals to
    a slow death.
        The people's desire for a quick solution to this discharge
    is so great that even the Governor of Puerto Rico went out of
    his way in October 1996 1 month before the general elections to
    promise to the people of Mayaguez the start of the construction
    of a secondary treatment plant by July last year. That promise,
    however, proved to be an empty one.
        Last May PRASA prepared an environmental impact statement
    for the deep ocean outfall. PRASA put in writing and on the map
    the proposed point and depth of discharge. The depth is 400
    feet, not 600, and it is within, not under, the pignocline,
    suggesting that the wastewaters will float to the surface
    rather than stay in the depths.
        Hence, the proposed discharge will impact the beaches of
    Rincon and Anyasco to the North, well known as tourists spots
    for the surfing activities, as well as a major coral reef that
    will be located a mile from the point of discharge. The
    discharge will be very close to the point where the continental
    shelf drops off. This area provides critical habitat to massive
    populations of fish larvae and is thus a cornerstone of the
    local fishery. As a result, opposition to this bill is quickly
    growing in all sections of society in the neighboring
    municipalities of Anyasco and Rincon.
        The statement made by EPA that they believe that a
    discharge will occur at a depth of 600 feet threatens our
    belief that this application will eventually be denied. Twelve
    years of sewer hook-up moratorium and almost raw sewage being
    discharged within our Bay so that this mediocre solution may be
    considered smells like very bad business for Mayaguez.
        On the other hand, an engineering company has made public a
    proposal for secondary treatment followed with discharge to
    existing wetlands for natural tertiary treatment. Land
    application of secondarily treated wastewater will be less
    expensive than deep ocean disposal and will remove all
    discharges from the sea.
        It is crystal clear that the deep ocean outfall is the
    worst possible solution to a fairly straightforward problem.
    When Congress structured its 301(h) waiver opportunity in 1977,
    they did it so with the clear understanding that the
    opportunity to seek such waiver would expire in 5 years. In
    other words, even where a sewage plant operator can persuade
    EPA that it complies with all of the criteria found in the law,
    no application for such a waiver could be accepted after
    December 31, 1982. On that day, the door closed. Why? Because
    Congress recognized that there is something profoundly wrong
    with dumping barely treated waste into the sea. On this, the
    92d Congress' idea turns out to be right. The 105th Congress
    will make a grave mistake by reopening that door.
        If the bill is not enacted, secondary treatment will be in
    operation by 2001 according to the terms of the Consent Decree.
    Even though secondary treatment may not provide full relief to
    corals, it is a step toward a tertiary treatment which will
    provide adequate protection for the reefs. More importantly, it
    will permit lifting of the sewer hook-up moratorium that is
    depressing the economy of Mayaguez.
        We urge you please to let H.R. 2207 die. Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Doctor.
        Now as I understand, Dr. Martinez-Cruzado, what Mr. Romeu
    and others are saying is that they just want the opportunity to
    apply for the waiver to EPA. If I understood correctly, that
    seemed to be what the proposition was. Now what's the matter
    with that, just letting PRASA make the application?
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. The main problem is time. It took EPA
    12 years to deny PRASA's application for Mayaguez, from 1979 to
    1991. If this bill is approved, if this application goes
    through, we may very well expect 12 more years of the
    application procedure. Those are 12 more years there will be
    the moratorium on the sewer hook-up and 12 more years of this
    sewage being discharged right in front of our corals with
    barely treated sewage. That is totally unacceptable for us. It
    is really a matter of time. We understand a secondary treatment
    will make it much better and will be a right step to our
    tertiary treatment which will provide adequate protection for
    the corals.
        Senator Chafee. I will put in the record here the letter
    from the mayor, Mayor Rodriguez, written July 6, addressed to
    me. And then he had some testimony that he submitted and we'll
    put that in the record, too.
        [The referenced letter and testimony of Mayor Rodriguez
    follow:]
        Senator Chafee. Now, isn't there a Consent Decree that
    PRASA is meant to go to a secondary treatment by 2001, Doctor?
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. That is unless this bill passes. If
    this bill passes, it opens the door for a 301(h) waiver
    application, and in that case it does not have to construct the
    secondary treatment plant by October 31. And I was very
    distressed to see in the written testimony of EPA today, they
    didn't read it but it is in the written testimony, that they
    are very short of resources to look at this 301(h) waiver
    application, if this bill is approved. They recognize there are
    corals off the Bay and that they will have to analyze it in
    light of the recent Clinton Executive Order on Coral Reef
    Protection. So that is telling us they are already giving
    excuses for how long they will take to analyze this proposal
    which, in fact, we find has quite a few weaknesses.
        So we are very worried that this application, if it ever
    happens, will take very easily 12 more years. And we are not
    willing to wait for that long. Our economy is depressed. We are
    losing millions of dollars, and I speak at this time for the
    city of Mayaguez, and we are not willing to go through that
    again.
        Mr. Romeu. Senator?
        Senator Chafee. Mr. Romeu, what do you say to the argument
    that Dr. Martinez-Cruzado has made that this is a delaying
    action? As I understand, you've applied twice before for
    waivers and have been turned down both times. And now you want
    to get special permission to try again. What's the answer to
    that?
        Mr. Romeu. Senator, the Government of Puerto Rico expects
    to move expeditiously in this area. In fact, the legislature of
    Puerto Rico has passed a concurrent resolution which I believe
    has been furnished to the members of the committee.
        Also, I would like to make two quick comments. There are at
    least two assumptions in the testimony of my colleague. One is
    that the secondary treatment plant will be a much better
    situation than the one that we are proposing. And we propose
    that it is for the EPA to make that decision, not for the
    committee, very respectfully. The other one is that the
    secondary treatment plant will be built by December 2001. There
    is no guarantee of that and, in fact, the testimony of an EPA
    official before me seemed to cast doubt on the feasibility of
    that.
        So on both counts, on the quality of the alternative, and
    the timeliness of what the Government of Puerto Rico intends to
    do, I believe that my colleague is incorrect. In any event, I
    believe that that is a determination to be made by the EPA
    which will review the waiver application fully and will make a
    determination.
        Senator Chafee. If I understand, his arguments are that
    this thing can be dragged out forever. I guess your colleague
    mentioned a 12 year period that this has gone on.
        Mr. Romeu. We have no such intention. And as a good faith
    show that we do not have that intention, we have already
    prepared an environmental impact statement, as I mentioned
    previously in my testimony.
        With the Senator's permission, can the Senator of the
    Senate of Puerto Rico make a brief statement for the record?
        Senator Chafee. Sure. But it has to be rather brief. If he
    would like to, fine. Step right up to the table.

     STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, SENATE OF
                              PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Rodriguez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    very much. For the record, my name is Charles Rodriguez. I am
    the President of the Senate of Puerto Rico.
        Senator Chafee. We welcome a fellow Senator. Who can keep a
    fellow Senator from making a few remarks.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Senate of
    Puerto Rico, we are very much concerned with the situation that
    is occurring in the West Coast of Puerto Rico. The city of
    Mayaguez, the municipalities of Ormegueros, Cabal Rojo, and
    Anyasco have their economic rebuilding totally in halt because
    of this problem we have with the water treatment plant. That is
    the reason we have been supporting this alternative before you
    in this legislation, because we believe that at least it gives
    the opportunity to submit to the EPA this alternative which
    they will have to review, and they will review it to see that
    it will satisfy the environmental requirements that EPA will
    obviously be seeking for it to be implemented with this
    alternative.
        We want to see this passed through because we in the Puerto
    Rican Senate are going to be overseeing our local public
    corporation to see that, if this is approved and the EPA goes
    on to approve this alternative also of the deep water ocean
    outfall, we will be obviously overseeing the process. We are
    willing even to be submitted to a timetable that EPA may well
    introduce in its authorization of the construction of this
    alternative. And we will see that it is complied with.
        So I must say that, as the U.S. Senate does and the other
    senates of the 50 States, the Senate of the Territory of Puerto
    Rico will be overseeing this and looking to see that the
    construction of this project becomes a reality, because we have
    to deal with the problem of the West Coast of Puerto Rico and
    we have this pledge to the people of that part of the island.
        Senator Chafee. Fine. All right, concluding statement. Go
    ahead, Dr. Martinez-Cruzado.
        Mr. Martinez-Cruzado. Well, as has been said, this will
    depend on how fast EPA analyzes this. And EPA has said that it
    is short of resources. I really don't want to put EPA in a
    position where it will be pressed to approve a proposal that
    puts the discharge in the pignocline where it may surface. We
    are very much concerned that this either would take a long,
    long time, or that it will take some time and bring to a
    solution that is unacceptable and that the discharge treated
    will float and impact the corals.
        So we are really getting into a box here that it is not
    good at all. We understand that there is already a Consent
    Decree in the Federal court and it says there has to be the
    secondary treatment plant operational by December 31, 2001.
    Operational. There are fines to be put in place if it is not.
    But that goes only if this bill dies.
        Senator Chafee. All right. Fine. Thank you all very much.
    We appreciate your coming all the way up from Puerto Rico.
    We'll try to move quickly on this.
        That concludes the hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the chair.]
        [The texts of S. 1222, S. 1321, H.R. 2207, and statements
    submitted for the record follow:]

    Statement of Hon. Lauch Faircloth, U.S. Senator from the State of North
                                    Carolina
                  s. 1222, the estuary habitat restoration act
        Two years ago, the North Carolina Coastal Federation asked me to
    support what is now S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Act. I
    understand that Melvin Shepard, the president of the Coastal Federation
    is here today. Melvin, I hope you'll let the folks back in Nor&
    Carolina know what I'm about to say.
        Although I have spent a good part of my life in and around the
    coastal sounds and rivers of North Carolina, until I started looking at
    the merits of this bill I did not fully realize just how important
    these waters are to my State and the nation.
        We've got 2.2 million acres of estuaries in North Carolina. Our
    commercial and recreational fishing industry is dependent upon these
    waters. More than 90 percent of North Carolina's commercially important
    species of fish and shellfish spend part of their lives in the state's
    estuaries.
        I'm also proud to say that nearly 50 percent of the seafood caught
    on the east coast of the United States depends on North Carolina's
    estuaries. In short, our ability to have seafood in this nation depends
    upon main healthy and productive coastal waters.
        This bill will enable communities to get to work restoring degraded
    estuaries across this country.
        It is vital that we target needed resources to restore and preserve
    our Nation's estuaries. The goal of the bill is ambitious--to restore
    one million acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010. We want to
    restore 100,000 acres in North Carolina alone.
        S. 1222 sets out new, innovative ways of making this happen. It
    will help our communities restore habitat critical to preserving our
    nation's estuaries.
        The bill also is important because it sets out a new way of
    building genuine partnerships between our communities, our states and
    the Federal Government.
        It makes sure that we listen to our citizens; build from what we
    know; coordinate and streamline existing programs; and most important,
    target limited resources in a cost-effective manner.
        The level of support the bill has received speaks well of the
    potential value of the legislation to so many American coastal
    communities, and says a great deal about the stature of Senator Chafee,
    as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and
    of his work on behalf of the environment.
        I am committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, committee
    members, and fellow cosponsors to move S. 1222 this year.
        Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that we move this
    estuary bill as a part of the Water Resources Development Act
    reauthorization, to ensure that it gets done this year.
        I believe this would make sense since the estuary bill makes the
    Army Corps of Engineers the lead agency in estuary restoration.
        We need to make sure S. 1222 is a part of the reauthorization. If
    we don't, a good bill--one that builds bipartisan bridges as it
    restores our estuaries--will get devoured in the larger and much more
    charged debate about the Clean Water Act next year.
        Lastly, I wish to welcome Dr. Joann Burkholder of N.C. State
    University, who will be testifying here today. Dr. Burkholder is well
    known to most of you as one of the nation's leading research
    scientists, and is one of the discoverers of the Pfiesteria microbe.
    She will be testifying to the serious consequences which can flow from
    degraded estuaries. Joann, it's good to have you here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

    Statement of Hon. John Breaux, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana
        I'd like to thank the Chairman of the committee, Senator John
    Chafee, for this opportunity to address the committee and I am pleased
    to join him at today's hearing on the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration
    Partnership Act of 1997.'' I want to commend him for his leadership on
    this issue. I also appreciate the 25 other Senators who have joined us
    as co-sponsors of this bill so that we may draw national attention to
    the significant value of the Nation's estuaries and the need to restore
    them.
        This bill seeks to create a voluntary, community driven, incentive-
    based program which builds partnerships between Federal, state and
    local governments and the private sector to restore estuaries,
    including sharing in the cost of restoration projects.
        Some relevant and eye-opening statistics about estuaries which have
    been published include:
         75 percent of commercial fish and shellfish which are
    harvested in the U.S. and 80-90 percent of the recreational fish catch
    depend upon estuary habitat at some life stage.
         The rapid and significant loss of estuary habitat,
    reaching over 90 percent in some areas, threatens the commercial and
    sport fishing industries, tourism, recreation, and other industries.
    These industries provide jobs to about 28 million U.S. citizens.
    Fishing alone contributes $111 billion to the U.S. economy per year.
         In my own State of Louisiana, fish and wildlife resources
    are estimated to bring $5.7 billion into the economy yearly.
    Louisiana's coast produces 16 percent of the commercial harvest
    fisheries in the U.S.
         40 percent of the wild fur harvest in the U.S. comes from
    Louisiana's wetlands.
        With estuaries and coastal regions being home to about half of the
    U.S. population, and with coastal counties growing 3 times faster than
    counties elsewhere, it is obvious that the ecological and economic
    impact of estuary losses must be taken seriously and must be addressed.
        In Louisiana, our estuaries, such as the Ponchartrain, Barataria-
    Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems are vital to the culture and
    economy of local communities. When the Acadian people migrated to
    Louisiana in the 1700's, they settled there because of the abundance of
    natural resources along its coastal wetlands. The lifestyle and jobs of
    many Louisianians continues to be centered around these resources,
    which are as much a part of its culture as its economy.
        I am proud:
         that Louisiana has been at the forefront of the movement
    to recognize the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to
    restore them, in particular the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
         that the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary is one of 28
    estuaries in the National Estuary Program.
         of the advanced level of the work Louisiana is conducting
    in its coastal areas, including the development and implementation of a
    federally approved coastal wetlands conservation plan.
        It is time now for Congress to implement a strategy whereby public
    and private partnerships may be used to ensure that estuaries remain
    ecologically and economically vibrant for future generations through
    restoration projects.
        Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I again want to thank you for your
    leadership and look forward to working with you and other Senators on
    this critical piece of environmental legislation. Because estuaries are
    an important national resource, bringing real dollars to our economy
    and affecting the lives, the safety, and the well-being of people all
    over this nation, I am hopeful that the Congress will move in a timely
    manner to authorize an effective estuary restoration program which will
    result in healthy and viable ecosystems.
                                     ______

      Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator from the State of
                                   Louisiana
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to comment
    today on an important measure before the Committee on Environment and
    Public Works--S. 1222, ``The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
    Act of 1997.''
        This significant legislation recognizes the cultural and economic
    importance of estuary habitats as a natural resource. We have learned
    from the past that protective measures are not enough. In addition to
    protection we must emphasize the education and restoration of estuary
    habitats. By creating Federal/State partnership programs I believe this
    bill is a major step in the right direction toward ensuring a
    sustainable resource base for the future.
        In Louisiana alone we are home to one of the nation's largest
    productive estuaries, the Barataria/Terrebonne estuary, which covers
    over four million acres. Estuaries are the building blocks for the
    coastal areas of my State. From a wildlife and fisheries standpoint
    estuaries contribute nearly $6 billion to Louisiana's economy. In
    addition, they provide nursery grounds for fisheries across the Gulf of
    Mexico. Finally, estuaries are the basis for a growing industry,
    ecotourism. For these and other reasons coordinated efforts are vital
    to the continued viability of our nation's coastlines.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

    Statement of Hon. Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator from the State of
                                   New Jersey
        Thank you Chairman Chafee for the opportunity to appear before the
    committee and for your cosponsorship of S. 1321. I would also like to
    thank Senators Lautenberg, Moynihan, Graham, Lieberman, and Boxer for
    their cosponsorship of the bill as well.
        Today we stand at a crossroads in our national coastal policy.
    After years of Federal involvement, we are becoming lax in maintaining
    a consistent level of investment in our nation's coastlines.
        Our coasts are an integral part of our national infrastructure. As
    we approach the next century, we must treat them like our roads,
    schools, and technology, as the foundation of economic development, job
    creation, and current prosperity.
        Since the creation of the Beach and Erosion Board in the 1 930's
    the Federal Government has taken an active role in preserving our
    beaches.
        Yet the Administration sees things differently and has even ignored
    the intent of Congress on the Federal role established 12 years ago.
        Even though the 1986 Water Resources Development Act established
    the current funding format where the Federal Government pays 65 percent
    of beach replenishment projects, the Administration's 1998 proposal
    turned the relationship on its head by reducing the Federal share to 35
    percent of the renourishment phase (which is typically 80-85 percent of
    the project cost.)
        Beach replenishment is but one example of the lapse of the Federal
    commitment to our coastline. I trust the Committee, with the help of
    the senior Senator from New Jersey, will rectify this issue as they
    consider the Water Resources Development Act.
        However, at this hearing we are examining another equally important
    issue--our nation's estuaries.
        Estuaries are important to the economy for their fish and wildlife
    habitat as well as providing centers for boating and recreational
    activity.
        Seventy-five percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on
    estuaries.
        New Jersey is the leading supplier of surf clams in the Nation with
    one of our most productive clam grounds located in Barnegat Bay
    estuary.
        Our nation's coasts are also a central element of the tourism
    industry which nationally employs 14.4 million people and contributes
    over 10 percent to our GDP, making it the second-largest sector in the
    economy.
        In New Jersey, fishing, boating, and outdoor recreation are
    important components of our $25 billion tourist economy.
        A million fishermen participate in New Jersey's's marine
    recreational fishery.
        With all this economic activity, in addition to land development
    and associated activities it is obvious that, our estuaries are heavily
    used resources under severe environmental pressures.
        Over 400,000 people live in the Barnegat Bay estuary; in the summer
    that number doubles to 800,000.
        There are 1 16 marinas and boat launching sites in the Barnegat Bay
    estuary where one third of New Jersey's boats are registered.
        The popularity of Barnegat Bay has caused non-point source
    pollution from runoff and storm water discharges resulting in blooms of
    brown tide algae in 1995, 1997, and as recently as last month.
        In other estuaries, intense urban development has resulted in major
    pollution sources. There are 730 Combined Sewage Overflows in New York-
    New Jersey Harbor that will take $2-6 billion to correct.
        With all of these pressures, Congress recognized the importance of
    developing a program that would help states and localities plan for
    their protection and restoration.
        The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments established the National
    Estuary Program (NEP) which created a Federal partnership with state
    and local governments to prepare comprehensive management plans for
    estuaries of national significance threatened by pollution.
        Over the years 28 estuaries were designated with 3 in New Jersey.
        The Federal Government would provide funds while the state and
    local governments developed the plans.
        Seventeen of the 28 designated estuaries have completed plans.
        However, the NEP has not been reauthorized since 1991, and today
    the states cannot receive Federal funding to implement their plans.
        The premise behind S. 1321 is simple: the Federal Government must
    continue to support those who have developed plans but are no longer
    eligible for Federal assistance.
        In reauthorizing the NEP at $50 million annually, S. 1321 also
    includes the authority to make grants for plan implementation so those
    with completed plans can receive assistance as well as those who are
    still developing them.
        S. 1321 would insure that the Federal Government lives up to its
    commitment to make investments to protect our nationally significant
    estuaries.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you for your cosponsorship of
    S. 1321 as well as for your sponsorship of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Partnership Act.
        Your support of these bills as well as the Committee's efforts in
    holding hearings today on coastal pollution reduction and estuary
    conservation demonstrate your commitment to solving these problems. I
    look forward to working with you and the Committee on these important
    legislative initiatives.
                                     ______

       Statement of Robert H. Wayland III, Director, Office of Wetlands,
    Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency
        Good morning, I am Robert H. Wayland, Director of the Office of
    Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW) of the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). These hearings come at a propitious time. The United
    States is observing the International Year of the Ocean and examining
    our responsibilities as stewards of ocean and coastal resources. At the
    recent National Oceans Conference in Monterey, the President committed
    to a series of actions in recognition of those responsibilities and
    again pledged the Administration to implement, with assistance from the
    Congress, a Clean Water Action Plan. This Plan, undertaken in
    recognition of the progress made and challenges remaining after a
    quarter century of implementing the Clean Water Act, contains numerous
    actions directed to marine and estuarine protection and restoration.
    These actions have been significantly influenced by our experience over
    the last decade in implementing the National Estuary Program.
        The National Estuary Program, modeled after the Chesapeake Bay and
    Great Lakes Programs, was established by Congress in 1987 to
    demonstrate a new framework to address serious environmental problems
    faced by these valuable ecosystems. Estuaries are particularly
    vulnerable because they often serve as ``sinks'' for pollutants
    originating upstream within the watersheds and the airsheds overlying
    them. In addition, estuaries are directly impacted by human activity--
    well over half the people in this country live, work, or play near the
    coast.
        The NEP seeks to protect and restore the health of estuaries and
    their living resources, and in so doing, the recreation, fishing, and
    other economic activities that take place in or depend on healthy
    estuaries. Just how valuable these activities are is highlighted by
    these facts and figures:
         Coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54
    billion in goods and services every year.
         The coastal recreation and tourism industry is the second
    largest employer in the nation, serving 180 million Americans visiting
    the coasts every year.
         The commercial fish and shellfish industry is also very
    important, contributing $45 billion to the economy every year, while
    recreational fishing contributes $30 billion to the U.S. economy
    annually.
         39.6 percent of the Nation's classified marine shellfish
    areas are in NEP estuaries. 53.4 percent of those have limits on
    harvesting.
         15 percent of the population of the continental US resides
    within NEP coastal watersheds.
         26 percent of the 2.23 million square miles of watershed
    area of the US drains into NEP estuaries.
         Surface water covers 27,858,000 square miles of the
    Nation. NEPs cover 45 percent of that total, or 12,516,00 square miles.
        Although each of the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program
    is unique, many face several common environmental problems and
    challenges. A recent national assessment undertaken by numerous
    stakeholders from each local NEP (including scientists, citizens,
    resource managers, policymakers, and business groups) concluded that
    the most common problems NEPs are dealing with are: 1) nutrient
    overenrichment; 2) pathogen contamination; 3) toxic chemicals; 4)
    alteration of freshwater flow; 5) loss of habitat; 6) declines in fish
    and wildlife; and 7) introduction of invasive species. We have every
    reason to believe that these problems are common to most coastal
    watersheds throughout the United States.
        The impacts of these problems are serious. Pathogens cause
    shellfish bed closures. Nutrient-overenrichment contributes to lower
    dissolved oxygen levels, loss of seagrass and coral habitats, and
    declines in ecosystem health. Introduction of invasive species
    adversely affects native species. Changes in land use and the
    introduction of pollutants and toxic chemicals result in habitat loss
    and declines in water quality and overall ecosystem health.
        The latest data from the National Water Quality Inventory Report to
    Congress (305 (b) Report) shows that as of 1996, almost 40 percent of
    the nation's surveyed estuarine waters are too polluted for basic uses,
    such as fishing and swimming. This information, obtained by the States,
    indicates that serious water quality problems persist nationwide.
        We are all familiar with the impacts of harmful algal blooms.
    Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred in several tributaries to the
    Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina rivers in recent years, resulting in
    fish kills, fish lesions, and suspected human impacts. The death and
    decay of algal blooms can lead to partial oxygen depletion known as
    hypoxia, or total oxygen depletion, known as anoxia, in the water,
    resulting in widespread mortality of fish, shellfish, and
    invertebrates.
        There is evidence that associates these algal blooms with nutrient
    pollution--excess nitrogen and phosphorus--in the water. The sources of
    these pollutants vary widely from one geographic location to another.
    However, in general, we see three significant sources: human waste from
    septic systems and sewage treatment plants; agricultural runoff,
    including fertilizer and animal waste from agricultural operations; and
    air deposition of nitrogen and toxic pollutants from motor vehicles and
    electric utility facilities.
        In some cases nutrient overenrichment of coastal waters leads to
    hypoxia. Hypoxia occurs in many parts of the world, as well as several
    parts of the United States, including the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island
    Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico. For example, on the Gulf of Mexico's
    Texas-Louisiana Shelf, an area of hypoxia forms during the summer
    months covering 6,000 to 7,000 square miles, an area that has doubled
    in size since 1993. This condition is believed to be caused by several
    factors, including: a complex interaction of excessive nutrients
    transported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River; physical
    changes to the river, such as channelization and loss of natural
    wetlands and vegetation along the banks; and the interaction of
    freshwater from the river with saltwater from the Gulf.
        Unlike early approaches to environmental protection that target
    specific pollutants or categories of dischargers, the NEP acknowledges
    that problems affecting our nation's estuaries are exacerbated by
    combined and cumulative impacts of many individual activities and that
    the significance of these activities vary greatly from watershed to
    watershed. The principal causes of nutrient over-enrichment in the
    Albemarle-Pamlico NEP, for example, are agricultural, while in Long
    Island Sound nutrient loadings come from domestic wastewater. In order
    to address watershed-wide concerns, the NEP encourages the use of a
    combination of traditional and nontraditional water quality control
    measures and resource management techniques available through Federal,
    State and local authorities as well as private sector initiatives. The
    NEP has strongly influenced our evolution toward watershed management
    more broadly.
        Currently, 28 National Estuary Programs in 18 States and Puerto
    Rico are demonstrating practical and innovative ways to revitalize and
    protect their estuaries. For example:
         A Heritage Trail System was established by the Sarasota
    NEP to enhance recreational opportunities and increase awareness of
    Sarasota Bay and related cultural, historical, and natural resources.
    The trail provides a tapestry of recreational areas (greenways),
    historical places, cultural and art centers, and scenic waterway
    systems.
         The creation of an island in the San Jose Lagoon, which is
    habitat to numerous birds in San Juan Bay, was made possible by
    coordination among the San Juan Bay NEP, the Corps of Engineers, and
    citizens. The project used debris from a recently constructed bridge.
         The New York/New Jersey Harbor NEP, in coordination with
    the New York City Parks Department, is using funds from the Exxon
    Valdez settlement to re-vegetate park areas and reduce sedimentation
    and erosive runoff in some parks where steep slopes drain into the
    Hudson River.
         The Narragansett Bay Project worked with the Rhode Island
    Department of Environmental Management, the city of Warwick, and Save
    The Bay to reduce bacterial pollution so that Greenwich Bay could be
    re-opened to recreational and commercial shellfishing.
         The Indian River Lagoon NEP is developing and implementing
    pollutant-loadings reduction goals based on the requirements of its
    seagrass ecosystem.
         The Lower Columbia River NEP (OR, WA) is supporting a
    project to develop a stormwater pollution prevention manual and
    associated training program focused on voluntary reduction of
    pollutants from stormwater sources under the direct control of the
    municipality.
         Using the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan as a guidance
    document, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board approved
    a new, basin-wide municipal stormwater NPDES permit. A large
    stakeholder committee was formed to develop permit language and
    numerous public meetings were held, involving many more people than is
    typically the case with an NPDES permit renewal.
         In Tampa Bay, Florida, 4,000 acres of seagrass and 400
    acres of wetlands have been restored.
         The Long Island Sound Study tested two innovative
    wastewater treatment technologies which resulted in a reduction of
    nitrogen loadings into the Sound by 83 percent from one treatment plant
    and 73 percent from another plant.
        One of the cornerstones of the NEP is that management decisions are
    made through an inclusive process involving multiple stakeholders. This
    emphasis on public participation not only ensures a balanced approach
    to resource problems, but encourages local communities to take the lead
    in determining the future of their own estuaries, thus bolstering
    program success through community support.
        At this time, 17 of the 28 NEPs are in the implementation stage.
    One additional program is scheduled to have an approved plan by the end
    of 1998; the approval of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
    (CCMPs) for the 10 remaining programs should occur in 1999. (See
    Attachment 1)
        The NEP approach has been very successful. EPA is working actively
    to ensure that we use what we have learned in these 28 estuaries to
    protect and improve the health of all coastal ecosystems.
                             legislative proposals
        With respect to legislative changes, I would like to emphasize the
    Administration's position supporting comprehensive amendments to the
    Clean Water Act that would strengthen protection of our nation's
    waters.
        That having been said, I would like to turn now to comment briefly
    on S. 1321, the National Estuary Conservation Act; S. 1222, the Estuary
    Habitat Restoration Partnership Act; and H.R. 2207, the Coastal
    Pollution Reduction Act.
    S. 1321--The National Estuary Conservation Act and H.R. 2207, Section 3
        We note that both S. 1321 and H.R. 2207, Section 3, would amend
    Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act and increase the authorization of
    the NEP program. Although the language of the two bills differs, I
    would like to address them together. We would be happy to work with
    committee staff on particular language.
        EPA supports the flexibility that would be provided by giving EPA
    the authority to allow grantees to use Section 320 funds for
    implementation of CCMPs as well as for developing them. We believe it
    is important, however, that State and local governments take primary
    responsibility for implementing CCMP actions, and that, consistent with
    the current law, grants authorized by section 320 not be used as the
    primary source of implementation funds.
        EPA should and does have a role in implementation. Section 320
    provides that CCMPs, once approved by the Administrator, can be
    implemented using funds from other existing Clean Water Act programs
    (notably State Revolving Funds and non-point source grants). Many CCMP
    implementation actions are appropriate for such funding. These programs
    should continue to be the primary source of implementation funds
    authorized under the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Action
    Plan, the Administration has proposed to increase Section 319 grant
    funds to $200 million.
        The process by which the NEPs have achieved success in development
    of the CCMPs has always emphasized public and stakeholder involvement
    and commitment to implementation. EPA guidance provides that the
    implementation action plan specifically state the cost of all actions
    and the parties committed to fund them. Therefore, we support a cost-
    sharing type of requirement. We would welcome the opportunity to work
    with you on the precise language of such a provision that is clear and
    that protects the principle that CCMP implementation is primarily
    funded by sources other than Section 320 grant funds.
        EPA also supports an increase in authorizations over the original
    $12 million, given the increased number of NEPs since the program was
    last authorized (17 programs in FY91 to 28 programs in FY98) and given
    the Administration's budget request of approximately $17 million for
    the program in FY99.
    S. 1222--The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act
        We believe the goals and purposes of S. 1222 are laudable: a
    national goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010;
    better coordination of estuary habitat restoration efforts; better
    leveraging of funds for restoration; linkage of restoration efforts to
    broader ecosystem planning; and followup monitoring of restoration
    projects. Many NEPs have identified the need to actively restore
    degraded habitats, consistent with the CWA's broad goal to ``restore
    and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of our
    Nation's waters.'' And, many NEPs have successfully demonstrated
    habitat restoration techniques. In addition, EPA has gained valuable
    insights in restoration from the experience we and our partners have
    had on the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
    (Breaux Bill) Task Force.
        However, the operational provisions of the Clean Water Act
    currently provide few mechanisms through which to pursue restoration--
    the emphasis is on pollution control. Many waterbodies which fail to
    meet their water quality standards do so because of physical
    alterations to the shoreline or streambed, because wetlands have been
    filled or drained, as a result of once cobbled streambeds silting-in,
    or because past pollution has killed off submerged bay grasses.
    Pollution inputs have often been or will be sufficiently controlled so
    that these areas can once again realize full biological productivity--
    but only if we give nature a hand by re-vegetating the shoreline, or
    bay bottom, removing accumulated silt where appropriate, and re-
    creating habitat for spawning, feeding, and shelter. Many of these bio-
    engineering practices can also help reduce storm surges and flood
    damage potential. S. 1222 would complement other provisions of the
    Clean Water Act and move us in the direction of implementation
    provisions more attuned to the restoration and physical integrity
    aspects of the Clean Water Act goal. Chemical and physical improvements
    are needed to restore the conditions under which aquatic species can
    thrive.
        We would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee staff
    on specific provisions of this bill.
    H.R. 2207--The Coastal Pollution Reduction Act
        Much of our progress toward the CWA goals has been realized through
    the investment of the private sector and local governments in achieving
    near universal compliance with the baseline of technology-driven
    pollution control and prevention requirements: ``Best Available
    Technology'' for industry and ``Secondary Treatment'' for
    municipalities. In the case of the latter these requirements were
    initially supported through the Construction Grant Program and now are
    eligible for loans supported by State Revolving Funds. About $74
    billion in Federal assistance has helped support a wastewater
    infrastructure with a significantly higher replacement value. Since
    1972, the population served by secondary or better wastewater treatment
    has increased from 75 million to 170 million. Secondary treatment is
    not sufficient, however, to achieve the nutrient control needs for such
    waterbodies as Long Island Sound and the Chesapeake Bay where
    relatively shallow, poorly mixed waters are sensitive to nutrient
    inputs from whatever source: wastewater treatment, agricultural run-
    off, lawn fertilizers, or septic systems. Many municipal treatment
    facilities discharging to these and other nutrient-impaired waterbodies
    employ advanced wastewater treatment technology or biological nutrient
    removal.
        It may seem ironic, in light of these circumstances, to be
    discussing an exception to the requirements met by so many communities
    many years ago. However, Congress provided for a narrow waiver from the
    general requirement in section 301(h) for cases where a community
    discharging to ocean waters could demonstrate among other things that
    less-than-secondary treatment would not have significant adverse
    environmental consequences. Few municipalities were eligible for this
    waiver by its very terms. Fewer still sought the waiver. And even fewer
    were able to make the necessary showings and were approved.
        The waiver provision required municipalities to apply by 12/29/82
    and did not provide for reapplication in the event of final denial. The
    CWA provides that application for and pendancy of a waiver application
    does not relieve a discharger from the otherwise applicable secondary
    treatment requirement.
        H.R. 2207 would re-open the window for an application for a deep
    ocean outfall, but would require EPA to apply the same substantive
    standards for considering a waiver that had applied to previous
    applicants (including the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewerage Authority
    (PRASA)) to the owner/operator of the Mayaguez Puerto Rico wastewater
    facility (PRASA). H.R. 2207 would also require PRASA to make a
    financial contribution to a watershed initiative intended to stem run-
    off to the nearshore area.
        PRASA first sought a waiver for the Mayaguez wastewater treatment
    plant to discharge into Mayaguez Bay (not a deep ocean site) in
    September 1979. EPA tentatively denied the application in 1984 and
    1986. A final denial was issued in 1991. The applicant pursued appeals
    which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding EPA's decision in
    February 1995.
        In a Consent Agreement to resolve PRASA's violations of, among
    other things, effluent discharge limits, the Federal Government
    recognized PRASA's intent to seek this legislation but made no
    committment regarding our position on the legislation. While EPA Region
    II has had to increase its resources on waiver issues, nationally we
    have substantantially reduced our resources for evaluating waivers and
    renewals because the application window closed in 12/82. Further, there
    are several coral reefs off Mayaguez, and it is important to note that
    any outfall ultimately approved by EPA will be consistent with new
    Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, announced last month by
    the President at the National Oceans Conference.
        However, we must also note that Mayaguez Bay in general, and the
    coral reefs in particular, are severely stressed. Conditions may be
    such that PRASA may be able to provide information to support a
    decision that, based on construction of a deep ocean outfall, it has
    met the nine part test established in section 301(h). In light of this,
    and given that H.R. 2207 is limited to the Mayaguez wastewater
    treatment plant, includes specific environmental protection
    requirements, and is consistent with the terms of the Mayaguez Consent
    Decree, which gives PRASA until August 1, 1998, to obtain legislation
    allowing it to submit a new Section 301(h) application, EPA neither
    endorses nor opposes H.R. 2207. EPA is generally opposed, however, to
    re-opening the opportunity to seek Section 301(h) waivers, given the
    widespread benefits of secondary treatment and the need to do more to
    control nutrients in many coastal areas.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these
    proposed measures and on EPA efforts to protect our Nation's estuaries
    and coastal resources. This concludes my remarks and I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
                                  attachment 1
    Status of National Estuary Programs
        Programs with approved CCMP's:
        Program Approval Date:
            Puget Sound--May 1991
            Buzzards Bay--April 1992
            Narragansett Bay--January 1993
            San Francisco Bay--December 1993
            Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds--November 1994
            Long Island Sound--November 1994
            Galveston Bay--March 1995
            Santa Monica Bay--March 1995
            Delaware Inland Bays--June 1995
            Sarasota Bay--October 1995
            Delaware Estuary--September 1996
            Massachusetts Bay--September 1996
            Casco Bay--October 1996
            Indian River Lagoon--November 1996
            Barataria-Terrebonne Estuaries--December 1996
            Tampa Bay--March 1997
            New York/New Jersey Harbor--March 1997
        Programs developing CCMPs:
        Program Expected Submittal Date:
          Tier 4:
            Peconic Estuary--June 1999
            Tillamook Bay--February 1999
            Corpus Christi Bay--September 1998
            San Juan Bay--July 1999
          Tier 5:
            Morro Bay--June 1999
            Barnegat Bay--December 1999
            Lower Columbia River--June 1999
            Maryland Coastal Bays--June 1999
            New Hampshire Estuaries--July 1999
            Charlotte Harbor--September 1999
            Mobile Bay--September 1999
                                     ______

      Responses by Mr. Wayland to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
        Question 1: One of the principal goals of the legislation I
    introduced, S. 1222, is to create partnerships between all of the
    federal agencies that oversee estuaries; among federal, state, local
    governments; and between the public and private sectors. Often, the
    notion of ``partnership'' is easier to develop in theory than to
    execute in practice. Do you have any recommendations for what we could
    do to ensure that a true partnership is carried out at all levels?
        Response. EPA supports the goal of improving partnerships between
    federal, State, and local agencies, and other organizations. We have
    been working cooperatively with many federal agencies in supporting
    estuarine management and protection of coastal and estuarine waters and
    resources for a number of years. In particular, EPA's National Estuary
    Program and NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program and National
    Estuarine Research Reserve System have significant experience in
    working together with State and local governments and other
    organizations to enhance our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
        There are a number of lessons from the National Estuary Program
    (NEP) that can be applied to partnership efforts more broadly. In
    general, we know that partnerships need time and commitment to develop,
    as well as continued nurturing to maintain these partnerships over
    time. It takes time for groups to build strong partnerships and develop
    the trust to collectively reach decisions, and to ensure buy-in on
    these decisions. It is also important to ensure that all of the right
    players are involved in a decision that may affect them, and that they
    are involved in early stages of an effort. For example, we have seen
    the importance of involving groups that have not always been a part of
    coastal discussions, such as oil and gas interests, and the housing and
    development sector. It would be difficult to legislate these
    ingredients of success.
        As an indication of how important it is to EPA that successful
    partnerships be established and maintained, I would call the
    Committee's attention to the Top 10 Lessons Learned document, developed
    by EPA in partnership with over 100 watershed practitioners and their
    supporters throughout the Nation. One of the top 10 lessons learned is
    on partnerships (Partnerships Equals Power). This document describes
    how focusing on common interests, respecting each participant's view
    point, thanking each other, being willing to learn about others' needs
    and positions, and building trust make strong and long lasting
    partnerships. The other lessons learned are:
          The Best Plans Have Clear Visions, Goals, and Action
    Items
          Good Leaders are Committed and Empower Others
          Having A Coordinator at the Watershed Level is Desirable
          Environmental, Economic and Social Goals are Compatible
          Plans Only Succeed if Implemented
          Good Tools Are Available
          Measure, Communicate and Account for Progress
          Education and Involvement Drive Action
          Build on Small Successes.
        The Top 10 Lessons Learned document is available at our website
    (www.epa.gov/owow/lessons) or by calling the National Center for
    Environments. Publications and Information (1-800-490-9198).

        Question 2: You mention the common environmental problems of
    estuaries in the U.S., such as nutrient overenrichment, toxic chemicals
    and habitat loss. Is there much interaction between the 28 member
    estuaries of the NEP to develop common solutions to address these
    problems? Would S. 1222 help elevate the discussion to a national
    level?
        Response. Yes, there is considerable interaction among the 28 NEPs.
    We believe that S. 1222 could greatly assist efforts to elevate the
    discussion and interaction on these issues at a higher level,
    particularly regarding habitat restoration. In fact, the expertise
    developed by the NEPs could be used by the Collaborative Council in
    developing the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy proposed by S.
    1222.
        Technical transfer and assistance is a key component of the NEP
    approach. Collectively, the NEPs have created a significant knowledge
    base and wealth of experience dealing with the problems that threaten
    the health of virtually all estuaries, including nutrient
    overenrichment, toxic chemicals, and habitat loss. EPA believes that an
    important role of our coastal management program is to facilitate the
    exchange of information among NEPs and between them and other coastal
    communities.
        In addition, there is considerable interaction among the estuaries
    in NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserves and the State coastal
    zone management programs as well as interaction between EPA and NOAA
    where we share information on coastal management. S. 1222 would provide
    additional support for the coordination we are engaged in with those
    programs, too.
                                   __________
     Statement of Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
                    for Civil Works, Department of the Army
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Michael L. Davis,
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am here today
    to present the Department of the Army's views on S. 1222, the Estuary
    Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.
    Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Mission
        For over 200 years the Nation has called upon the Army Corps of
    Engineers to solve many of its water resources problems. Historically,
    the Corps has emphasized its flood damage reduction and navigation
    missions. In recent years, however, pursuant to the Water Resources
    Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 and subsequent WRDAs, the Corps has
    elevated its environmental restoration and protection mission to a
    status equal to its flood damage reduction and navigation missions. The
    Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate, and
    environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and
    protection opportunities. The Corps environmental mission has been
    expanding over time with major changes in environmental law and policy,
    such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires
    each Federal agency to assess fully its actions affecting the
    environment, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
    (commonly called the Clean Water Act) in which the Corps was given a
    major responsibility for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill
    material into all of our Nation's waters, including wetlands.
    Subsequent WRDAs have expanded further the environmental protection and
    restoration mission of the Corps of Engineers.
        The Corps has a powerful toolkit of standing authorities and
    programs that can be brought to bear to help solve environmental
    problems. Over the last decade alone the Corps has helped to restore
    hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat of many types, and which
    benefit thousands of fish and wildlife species. Examples include:
    28,000 acres of habitat restored for the Upper Mississippi River
    (98,000 projected by 2005); hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands
    restored in Louisiana; 35,000 acres of restored flood plain under
    construction for the Kissimmee River Restoration Project in the
    Florida; and, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored under
    authorities which authorize the Corps to beneficially use dredged
    material for ecosystem restoration.
        If enacted, S. 1222 would add to the Corps environmental portfolio.
    Specifically, S. 1222 would allow the Corps to use its unique skills to
    restore and protect estuary habitat and help achieve an economically
    and environmentally sustainable future for the Nation and the world.
    Significance of Estuarine and Coastal Areas
        Throughout the world, estuarine and coastal areas serve as focal
    points for human use and development. These same areas also perform
    critical functions from an ecosystem perspective, providing habitat and
    food for myriad fish and wildlife species. Estuaries are unique in that
    they serve as a transition zone between inland freshwater systems and
    uplands, and ocean marine systems. There is an urgent need to protect
    and restore these ecosystems recognizing the economic, social, and
    environmental benefits they provide. As with many environmental issues,
    future generations depend upon our actions today. In this regard, we
    applaud the co-sponsors of S. 1222 for their vision and leadership in
    this area.
    S. 1222
        The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance coordination
    and efficiently finance environmental restoration and protection
    projects. The goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by
    the year 2010 is in consonance with the President's Clean Water Action
    Plan and the goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands, annually,
    beginning in the year 2005. We also agree with the philosophical basis
    for the legislation, that estuaries and coastal areas are being
    degraded rapidly, and that there is an urgent need to attain self-
    sustaining, ecologically based systems that are integrated into
    surrounding landscapes. The proposed national framework, or national
    estuary habitat restoration strategy, to be completed at the end of the
    first year, should help partners identify and integrate existing
    restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and identify processes
    to develop new plans where they are needed. This framework document
    could help us maximize incentives for participation, leverage Federal
    resources, and minimize duplication of efforts. We support the
    requirement to publish the draft strategy in the Federal Register for
    review and comment to enhance public involvement. We believe that the
    legislation is consistent with the National Estuary Program (NEP) which
    was established to manage and protect aquatic ecosystems in coastal
    watersheds. The NEP strives to protect and restore habitat through
    consensus and initiatives which are community-based. The legislation
    also is consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation Protection
    and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), or Breaux Bill, a unique multi-Federal
    and State agency partnership which is working to restore and protect
    approximately 73,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana over a 20
    year period.
        Thus, with a few important changes, the Department of the Army
    could support S. 1222. First, it is unclear which, if any, agency is to
    lead the Collaborative Council. This language implies a lead role for
    the Department of the Army and directs the Secretary to convene
    meetings. In addition, funds are authorized to be appropriated to the
    Department of the Army for administration and operation of the
    Collaborative Council. Funds also are authorized to be appropriated to
    the Department of the Army to implement estuary restoration and
    protection projects. While S. 1222 does not explicitly state the intent
    of Congress, the Department of the Army is prepared to take a
    leadership role if that is the desire of the Congress.
        In order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, I strongly
    recommend that the legislation be amended to 65 percent Federal cost
    sharing in accordance with WRDA 1986, as amended, especially since the
    bill states that estuary restoration projects could be implemented
    under section 206 of WRDA 1996 on Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. As
    noted in the legislation, successful implementation of estuary habitat
    restoration projects will depend upon partnerships. At the heart of
    partnerships are the beneficiary pay reforms, especially cost sharing,
    which were first included in WRDA 1986, and expanded upon in subsequent
    WRDAs. These reforms allowed local sponsors the opportunity to be
    active participants in the water resources development process, thereby
    revitalizing the Army civil works program. Cost sharing serves as a
    market test of a project's merits, ensures active participation by
    project sponsors and beneficiaries, and ensures project cost
    effectiveness. We have found it to be an eminently successful policy.
    We are concerned that S. 1222 deviates from the basic cost sharing
    policies established in the WRDAs for environmental restoration
    projects, and that the variation in range of possible Federal cost
    shares, from 25 to 65 percent, could cause confusion amongst the
    public.
        Section (d)(1) of S. 1222 states that the Collaborative Council
    shall not select an estuary habitat restoration project until each non-
    Federal interest has entered into a written cooperation agreement in
    accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. This
    requirement was developed with flood damage reduction projects in mind,
    and provided the Federal Government with some measure of certainty that
    non-Federal sponsors were fully recognized public bodies empowered to
    act on the behalf of constituencies, and to assume certain financial
    and legal obligations. Our experience is that while the need to meet
    section 221 requirements are still valid for most civil works projects,
    there are situations where these requirements eliminate very good
    potential non-Federal sponsors from consideration. For example, certain
    well-known and established environmental organizations could serve as
    sponsors for environmental restoration projects envisioned by this
    legislation. Environmental projects often differ significantly from
    flood damage reduction projects in that structural measures are kept to
    a minimum. These projects are formulated to simulate natural functions
    and values and often result in projects with minimal or no operations
    and maintenance requirements. Finally, many environmental restoration
    projects are located in areas where project operations pose no threat
    to human life or property. For all of these reasons, the Corps has put
    policies in place to enable consideration of non-governmental
    organizations for section 1135 projects (Project Modifications for
    Improvement of the Environment), and our WRDA 1998 proposal contains a
    provision that would amend section 206 of WRDA 1996, Aquatic Ecosystem
    Restoration, and a provision that would amend section 204 of WRDA 1992,
    Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials, to also allow the Corps to
    consider, where appropriate, non-governmental organizations (NGO) as
    sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects. Because
    of the similarities between these environmental authorities, we
    recommend revising S. 1222 to allow NGO's to sponsor estuary habitat
    restoration projects. Further, we recommend that the Collaborative
    Council make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on case-by-
    case bases.
        Turning to the factors to be taken into account in establishing
    criteria for determining project eligibility, we recommend that the
    legislation require a consideration of the quality and quantity of
    habitat restored in relation to overall project cost. For environmental
    restoration projects implemented by the Corps, decision criteria of
    this kind tend to force a discipline to into the plan formulation and
    benefit analysis process that facilitates achieving optimal project
    designs. The criteria help benchmark performance reviews, and stand as
    a context for describing tradeoff decisions. A requirement to address
    both quality and quantity of habitat restored would provide that
    information required to evaluate performance, at both the project and
    program levels, and facilitate production of bi-annual reports tied to
    the national estuary restoration strategy.
        Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches are new,
    and when dealing with natural systems, there is a need to test new
    ideas, learn from successful projects and not so successful projects,
    and manage adaptively to adjust to ever-changing conditions. Adding a
    demonstration component with a cost share that is consistent with the
    rest of the program, and a requirement for non-Federal sponsors to
    manage adaptively, would encourage the partners to try out new ideas,
    and learn more about how to restore and protect estuary and coastal
    areas. Environmental restoration efforts for the Florida Everglades,
    the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program,
    and the Breaux Bill, all acknowledge, to varying degrees, the value of
    demonstration projects and adaptive management approaches.
        The Army Civil Works program plays a critical role in providing and
    maintaining water resources infrastructure to meet future needs in
    consonance with other national priorities and a balanced budget. We try
    to avoid creating false hope by not authorizing projects that we cannot
    reasonably expect to fund or complete within a reasonable timeframes.
    In light of the $20 billion backlog of ongoing Corps construction
    projects, and other authorized projects awaiting construction, the
    dollar magnitude for new projects and programs in the Administration's
    proposal for WRDA 1998 was constrained. Thus, while we could support
    being involved in a program to restore and protect estuaries and
    coastal areas, we are concerned that this new program could negatively
    impact other new and ongoing projects and programs which have been
    carefully prioritized and evaluated for phased implementation over a
    period of years. We are committed to a sustainable long-term
    construction program and more timely project delivery to non-Federal
    sponsors. The Administration's proposal for a new harbor services fee
    is one means to help address these funding constraints.
                                   conclusion
        The Corps has been increasingly involved in recent years with
    efforts to protect and restore the benefits of estuaries and their
    surrounding habitat. We are especially proud of our efforts in
    conjunction with the Coastal America initiatives. Some examples of
    actions where the Corps, using its available programs, was in the lead
    for multi-agency, multi-level efforts (Federal, state, local and
    private) include restoration of a coastal salt marsh area in the
    Galilee Bird Sanctuary, Rhode Island; the initial demonstration area
    for restoration of tidal wetlands in the Sonoma Baylands, California;
    and, the Sagamore Salt Marsh Restoration, Massachusetts. Our fiscal
    year 1999 budget request includes study funds for 10 potential projects
    directed at protecting or restoring the benefits of estuaries, as well
    as funding for many other activities that would be beneficial to the
    environment in or adjacent to our Nation's estuaries.
        My staff and I have enjoyed working with you and your staff on S.
    1222 and other legislation before your committee, including a 1998
    WRDA. We look forward to continuing this relationship as work on this
    important legislation continues. The Department of the Army is looking
    forward to working with the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture,
    Interior, and Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency to restore and protect our nation's aquatic resources as
    outlined in the President's Clean Water Action Plan. Mr. Chairman, this
    concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
    or the committee may have.
                                     ______

      Response by Michael Davis to Additional Question from Senator Chafee
        Question. One of the principal goals of the legislation I
    introduced, S. 1222, is to create partnerships between all of the
    federal agencies that oversee estuaries; among federal, state and local
    governments; and between the public and private sectors. Often, the
    notion of ``partnership'' is easier to develop in theory than to
    execute in practice. Do you have any recommendations for what we could
    do to ensure that a true partnership is carried out at all levels?
        Answer. The Army would approach implementation of S. 1222 in
    accordance with policies and procedures which grew out of the Water
    Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, subsequent WRDAs, and long-
    standing partnership and public involvement practices. We would
    recommend looking to models of successful partnerships established for
    the Florida Everglades, coastal Louisiana, San Francisco (CALFED Bay
    Delta), the Upper Mississippi River, to name a few, and adapting
    aspects of those models when implementing of S. 1222. You can be
    assured that Army Civil Works is committed to making partnerships work,
    and that the cost sharing principles established in WRDAs enhance
    greatly the effectiveness of partnerships for water resources projects.
                                   __________
     Statement of H. Curtis Spalding, Executive Director of Save the Bay,
                              Inc. Providence, RI
        On behalf of Save The Bay's 20,000 members, I would like to thank
    Senator Chafee and the Committee for this opportunity to present
    testimony in support of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
    Partnership Act. Save The Bay is a member-supported nonprofit
    organization. Our mission is to restore and protect Narragansett Bay
    and its watershed.
        Five years ago, over 20 nonprofit organizations met to discuss the
    future challenges for our nation's estuaries and to set a course of
    action to meet those challenges. Many of our coastal areas were
    beginning to reap the benefits of the Clean Water Act. In Narragansett
    Bay, harbor seals and oysters were starting to return after decades of
    absence due to polluted water. Despite similar limited recoveries in
    many of our nation's estuaries, we shared a deep concern that many
    species of fish, birds and other animals were not recovering as we had
    expected. Also troubling, some coastal areas not previously affected by
    water pollution were now in serious decline.
        After months of inquiry and discussion, we saw that the problem
    with the health of our estuaries was no longer grossly polluted water,
    but the ongoing loss of habitat for fish, birds, shellfish and plants
    along our shorelines and in our watersheds. Thus in late 1994, Restore
    America's Estuaries was formed. It is a current partnership of 11
    nonprofit organizations from Seattle to Galveston to the Gulf of Maine.
    Over the past 4 years, each organization has identified and targeted
    the habitat resources in its own estuary and coastal environment that
    are threatened and in need of restoration. Restore America's Estuaries
    has pledged collectively to restore one million acres of habitat to our
    nation's estuaries by the year 2010.
    How the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act Will Restore
            America's Estuaries
        An important word in the title of this legislation is
    ``partnership.'' It is a lesson we have learned well in Narragansett
    Bay communities. Over the past 3 years we have provided technical
    assistance to many neighborhood associations, conservation commissions,
    golf course managers and land trusts to help them restore their local
    salt marshes or eelgrass beds, which are Narragansett Bay's most
    threatened habitat resources. People care so much that they are
    volunteering their time and energy to restore these areas. Save The Bay
    trained these volunteers to research the Bay's salt marshes. Local
    community groups have adopted local salt marshes and eelgrass beds. We
    connected them with the other groups and agencies that could help them
    accomplish their restoration goals. We have helped these groups get
    things done by educating them about coastal restoration and helping
    them apply for and win funding from existing government grant programs.
    The measure of our success, although in its beginning stages, is our
    willingness to be a true partner with these local activists. These are
    not ``Save The Bay'' habitat restoration projects, they belong to the
    community.
        The one barrier to greater success is the lack of a coordinated and
    unified program at the Federal level to help facilitate and fund
    community based restoration projects. And there are limited resources
    on all levels of government. In Portsmouth, Rhode Island, a
    neighborhood association struggled for 5 years through a maze of
    regulation, amassing funds from several government and private programs
    and overcoming government inertia to help restore five acres of salt
    marsh. A similar restoration effort in Narragansett took 8 years.
    Unfortunately, the current agency structures do not encourage habitat
    restoration and in fact are an active deterrent. The only encouraging
    point on local restoration projects in Rhode Island is that these
    efforts have been rewarded. Rarely seen wildlife and healthy coastal
    and estuarine habitats are returning to Rhode Island's coastline. But
    the struggle to design, fund and coordinate these projects is too long
    and too costly for most volunteer organizations and community groups to
    sustain.
        The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act can change this
    situation by making effective use of limited resources. The bill will
    help coordinate many overlapping plans and programs and bring down the
    barriers to habitat restoration. The bill places a strong emphasis on
    moving on-the-ground restoration projects forward quickly, as opposed
    to funding more plans and studies that tend to be collect dust in
    government libraries.
    The Situation in Narragansett Bay
        Why do we need this bill to become law as soon as possible? Because
    the foundation of life in Narragansett Bay is in critical condition.
    The Bay's natural systems its eelgrass beds, salt marshes and fish runs
    which allow it to function healthfully, are severely damaged or
    disappearing. For example, we have only about 100 acres of eelgrass
    left in the Bay, which once supported thousands of acres. Eelgrass
    prevents shoreline erosion, filters pollution, and provides clear
    water, food, shelter, nurseries and breeding grounds to shellfish,
    juvenile lobsters, and young fish. About half of our salt marshes have
    been lost. What we have left is degraded and getting worse. Salt
    marshes are nurseries for many species, help prevent erosion and filter
    toxins from our water. Flounder, striped bass, mussels, scallops,
    fiddler crabs and scores of birds rely on salt marshes for some or all
    of their lives. We have only 15 functioning fish runs left in Rhode
    Island. To survive, many fish must be able to get to fresh water to
    spawn. One of our Bay's greatest fisheries the Atlantic salmon now can
    only be read about in books, due to the destruction of their fish runs.
    We must turn the tide soon, and begin to repair decades of damage and
    neglect or it may be too late.
        Narragansett Bay is not just a place where the fresh water of the
    rivers meets the salt water of the ocean. It is a place that shelters
    and nurtures a complex web of life. From the smallest creatures living
    in its mud to the seals that migrate here for the winter, the Bay is
    home to hundreds of species. Plants and animals including humans depend
    on each other and form what we call the ``web of life'' in Narragansett
    Bay.
        We can compare Narragansett Bay to the human body. The decline in
    our eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs are warning signs, not so
    different from changes in a person's vital signs. We would not ignore a
    loved one's complaint of chest pains, shortness of breath or numbness
    in their arms and legs because these are signs of a potentially deadly
    heart attack or damaging stroke. Likewise, we cannot ignore the Bay's
    symptoms. If eelgrass, salt marshes and fish runs continue to decline
    and disappear, the Bay will be little more than an empty body of water.
    The Bay life that depends on these areas the lobster, shellfish, birds,
    fish and plants will disappear. Necessarily, many people who make their
    livelihoods off the Bay will have to find other work. This is not the
    kind of Bay we want or should leave for our children.
    Crashing Fish Stocks
        The most evident sign that the Bay's web of life is unraveling is
    the near collapse of many Narragansett Bay fisheries in the past twenty
    years. Many fish populations are in decline despite improvements made
    to control toxins and water pollution. Despite stricter management of
    commercial fishing, fish populations have not recovered.
        Although much of the decline in Bay fisheries can be attributed to
    over-fishing, the loss of eelgrass beds and salt marshes is preventing
    any significant recovery of fish stocks. Eelgrass beds critical to
    thriving Bay fisheries have dwindled to only 100 acres remaining in
    Narragansett Bay. A 1988 report by the Rhode Island Department of
    Environmental Management (RIDEM) estimated that between 1965 and 1982,
    Rhode Island lost over 850 acres of coastal salt marshes about 20
    percent of the marsh we had in 1965. We are now feeling the pain of
    ongoing habitat loss.
        Save The Bay has focused our attention on three critical habitats
    in Narragansett Bay which are most in jeopardy underwater eelgrass,
    salt marshes and fish runs. Restoring these critical habitats is
    essential if we are to sustain the myriad of Bay creatures that depend
    on them.
    Eelgrass Beds A Flagship for Life in Our Bay
        Eelgrass is:
         an underwater marine plant;
         a primary source of food for hundreds of Bay plants and
    animals;
         a critical nursery and shelter for shellfish and finfish;
         a supplier of clear water; and,
         a guard against shoreline erosion by dampening waves and
    currents.
        (Batiuk et al 1992, Thayer et al 1975, Short and Short 1984).
        Eelgrass, one of 50 kinds of seagrass, is a marine plant that lives
    completely underwater. Eelgrass is one of the most diverse and
    productive underwater habitats found in the United States and Europe.
    Eelgrass can form large meadows or small separate beds, which range in
    size from many acres to just a yard across (Burkholder and Doheny,
    1968). The largest remaining meadow in Narragansett Bay borders the
    eastern shore of Jamestown and covers about 25 acres. Found in depths
    from 3 feet to 20 feet, eelgrass growth and survival is dependent on
    clear water and strong sunlight.
        Eighty species of worms, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms,
    fishes, reptiles, and birds depend on eelgrass as a food source (McRoy
    and Helfferich 1980; Thayer et al. 1984). This list of dependent
    species includes economically important finfish and shellfish species
    such as summer and winter flounder, weakfish, blue crabs, rainbow
    smelt, bay scallops, blue mussels and spotted seatrout. Research has
    demonstrated that eelgrass provides higher survival rates for juvenile
    American lobster than rock or mud habitat types (Barshaw and Bryant-
    Rich 1988).
        Eelgrass loss can have devastating consequences. Eelgrass decline
    led to the extinction of the eelgrass limpet (a type of snail) in the
    1930's, one of the few marine species extinction known in this century.
    Our disappearing eelgrass has been a primary cause of the collapse of
    brant geese populations in the Bay. Brant geese depend on eelgrass as a
    primary food source.
        Eelgrass loss also has dire economic consequences. The loss of
    eelgrass in Narragansett Bay led to the collapse of the bay scallop
    fishery in Rhode Island. The bay scallop fishery has been nonexistent
    in Rhode Island since 1957, primarily due to the loss of eelgrass beds.
    The bay scallop needs eelgrass as a settling area and as a refuge for
    mature scallops (Pohle et al. 1991). There is a neighborhood in Warwick
    along Greenwich Bay that used to be known as ``Scalloptown'' because so
    many scallop fishermen lived and worked there. Greenwich Bay and other
    northern locations in Narragansett Bay once supported hundreds of acres
    of eelgrass and healthy bay scallop populations. Eelgrass restoration
    in Narragansett Bay could contribute to the revival of the once
    thriving commercial bay scallop fishery. Eelgrass restoration can also
    help rebuild other commercially important fisheries. More than 20 types
    of commercially valuable fish feed in the eelgrass beds of Narragansett
    Bay at some point in their lives including winter and summer flounder,
    lobsters and tautog.
        Restoration is possible. Efforts to re-establish eelgrass have
    taken place over the last three decades. The National Marine Fisheries
    Service believes Narragansett Bay has a high potential for eelgrass
    restoration, based on its historical distribution and a concentration
    of scientific and academic resources in the region (Fonseca, et al,
    NMFS, 1994). Active restoration through transplanting began in
    Narragansett Bay in 1994. Both the National Marine Fisheries Service
    and the University of Rhode Island have identified and transplanted
    eelgrass in sixteen separate sites in the Bay. While these efforts have
    had limited success due to a variety of factors including predators
    grazing the transplanted stock, storm damage and the relative low
    density of transplanted eelgrass, research and experiments with
    improved methods of restoration should continue.
        Although poor water clarity poses the greatest problem for eelgrass
    restoration, we can take steps to correct this problem. The eelgrass
    beds which remain in the Bay offer hope that areas of the Bay may be
    able to host transplants. But, taking no action is not acceptable. The
    clear water that is necessary for restoration is also critical to
    saving the eelgrass remnants still clinging to Narragansett Bay.
    Ultimately, we must improve the conditions for eelgrass immediately if
    we are to save this vital thread in the Bay's web of life.
    Salt Marshes A Place of Bountiful Plants & Creatures
        A salt marsh is:
         a nursery and spawning ground for two-thirds of the United
    States' major commercial fish;
         the largest producer of basic food per acre anywhere on
    earth;
         a nursery for 63 species of fish in Narragansett Bay; and,
         a shoreline stabilizer and shield against coastal storms.
        (Lieth, 1975; Teal & Teal, 1969; McHugh, 1966; Dept. of Interior,
    1989; Knudson et al, 1982)
        Salt marshes provide enormous economic and environmental benefits.
    Approximately two-thirds of the United States' major commercial fish
    depend on estuaries and salt marshes for nursery or spawning grounds
    (McHugh 1966). Among the more familiar salt marsh-dependent fishes are
    menhaden, bluefish, flounder, sea trout, mullet, croaker, striped bass
    and drum. At least 63 fish species use Narragansett Bay as a nursery,
    with the highest use in the fall (Department of the Interior, 1989).
    Salt marshes are also important for shellfish including bay scallops,
    soft-shell clams, grass shrimp, blue crabs, oysters, quahogs and other
    clams. Blue crabs and grass shrimp are especially abundant in the tidal
    creeks that feed salt marshes. Salt marshes produce more basic food
    energy per acre than any other known ecosystem including tropical
    rainforests, freshwater wetlands or agriculture fields (Lieth, 1975 and
    Teal & Teal, 1969).
        Salt marshes protect private property by shielding coastal
    shorelines from storms and by dampening the power of waves, which
    stabilizes the shoreline (Knudson, et al. 1982). While most wetland
    plants require calm or sheltered waters, established salt marsh grasses
    are effective against erosion (Kaldec & Wentz, 1974; Garbisch, 1977).
        Restoration of salt marshes may help protect our health as well.
    Rhode Island is home to 42 different mosquito species. The salt marsh
    mosquito, along with three other species, is known to carry the Eastern
    Equine Encephalitis virus and transmit it to humans, horses and other
    mammals. Large populations of these mosquitoes can present an increased
    health threat to humans. To breed and develop, mosquitoes need standing
    water. In the 1930's ditches were dug through many of Rhode Island's
    salt marshes in a vain attempt to eliminate standing water on the
    marshes. Not only did the ditches fill in with debris creating larger
    mosquito breeding areas, but also restricted nature's best mosquito
    control larvae eating minnows and other fish from reaching the mosquito
    breeding grounds. Ditching, in most cases, created a larger problem
    than previously existed. Old mosquito ditches are affecting most of the
    Bay's salt marshes. Restoration is necessary to remove the ditches and
    help nature control mosquito populations and the Eastern Equine
    Encephalitis virus.
        Despite all of these important benefits, we recruited over 80
    volunteers to survey the health of Rhode Island's remaining salt
    marshes. Their findings are alarming and demonstrate the existing
    threats to Rhode Island's salt marshes. Seventy percent of the Bay's
    remaining salt marshes are affected by restrictions to the daily ebb
    and flow of tides, reducing their ability to support Bay fisheries.
    Over 60 percent of the salt marshes show signs of dumping or filling.
    Mosquito ditches drain over 50 percent of the marshes. About 1,200 of
    the 3,800 remaining acres of Bay salt marshes are impacted by invasive
    plant species such as the tall common reed, phragmites. Phragmites can
    grow to over 10 feet tall, block shoreline vistas and pose a fire
    hazard when they die in the winter and early spring leaving dry plant
    material close to coastal homes. Nearly thirty percent of our remaining
    salt marshes have no protection from polluted runoff from lawns, golf
    courses and parking lots. About 58 percent of Narragansett Bay marshes
    suffer from the polluted discharges of storm drains.
        Restoration is feasible and the only way to bring back the marshes.
    Successful salt marsh restoration efforts have occurred in many New
    England states including Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
    In Massachusetts, salt marshes north of Boston have been restored
    through an innovative mosquito control program called ``Open Marsh
    Water Management.'' This technique involves re-creating the natural
    water conditions in the marsh thus allowing mosquito-eating minnows to
    survive in tidal pools and creeks. Connecticut has reopened many Long
    Island Sound marshes to the normal ebb and flow of tides halting the
    growth of invasive phragmites in the process. Locally, Rhode Island
    began restoring the marshes at the Galilee Bird Sanctuary by scraping
    off old dredge spoils, opening culverts, and recreating tidal creeks. A
    community-sponsored marsh restoration was recently completed at Common
    Fence Point in Portsmouth. The project involved removing dredge spoils
    and re-grading a five-acre area of phragmites to allow salt marsh
    grasses to re-colonize the area. Since the completion of the project in
    the fall of 1997, plants and animals are beginning to return to the
    area. Many community groups throughout Rhode Island want to restore
    salt marshes, but lack the necessary funding and technical support.
    Fish Runs A Legacy of Vanishing Abundance
        A fish run is:
         a freshwater river or stream that runs directly to the
    Bay;
         the place where native herring, salmon, smelts and shad
    return each spring to spawn; and,
         the spawning grounds for herring stocks that are an
    important food source for striped bass, bluefish, herons, otter and
    osprey.
        (RIDEM, 1996; Desbonnet & Lee, 1991)
        River herring, Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, sturgeon and
    American shad depend on fish runs for survival. These are saltwater
    fish that are hatched in freshwater, but mature and spend most of their
    lives in the Bay or the ocean. These fish must return to the freshwater
    rivers and streams where they were born in order to spawn. Narragansett
    Bay previously supported commercially valuable Atlantic salmon and
    alewife (river herring) fisheries. River herring are a primary food
    source for striped bass whose continued recovery is dependent on
    increasing sources of food. The Atlantic salmon fishery was short lived
    in Narragansett Bay after the industrial revolution began harnessing
    the power of the Blackstone, Ten Mile and Pawtuxet Rivers. The salmon
    were effectively blocked from returning to the waters of their birth.
    The Blackstone and Pawtuxet each ended up with one power producing dam
    for every mile of river by the middle of the 19th century. The Atlantic
    salmon was eliminated from its Bay spawning runs by 1869 (Goode, 1887).
        The commercial herring fishery depended on Rhode Island fish runs.
    As with the Atlantic salmon, the herring fishery declined, but managed
    to linger much longer. Herring do not need the same type of river
    conditions as salmon. They attempted to adapt to other rivers and
    streams that were not dammed in the southern areas of the Bay.
    Commercial harvesting was forced to a halt in Narragansett Bay by 1930
    because of declining fish stocks. A few areas still support small runs
    of river herring including Gilbert Stuart Brook in North Kingstown and
    the Annaquatucket River in North Kingstown. The largest and healthiest
    herring and shad run in Narragansett Bay is on the Nemasket River in
    Massachusetts a tributary of the Taunton River where over one million
    fish came to spawn in 1996 (pers. comm, P. Brady).
        But many fish runs remain obstructed. In Rhode Island and
    Massachusetts combined, there are 27 rivers that could be spawning
    grounds for herring, shad and Atlantic salmon. Only two of these river
    systems were never harnessed for water power or water supply and host
    small native runs of herring. Ten more rivers have fishways any
    structure that allows fish to swim over dams, including fish ladders to
    help herring and shad pass over dams and swim to spawning areas. But 15
    are still closed to spring fish runs of herring, shad and salmon. Among
    these 15 rivers are three of the top five freshwater tributaries of
    Narragansett Bay the Blackstone, Pawtuxet and Ten Mile rivers.
        There are a number of steps we can take to restore our fish runs.
    We can remove unnecessary dams and build fish ladders over dams that
    must remain. We also can restore streams and improve water quality to
    make these rivers and streams once again hospitable to fish runs.
    What this Crisis Means to Rhode Islanders
        On September 22, 1997 Senator Chafee came to a small boat yard in
    Narragansett Bay to announce the introduction of the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222). This legislation is a vital
    component in our efforts to bring back healthy conditions not only in
    Narragansett Bay but in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound
    and many of the other vital estuaries of the United States. At that
    press conference Senator Chafee said, ``Narragansett Bay is good for
    the soul.'' No truer words had ever been spoken about the meaning of
    Narragansett Bay to all Rhode Islanders.
        Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from its
    shores, it is part of what makes Rhode Island special. The Bay is our
    lifeline it nourishes our environment, strengthens our economy,
    enhances our leisure time and protects our children's futures. We need
    to care for the Bay and invest today in its health and very survival.
    This investment will help ensure a secure future for Rhode Island.
        Narragansett Bay is an engine for Rhode Island's economy. It is
    estimated that Narragansett Bay generates $2.4 billion in annual
    revenue from marine and Bay related activities (estimates, Rorholm and
    Farrell, 1994). Commercial fishing and the tourism industry are major
    contributors to our state economy. Restoration is a small investment to
    keep this economic engine running.
        Commercial fishing is estimated to generate $42 million dollars for
    the Rhode Island economy each year. For many communities, the
    harvesting of quahog, fish and shellfish is central to a healthy local
    economy. The fishing industry understands the importance of balancing
    the needs of industry with ecological concerns. Fishermen realize the
    need to restore Narragansett Bay to give the fish and shellfish they
    harvest an ability to replenish and thrive. Without restoration, the
    fishing industry's future in Rhode Island is uncertain.
        No one understands this more than Paul Bettencourt and Don Dawson
    of Pawtcuket, RI. Like two gruff midwives, these graying fishermen
    assist in the final leg of an otherwise impossible spawning journey by
    dipping a long-handled scoop net beneath the foam and magically lifting
    a half dozen squirming, blueback herring above the roaring mouth of the
    Ten Mile River. They help the herring upstream into Omega Pond beyond
    the salt waters of the Bay a task these fish have been unable to
    accomplish themselves for many generations. They do this because they
    have witnessed the consequences of disappearing fish runs firsthand. As
    a young man, Paul Bettencourt made a living harvesting herring for bait
    for other fishers angling for striped bass, lobsters and blue fish.
    Paul now refers to himself as a living ``dinosaur.''
        But restoration means much more than helping fishermen. In 1993,
    for the first time in Rhode Island's history, the travel and tourism
    industry surpassed manufacturing to become the state's second largest
    industry. In 1997, tourism brought in over $2 billion to the state.
    Narragansett Bay is key to that industry. People come to Rhode Island
    from all over the world to enjoy the beauty and splendor of
    Narragansett Bay. Whether sailing Bay waters or fishing for striped
    bass this resource is an enormous treasure for residents and visitors
    alike. An increasingly unhealthy Bay will lose its appeal.
        Narragansett Bay is part of our lives. Tony Giardino knows this.
    Born just south of Naples, Italy, Tony came to Rhode Island in 1927.
    Fishing trips with his dad at Narragansett Pier sparked a lifelong
    passion for the sport and the Bay. Tony's Barbershop, a fixture on
    Providence's Hope Street for the last fifty years, is a great place for
    a haircut and stories about the big ones that did not get away
    including his 58-+ pound striper. When Tony learned to fish, flounder
    was almost always the fish of choice they were plentiful and did not
    put up much of a fight, once hooked. But the Rhode Island tradition of
    teaching kids to fish by catching flounder is fading fast and, without
    adequate restoration measures, may soon be gone forever. Tony taught
    his kids to fish by first catching flounder but says now it is ``pretty
    much a waste of time'' to take his grandchildren in search of flounder.
    ``They're just not out there anymore,'' says Tony. ``I am worried that
    the flounder are disappearing and I think it is a shame that I cannot
    teach my thirteen grandkids to fish for flounder.''
        Narragansett Bay is as important to our future as it has been to
    our past. We can leave our children a Bay that gives them the pleasure
    of discovering the wonders of a summer beach by collecting seashells
    and tasting fresh baked clams and scallops. We can pass on the
    opportunity to swim in the Bay's waters or hear the rustle of reeds in
    the salt marsh. We can afford them the thrill of landing their first
    mighty bluefish. We can guarantee them the joy of seeing a heron
    fishing in a salt marsh or saluting the rising moon. We can allow them
    to see a quahogger working a rake. All of these opportunities are part
    of our Rhode Island and national heritage, part of our past and
    present. These opportunities can be a part of our future if we make a
    commitment to restore Narragansett Bay and all of the other nation's
    estuaries great and small.
        Make no mistake. Narragansett Bay and most of our nation's
    estuaries are in crisis. Rhode Island and many other regions have only
    a limited time to take action and resolve this crisis. If we do not
    restore America's estuaries soon, many fish, plant, and bird species
    may become extinct in this country. With this disappearance, the United
    States will lose many jobs that depend on these species and our quality
    of life will plummet.
        In conclusion, Save The Bay applauds the leadership of Senator
    Chafee on this critical issue. The need is so great and the situation
    so precarious that to delay at this point would certainly mean greater
    losses for our coastal environment, our economy and our quality of
    life. Twenty-six colleagues of Senator Chafee, from both sides of the
    aisle, also understand this grave situation and have signed on as co-
    sponsors. If we truly want to restore our nation's fisheries, preserve
    our coastal heritage and improve our economy we must give our Federal
    Government agencies the opportunity to actually help with this task.
    Not just with more funding but with tools to break down the barriers of
    bureaucracy and to build partnerships with local community efforts.

                                     ______

       Responses by Curtis Spalding to Additional Questions from Senator
                                     Chafee
        Question 1. Much of what our efforts in the past have focused on,
    with respect to water quality for estuaries and other waters, is
    pollution prevention, not habitat restoration. How do you see the two
    actions, protecting the resource from further degradation, and nursing
    the resource back to health, interacting to reach the larger goal of
    improving overall water quality?
        Response. Save The Bay and indeed all RAE member organizations
    believe that protection and active habitat restoration are two sides of
    the same coin of environmental health for our estuaries. While it is
    true that much effort and resources have been devoted to pollution
    prevention and better waste treatment technology, the science of
    habitat restoration is just beginning to explore and test new
    techniques. One of the most compelling arguments for linking
    restoration and protection efforts is the remarkable connections that
    habitats provide in estuaries and other waters. For example, underwater
    seagrasses, once established, create the ideal physical, biological and
    chemical conditions for more seagrass to grow. They also provide
    invaluable benefits to the overall water quality such as filtration of
    sediments and nutrients as well as dampening waves. Coastal and
    riparian wetlands provide not only habitat for fish and other wildlife
    but also ``pollution prevention'' services to the rivers and coastal
    waters they border. They trap sediment, filter runoff and control
    coastal and riverbank erosion. In this way, coastal habitats offer
    their own unique ``pollution prevention'' services that enhance our
    considerable investment in engineering-based pollution prevention.

        Question 2. What is the biggest challenge that Save The Bay has
    faced in getting habitat restoration projects of the ground? Is it
    working with government agencies, lack of funding or something else?
        Response. Our biggest challenge in Rhode Island is getting
    technical assistance to local restoration efforts. We literally have
    dozens of groups ready and willing to initiate local restoration
    projects but without the biology, engineering and design expertise most
    of these projects will have to wait perhaps years to get going. The
    state has yet to make either a financial or policy commitment to
    coastal and estuarine habitat restoration. There is no ``Office of
    Habitat Restoration Assistance'' where these groups can go for help. We
    have helped a few groups cobble together a package of technical
    assistance, design work and funding. Funding can also be an issue. It
    not so much that there isn't enough, it's a matter of finding it and
    knowing how and where to apply.
                                   __________
    Statement of JoAnn Burkholder, Professor and Pew Fellow, North Carolina
                                State University
    A Former Marine Fisheries Commissioner's Perspective
        Salt marshes, underwater grasslike meadows filled with shellfish.
    mangrove forests, and quiet, open waters with rich fisheries are what
    come to mind for people when they consider estuaries, the natural areas
    where rivers meet the sea. But the reality of this view has rapidly
    changed in the past several decades. Different scenes now inundate us
    with the ``signs of the times'' . . . of elderly folk's remembrances of
    times when a rowboat filled with fish could be taken within an hour, in
    areas where fish are now rare; of commercial fishermen who acknowledge
    overfishing pressures involved with fish declines, but who seem to have
    no voice when they question why their fish nursery grounds have
    received another sewage outfall, of why yet another coastal river that
    was classified as an ``outstanding resource'' has been destroyed by the
    newest subdivision. As Chair of the Habitat & Water Quality Committee
    on North Carolina's Marine Fisheries Commission, I had no answer for
    them because in that state, and many others, fisheries are managed
    ``separately'' from water quality issues, and the respective
    commissions that governed these issues had not once met in the decades
    since they had been formed.\1\
        The overall economic value of our estuaries is significantly
    underestimated because estuaries provide many ``intangible'' services,
    as well as tangible goods such as seafood. . . . One acre of tidal
    estuary has been calculated to equate the operation of a. $115,000
    waste treatment plant (1984 figure, consumer price index 103.9;
    adjusted for 1997, CPI 160.6; increase of 54.6 percent--Dr. J. Foley,
    natural resource economist, Norm Carolina State University) in
    pollutant filtering/removal capabilities.\2\ The total land value,
    alone, of estuarine habitat has been estimated at about $128,000 per
    acre when fish production is factored into consideration. By
    comparison, 1 acre of prime farmland in Kansas was valued at $1,800
    with an annual production value of $900.\2\ Estuaries are also among
    the most productive ecosystems in the world. U.S. estuaries and coastal
    wetlands provide spawning grounds for 70 percent of our seafood
    including shrimp, salmon, oysters, clams and haddock, with associated
    jobs for millions of people. \2\
        In their position along the land-water margin of our coastal zones,
    estuaries are known to be highly vulnerable to human pressures.
    Estuaries receive most of the excessive loadings of pollutants that
    reach marine environments.\3\ As a result, these waters and the fish
    and waterfowl that directly depend on then have been seriously impacted
    by sediment erosion from adjacent land development; microbial pathogens
    from septic leachfields, urban runoff and land disturbance; excessive
    nutrients from untreated or poorly treated sewage; oil spills from
    common boating practices as well as major incidents; pesticides from
    cropland and lawn runoff, and other stressors.\4\ These impacts are
    exacerbated by often-dramatic changes in hydrology within the
    watersheds that estuaries ultimately service. Extensive (among and
    channelization of freshwater rivers completely altered the natural salt
    balance Us many estuaries, as well as the volume of water supplied.\5\
    Ditching and filling in of salt marshes and other wetlands in estuarine
    ecosystems move pollutants into receiving rivers quickly and
    directly.\1\ Pollutant loadings are on the increase in many coastal
    areas of our country,\2\ coinciding with exponential human population
    growth and associated loss of the wetlands which acted as a filter to
    protect the rivers that drain them.\6\ Over half of the worldly
    population already live within a 100-mile radius of a coastline, a
    pattern that includes our country. \6\ More than half of our coastal
    habitats have been destroyed or damaged by dredge/filling and by waste
    contamination, including many of the sea-grass beds that are vital
    habitat for commercially important finfish and shellfish.\2\ \7\ A
    steadily increasing proportion of our coastal wetlands and adjacent
    creeks that provide vitally important habitat for our shell fisheries
    have disappeared as coastlands are developed. Many of those that remain
    look healthy . . . but then, one rices the posted signs that prohibit
    fishing for Oysters or clams because the shellfish have filtered out
    too many pollutants from adjacent lands, and would no longer be safe
    for human consumption. Overall across the nation' only about half of
    our shellfish waters are now ''clean'' enough to produce edible
    seafood.
        These are the overt, easily noticed ``signs of the times.'' But
    other, more subtle human influencing on estuaries will likely prove
    much more serious in the near future, unless we support measures such
    as S. 1222, in order to better equip ourselves to combat them.
    Scientists understand acute or obvious, severe impacts of pollutants on
    fish and other wildlife supported by estuaries. By contrast, little is
    known about the chronic or sublethal impacts of many of our actions on
    fisheries and other important estuarine, resources. Repeated research
    on all coasts of our country has shown that fish from waters near major
    human population centers have suppressed immune systems, higher
    incidence of bleeding sores, gonadal tumors and other diseases, and
    other serious health impairment relative to fish in cleaner waters. . .
    . Physiological stress in fish that lead to decreased growth,
    reproduction, survival of young, and long-term survival of adults has
    been demonstrated from small amounts of pollutant such 49 pesticides,
    petroleum compounds, and trace metals, over longer time internals.
        Such toxic substances (as caustic chemicals) would be expected to
    cause adverse impacts. However, even the effects of more pollutants
    that are regarded as relatively ``benign,'' such as nutrient over-
    enrichment--especially of nitrogen and phosphorus, the same kinds of
    nutrients that would be used to fertilize house plants--are proving to
    be much more serious than had previously been suspected. The foundation
    of the food web in aquatic ecosystems is algae. These plants are open
    microscopic, and they have enormous surface area relative to their
    small size. Bathed in their water environment, algae have easy access
    to dissolved nutrients. They can be stimulated by extremely small
    levels of nutrient supplies, micro-quantities in comparison to how we
    typically think about in adding nutrients, which is by the pound (for
    lawn fertilizer) or the ton (for our crops) Thus, aquatic ecosystems
    are highly sensitive to nutrient loading, and too many nutrients often
    translates into noxious blooms of algae as estuaries are shifted out of
    their natural balance. Although algae are generally good for estuaries,
    nutrient over-enrichment from sewage, cropland runoff, lawn runoff,
    animal wastes, and other sources can stimulate too much algal growth.
    At night the respiration of these small plants--millions of which can
    be contained in a few drops of water--can rob the oxygen from the water
    and cause fish kills. Such conditions increasingly characterize many of
    our estuaries. This description is especially true of many quiet
    lagoons or upper embayments with poor water exchange/renewal, where
    nutrients have time to stimulate substantial algal growth before they
    are flushed from the system. Too many algae can block light from
    reaching beneficial underwater seagrass meadow habitat for our
    fisheries. Without enough light, the seagrass meadows disappear, ant
    such habitat loss has been strongly correlated with devastating
    declines in commercial fisheries.\7\
        The proliferation of algal overgrowth that shade out and destroy
    seagrass beds is an obvious impact of nutrient over-enrichment.
    However, the following two examples illustrate other more subtle but
    serious impacts of chronic nutrient enrichment on aquatic ecosystems.
    In the first case, recent research has demonstrated a more subtle
    impact of nitrate loading on the most important seagrass habitat
    species on the north temperate coasts of the U.S., namely eelgrass or
    Zostera marina. Very small amounts of nitrate loading to the overlying
    water, given daily for several weeks can cause these plants to die as a
    direct toxic effect, unrelated to algal overgrowth.\7\ Zostera is
    highly sensitive to nitrate loading (e.g. from septic effluent
    leachate) because, surprisingly, it has no way to stop nitrate uptake
    through its leaves, For thousands of years, historically this plant was
    accustomed to nitrogen-depauperate coastal waters. The ability to take
    up nitrate, day or night, through the plant leaves--nitrate from storm
    runoff or other sudden, unexpected source--may once have represented a
    great advantage in nitrogen-limited waters over other plants that
    generally cannot Me up nitrate in darkness. However, with increased
    coastal nitrate loading from human activities, our most important north
    temperate seagrass now appears to be seriously disadvantaged because of
    this ``strategy'' to take up nitrate at all costs, whenever it is
    available in the water. The excessive nitrate uptake is rather
    analogous ``too much candy''--it is not good for these plants. It
    forces Zostera to direct most of its energy and other nutrient
    supplies, such as carbon, into amino acid production, even when it does
    not need the amino acids. Thus, too much nitrate--at concentrations
    that would be regarded as very low, relative to current conditions in
    many estuaries that drain increasingly urbanized watersheds--drives
    Zostera into severe internal imbalances in other nutrients, which can
    lead to death. This phenomenon was first reported in 1992. The full
    extent of damage to eelgrass meadow habitat from chronic exposure to
    elevated water-column nitrate has only begun to be examined.\7\
        A second compelling example of subtle but serious impacts of
    nutrient (both phosphorus and nitrogen) over-enrichment to estuaries
    clearly has direct implications for human health. In 1991, I led a
    research team that discovered the toxic dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria
    pisicida, as a causative agent of massive estuarine fish kills.\9\ At
    sublethal, chronic levels the toxins a from Pfiesteria can also cause
    major incidence of fish disease, in which millions of fish can be
    affected with large open, bleeding sores. The affected fish often die,
    but more slowly and much less noticeably than would be detected in an
    obvious, acute kill in which fish accumulated at the water surface.
    Moreover, chronic exposure to small amounts of Pfiesteria's toxins over
    days to weeks may cause much more serious problems at the fish
    population level than an acute fish kill that affects a small number of
    fish relative to the total population size.\10\ The known range of
    chronic end sublethal impacts from these toxins on fish, thus far,
    includes several immune system suppression, unpaired reproduction,
    significantly depressed survival of the young, destruction of the
    osmoregulatory system (i.e., fish cannot control their salt balance,
    which is very serious in the changing salinity environment
    characteristics of estuaries), and large-scale disease. Such impacts
    suggest that Pfiesteria's toxins seriously damage the ability of fish
    to reproduce, and of young as well as adult fish to survive or fight
    disease.
        These impacts of Pfiesteria on fish health--even the obvious
    impacts that can be visually observed through major fish kills--have
    only been known for less than a decade, because of this organism's
    rapid ``attack/retreat'' behavior which made it difficult to detect and
    track.\9\ Two other important points of information were gained within
    the past 5 years, which clearly illustrate that Pfiesteria can be
    stimulated by human activities, and that chronic or sublethal exposure
    to Pfiesteria's toxins merit concerted attention and action--because
    these toxins can impair the health of people, as well go fish. First,
    we determined that Pfiesteria can be strongly stimulated by nutrient
    over-enrichment from multiple apthropogenic sources such as human
    sewage, animal wastes, cropland and town fertilizer runoff\10\ \11\
    Second, we learned that people who are exposed to toxic cultures of
    Pfiesteria, or to toxic outbreaks where fish me diseased or dying from
    Pfiesteria can be seriously hurt just by inhaling the overlying
    air.\12\ \13\
        Production of airborne neurotoxins had not previously been known
    for toxic dinoflagellates. Before this unusual feature of Pfiesteria
    was determined, people who worked with dilute toxic cultures Of fish-
    killing Pfiesteria without protection from airborne toxins sustained a
    suite of effects.\12\ Short-term impacts (hours) included narcosis,
    nausea, vomiting, burning eyes and skin, blurred vision, severe stomach
    cramping and acute respiratory difficulty. Longer-term impacts (weeks
    to months) included severe headaches, open sores that heal slowly
    (months) and do not respond to antibiotics, and impairment of all three
    nervous systems--central, peripheral, and autonomic. Lingering impacts
    (years) have included easy infections suggestive of a compromised
    immune system, certain visual impairment, episodes of foggy memory, and
    peripheral autonomic nervous system dysfunction. The central nervous
    system impacts to laboratory workers from Pfiesteria's toxins were most
    striking, and involved severe cognitive impairment and short-term
    memory loss. Imagine what it is like to appear normal, but to have no
    idea, of where you are, to be unable to put words into sentences, or to
    understand English. You have lucid moments in which you are gripped
    with fear because you realize that something is terribly wrong; then
    you slide back down. As you begin to recover, you must take reading
    lessons to be able to read again. Imagine life style changes--that even
    after you are able to test normally for learning and memory, you must
    compensate because you have lost the ability to process information as
    quickly as you could before the illness occurred, and you do not
    recover it. Imagine not being able to strenuously exercise because when
    you try, you develop severe bronchitis or pneumonia. Consider what it
    would be like to be a fairly young, energetic person who must be on
    antibiotics more than a third of the year, 5 years after being affected
    . . . what it would be like to watch as increasingly potent antibiotics
    do not help you recover from the most recent, nearly constant illness,
    and to fear the prospect of reaching the point at which the most potent
    antibiotics no longer can help. The above writing describes the lives
    of several laboratory workers, ongoing five to 7 years following
    exposure to dilute, field densities of toxic Pfiesteria culture.
        The first clinical evaluations of people exposed to small toxic
    outbreaks of Pfiesteria in estuaries were completed in late summer
    1997.\13\ The resulting impact that were documented on learning and
    memory function were described by health officials as ``profound.''
    About 85 percent of the fishermen who had been in these toxic outbreak
    areas for 6-8 hours per day, for several weeks or more, tested in the
    lower 8 percent of the U.S. population for learning ability and memory,
    once corrected for age and education and about 75 percent of the
    examined fishermen tested in the lower 2 percent of the U.S. population
    in cognitive functioning ability. The documented impacts were striking
    even for people with minor exposure--25 percent of the people who were
    examined after they took a boat ride through a toxic outbreak, or stood
    on a bridge over an affected area, tested in the lower 8 percent of the
    U.S. population in their ability to learn and remember. Most of the
    affected people had recovered and were able to test. at least, in
    normal range for cognitive ability and memory function within 3 months
    following exposure. However, 20 percent of the fishermen who had been
    exposed longest to the toxic outbreaks were unable to test normally
    until 6 months after their last exposure. Although they recovered to
    normal testing range, much of the 6-month interval remains ``lost''--
    they have no memory of it, and that period likely will remain lost as
    it has for the exposed laboratory workers.
        Such impacts from Pfiesteria, stemming from nutrient over-
    enrichment to quiet estuarine waters, were completely unanticipated.
    Many scientists, having carefully evaluated all of the known
    information data on Pfiesteria, are now considering a sobering
    hypothesis, that Pfiesteria represents the first of such ``hidden'' or
    previously unknown microbial pathogens to have been discovered as we
    inadvertently continue, through excessive pollutant loadings, to shift
    estuaries from their natural balance. As scientists, we may have done
    the ``easy part,'' that is, we previously recognized aquatic microbes
    that cause obvious problems for fish or human health, but a new group
    may be emerging that counts Pfiesteria among its first known
    representatives. What is clear, at present, is that this example of
    subtle but serious impacts from water quality degradation in our
    estuaries unites the issues of estuarine water pollution, fish health,
    and human health. For the sake of our own health as well as the health
    of our fisheries, we must move beyond the obvious to gain much sponger
    appreciation for The subtle but serious impacts of our actions in
    degrading water quality and otherwise altering estuarine habitats.
        Exponential human population growth in many coastlands of our
    county is projected to continue for at least the next two decades.\2\
    Thus, balancing the enormous economic grown along our coastlands with
    conservation practices--that is, wise use of our coastal resources--is
    a challenge that is both immediate and pressing. We have not been
    winning this battle, and we can do much better. S. 1222 represents a
    major, exciting step toward meeting this challenge.
    Estuary Restoration: Maximizing Progress
        As a scientist who has acted in policy evaluation, in positions
    shalt were appointed by both republican and democratic Governors, I
    have long considered the question of how to maximize progress in
    improving the quality of our estuaries. I regard the partnership, cost-
    sharing approach outlined in S. 1222 as highly constructive in bringing
    all stakeholders together, from industries and municipalities to
    individual citizens, in working to achieve this overall goal. Within
    that context, the suggestions offered here include four major areas of
    emphasis, and stem from my earlier efforts in contributing to a policy
    document with similar focus.\1\
        Certain efforts are critically needed to maximize progress in
    restoration of our nation's estuaries. First, we should accelerate
    river and watershed cleanup through a strong incentive program. This
    cleanup effort needs to incorporate alternate/improved methods of waste
    disposal that reduce point source pollutant loadings (e.g.,
    encouragement of adequate methods of land application, plant upgradings
    to employ biological nutrient removal techniques). Non-point pollution
    historically has proven much more difficult to control, and a major
    effort must be undertaken to design incentives programs that work for
    farmers, municipalities attempting to control urban runoff, and animal
    production industries, for example. Small-scale contributors, who
    collectively can become significant, should also be a focus of these
    programs, such as homeowners or golf course managers who use
    fertilizers and pesticides in lawn care. Acceleration of river and
    watershed cleanup, additionally, must involve restructuring hydrologic
    flow patterns to restore natural flow patterns in watersheds that drain
    into estuaries. A critical problem facing many coastal areas, and
    already impinging on estuarine ecosystems, is depletion of coastal
    aquifers and other water supplies.\5\ Strong water reuse programs are
    needed as an essential component of estuarine system restoration.
    Coastal reserves should be expanded to further conserve key
    environmental habitats such as estuarine fish nurseries.\1\
        Secondly, success in the above actions will require additional
    information/programs including resource inventories where needed at
    state and local levels, so that baselines can be established where
    needed and progress can be tracked. Such demonstration of progress will
    provide, of itself, a strong incentive to foster sometime difficult
    efforts to achieve continued positive action. Accurate maps of
    submersed aquatic vegetation, wetlands, shellfish beds, nurseries,
    spawning grounds, and other habitats vital to our fisheries should be
    delineated and updated at appropriate intervals.\1\ Programs to
    strengthen protection at these critical habitats should be
    strengthened. Attainment of con of the above goals also will require
    additions answers and information that must be provided by research.
    Examples of research needs include:
         development/testing of water reuse techniques to maximize
    effectiveness in specific locations/regions;
         design of techniques and models to improve accuracy ire
    quantifying the contributions of various pollutant sources;
         development of improved indicators or biosensors of water
    quality and habitat degradation;
         assessment of the contribution of groundwater to estuarine
    habitat/water quality degradation;
         design of improved techniques to create value-added
    products from various waste sources;
         development of improved methods for constructing habitats
    with adequate functioned value to replace lost natural habitats; also
    development of improved techniques for restoring functional value to
    degraded wetlands, seagrass beds, and other vital estuarine habitats
    for our fisheries; and
         characterization of the full extent of chronic and
    sublethal impacts from major pollutant loadings on both aquatic
    communities (especially early life history stages) and the health of
    people who live and work near the affected estuarine waters.
        Lastly, but arguably of greatest importance in information
    acquisition is the need to support research in natural resource
    economics, so that the full value of both short-term and the long-term
    goods (products) services (filtering pollutants, flood control, habitat
    provision, aesthetics in attracting, tourism, etc.) that are
    contributed by estuaries can be accurately appraised and imparted to
    our citizens.
        A third major ingredient to maximize progress in restoration of our
    nation's estuaries will be to promote development of comprehensive
    environmental education and outreach programs that begin in pre-school,
    extend to high school and college, and continue to touch all citizens
    throughout their lives.\9\ Such programs are needed in every state from
    the heartland to the coasts--for example, a major body of research now
    indicates that the ca. 700 square-mile zone of low-oxygen that extends
    out from the Mississippi delta along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana has
    resulted, in large measure, from pollution carried, from north-central
    states down the Mississippi River. The receiving estuary is impacted by
    states far removed from coastal Louisiana, and restoration will not be
    possible without understanding, cooperation, and assistance from the
    heartland states 'upstream.' Federal, state and local programs that
    encourage responsible development should be developed/strengthened,
    with the goal of restoring and maintaining the high-quality waters and
    habitat, needed to sustain our fishery resources.
        The fourth major area of emphasis that will be required to minimize
    success in estuary restoration will be to work to both significantly
    improve enforcement of existing laws aimed at conservation (wise use)
    of estuarine resources, and to strengthen legislation where needed.\1\
    Many laws designed to protect or improve water quality in our rivers
    and receiving estuaries would go far toward achieving widescale
    estuarine restoration, if they were meaningfully enforced. It is
    imperative that the set of tasks that must be undertaken to accomplish
    this goal include development of a strong incentive program to
    encourage all participants to both want to follow existing laws and to
    have the means afforded for that to be possible. Innovative, creative
    programs will be required, and must be developed, to increase the
    funding support that will he needed to achieve this extremely important
    goal. They are within reach;\1\ this country is great, in large
    measure, because of people through our history who have contributed
    creative, constructive thinking in solving major problems. As
    previously mentioned, many impacts on estuaries from human activities
    originate upstream. States should enact/strengthen a freshwater
    wetlands protection statute, similar to those that are available in
    many coastal states for saltwater wetlands. This freshwater wetlands
    statute should provide incentives to private landowners to conserve
    these important habitats for water quality control. Such improvements
    will need to be accompanied by changes in the current ``turfdom'' of
    estuarine resource management in order to achieve a more integrated
    approach among, for example, fishery and water quality managers.\1\
        Efforts are also needed to strengthen the success of the Coastal
    Area Management Act (CAMA). Partnerships at state levels should work to
    create programs to provide the fiscal resources and technical
    assistance to local governments in preparing and implementing high-
    quality land use plans.\1\ Moreover, the design of land use plans
    should be altered so that these plans are required to consider the
    cumulative and secondary impacts of growth not only on development of
    the land itself, but also on water quality and water supply. For
    example, at present, land use plans developed under CAMA are not
    require to assess the carrying capacity of adjacent waters to
    assimilate the additional wastes that would be associated with expanded
    community growth and development. The greatest progress in restoring
    our estuaries will be accomplished when that connection can be realized
    in the increasingly urbanized coasts setting.
                                   references
        \1\ Coastal Futures Committee (1994) Charting a Course for our
    Coasts--Report to the Governor. Final Report to recommend changes in
    coastal resource policy in North Carolina on the 20th anniversary of
    the Coastal Area Management Act. North Carolina Department of
    Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Raleigh, 106 pp. Note: Dr.
    Burkholder was the only scientist on the committee, and represented the
    North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission.
        \2\Miller, G.T. (1992, 1997) Living in the Environment. Wadsworth
    Publishing Company, Belmont (CA).
        \3\ Office of Technology Assessment (1987) Wastes in Marine
    Environments. U.S. Congress, OTA-0-334. U.S. Government Printing
    Office, Washington, DC.
        \4\Kennish, M.J. (1994) Practical Handbook of Marine Science, 2d
    edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, LA.
        \5\Postel, S. (1997) Last Oasis--Facing Water Scarcity. W.W. Norton
    & Company, New York, NY.
        \6\Bryant, D. E. Rodenburg, T. Cox & D. Nielsen (1995) Coastlines
    at Risk: An Index of Potential Development-Related Threats to Coastal
    Ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, District of
    Columbia.
        Deichmann, U. (1996) A Review of Spatial Population Data base
    Design and Modeling. National Center for Geographic Information and
    Analysis Technical Report 96-3 (March). Santa Barbara, California.
        \7\ Burkholder, J.M. K.M. Mason & E.J. Glasgow Jr. (1992) Water-
    column nitrate enrichment promotes decline of eelgrass Zostera marina:
    evidence from seasonsal mesocosm experiments Marine Ecology Progress
    Series, vol 81, pp. 163-178.
        Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C Stevenson, V. Carter, S.
    Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom & R.A. Batiuk (1993) Assessing water quality
    with submerged aquatic vegetation. BioScience, vol. 43, pp. 86-94
        \8\Sindermann, C.J. (1996) Ocean Pollution--Effects on Living
    Resources and Humans. CRC Press, Coca Baton, LA.
        \9\Burkholder, J.M., H.J. Noga, C.W. Hobbs, H.B. Glasgow Jr. & S.A.
    Smith (1992) New ``phantom'' dinoflagellate is the causative agent of
    mayor estuarine fish kills. Nature, volume 358, pp. 407-410; and
    mature, vol. 359, p. 760.
        \10\ Burkholder, J.M. (1997) Implications of harmful marine
    microalgae and heterotrophic dinoflagellates in management of
    sustainable fisheries. National Academy of Sciences special issue on
    sustainable marine fisheries. Ecological Applications Supplement, vol.
    8, pp. S37-S62.
        \11\Burkholder, J.M. &. H.B. Glasgow Jr. (1997) Pfiesteria
    piscicida and other Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates: Behavior, impacts,
    and environmental controls. Limnology & Oceanography, vol. 42, pp.
    1052-1075
        \11\Boesch, D.F. (ed.) (1997) The Cambridge Concensus--Forum on
    Land-Based Pollution and Toxic Dinoflagellates in Chesapeake Bay.
    University of Maryland, Cambridge.
        \12\Glasgow, H.B. Jr., J.M. Burkholder, D.E. Schmechel, P.A. Tester
    & P.A. Rublee (1995) Insidious effects of a toxic dinoflagellate on
    fish survival and human health. Journal of Toxicology & Environmental
    Health. volume 46, pp. 101-122.
        \13\Grattan, L.M., D. Oldach,. T.M. Perl, M H. Lowitt, D.L.
    Matuszak, C. Dickson, C. Parrott, R.C. Shoemaker, M.P. Wasserman, J.R.
    Hebel, P. Charache & Job. Moms Tr. (1998) Problems in learning and
    memory occur in persons with environmental exposure to waterways
    containing toxin-productng Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like
    dinoflagellates. The Lancer (accepted).
                                     ______

     Statement of J. Walter Milon, Professor, Food and Resource Economics
                       Department, University of Florida
        Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public
    Works Committee: I thank you for the opportunity to present a brief
    summary of research on the economic value of the Indian River Lagoon,
    an estuary of national significance and part of the Environmental
    Protection Agency's National Estuary Program. The information presented
    here is derived from a study I coordinated as part of a team organized
    by Apogee Research Inc., a nationally recognized leader in
    environmental and natural resource economics. This study was sponsored
    by the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) and the
    St. Johns River Water Management District, the state sponsor for the
    IRLNEP. The study is presented as one documented example of the value
    of estuaries nationwide.
        The Indian River Lagoon, one of the nation's most biologically
    diverse estuaries, stretches 156 miles along Florida's east coast
    spanning Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin counties.
    These five counties are home to more than 1 million residents and host
    more than 6 million visitors each year. The number of residents in the
    five counties of the Lagoon is expected to increase from 1.25 million
    to 1.54 million between 1995 and 2005--a 24 percent increase in 10
    years.
        In developing estimates of the economic value of an environmental
    resource such as an estuary it is important to consider the scope and
    extent of human activity related to that resource. The accompanying
    Table 2-4 (from Section 2 of the report Economic Assessment and
    Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon which is included as Addendum A)
    shows the scope of activities considered in the Indian River Lagoon
    study. These activities range from traditional economic uses such as
    the value of commercial and recreational harvests from the Lagoon to
    more intangible economic values such as the enhancement of land values
    adjacent to the resource and individuals' values for preserving the
    resource. The full report presents the valuation methodologies and data
    collection used in the study so I will not describe those here.
        The results summarized in Table 2-4 show the importance of the
    Lagoon to the economy of the region in 1995. Recreational fishing by
    residents and tourists was estimated to contribute approximately $340
    million per year; swimming, boating, water sports, and nature
    observation activities around the Lagoon contributed another $287
    million annually. Commercial harvesting of shellfish such as clams,
    oysters, and crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually. In
    addition, residential land values were enhanced by the presence of the
    Lagoon in the amount of approximately $825 million (see Table 2-1 in
    Section 2) which can be expressed as an annualized value of $33
    million. Collectively, the direct values associated with the Lagoon on
    an annual basis amounted to more than $725 million.
        These Lagoon-dependent activities create additional indirect
    impacts on the regional economy. Businesses related to recreation,
    tourism, and fisheries generate nearly $4 billion or about 17 percent
    of total output within the region (see pp. 10--12 of Addendum B).
    Resident and tourist spending for Lagoon related activities accounted
    for more than 19,000 jobs in the region.
        These measures of the economic contribution of the Indian River
    Lagoon can be compared to the costs of implementing the Comprehensive
    Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) developed as part of the
    IRLNEP. The CCMP includes recommendations to maintain and restore the
    Lagoon through water quality management and habitat protection. These
    costs were estimated to be less than $18 million annually (see pp. 12--
    14 of Addendum B) indicating that the costs of sustaining the
    activities dependent on the Lagoon are modest relative to their
    economic contribution within the region. Properly designed funding
    plans could spread these costs equitably so that the average citizen in
    the region would pay no more than $10 per year. In addition, public
    surveys conducted for this study showed that residents would be willing
    to pay more than three times the estimated annual cost to implement the
    CCMP (see Addendum A, pp. 2-12--2-13).
        The results of this study, while limited to a single estuary, help
    to illustrate the economic importance of estuaries in regional
    economies and the linkage between environmental quality and economic
    development. The economy of the Indian River Lagoon region depends upon
    the ecosystem services provided by the estuary and future development
    within the region will be linked to adequate maintenance of the health
    of this ecosystem. Studies such as the one I am reporting to you are an
    integral link in helping citizens and public officials understand the
    relationship between the health of estuaries and local economies (see
    Addendum C for a supporting statement from the St. Johns River Water
    Management District).
        I hope this information will be useful to the Committee. I will
    gladly provide you with any details about this study or any other
    information about economic valuation of environmental and natural
    resources that would assist the committee in its deliberations.
                                     ______

             Addendum A to the Written Statement of J. Walter Milon

        ``Estimated Economic Value of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995''

       section 2 of economic assessment and analysis of the indian river
               lagoon--natural resource valuation of the lagoon.
     report submitted to the finance and implementation task force, indian
       river lagoon national estuary program by apogee research, inc. in
      association with resource economics consultants, inc. january 1996.

                                  Introduction

    The Indian River Lagoon as an Economic Asset
        The Indian River Lagoon is many things to many different people: it
    offers unique vistas of tropical habitats and barrier islands; it
    supports a diverse array of flora and fauna; it attracts people to
    live, visit, and enjoy the region's natural amenities; it supports
    industries and jobs from renewable resources; and, in its entirety, it
    is one ofthe most unique ecosystems in the United States.
        Some may assert that it is highly presumptuous to assume that
    economic value can measure the worth of this ecosystem to society.
        There are several reasons why a measure of economic value for the
    Indian River Lagoon is useful and indeed critical to the success of
    proposed resource management programs. First, in a society that
    frequently gauges the importance of objects and places by their
    monetary value, information about the economic value of a natural
    resource may enhance public understanding of the contributions that
    resource makes to the community. Second, information about the economic
    value of the Lagoon can help to establish priorities for the use of
    public funds to maintain its value. Finally, and perhaps most
    importantly, economic value information is necessary to evaluate the
    economic merits of action plans developed by the Management Conference
    for the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
        Economic value information presented in this volume is based on
    both primary (newly collected for the specific purposes of this study)
    and secondary data (collected previously for other studies). Where
    applicable secondary data were available from previous economic or
    biologic studies or surveys of Indian River Lagoon, those data were
    utilized. However, in at least three areas existing data were
    insufficient or inadequate and required the collection of primary data:
          A critical lack of data for all types of recreational
    activities (fishing, swimming. boating, nature study) within the
    Lagoon. Most ofthe available data did not identify if these activities
    occurred within the Lagoon or in the adjoining Atlantic Ocean.
          No activity- and site-specific estimates of the nonmarket
    values associated with recreational activities within the Lagoon.
          No estimates of passive use values ofthe Lagoon.
        In order to provide the necessary primary data, two separate
    surveys were conducted. A telephone survey collected information from
    residents of Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin
    Counties, while an intercept survey collected information from
    nonresident visitors. Visitors were surveyed at Sebastian Inlet State
    Park, Ron Jon Surf Shop in Cocoa Beach. Melbourne International
    Airport, Mangrove Mattie's at Ft. Pierce Inlet, and the Kennedy Space
    Center. The data collected in the surveys were used to develop:
        1. Participation rates and economic values for recreational
    activities in the Lagoon by both area residents and nonresident
    visitors;
        2. Estimates of willingness to pay for Lagoon restoration and
    management programs; and
        3. Estimates of passive use values.
        The survey results, questionnaires and methodology are summarized
    in this section and described in detail in Section 3 and Appendices 3-A
    through 3-E.
        Other elements of the economic valuation of the Indian River Lagoon
    summarized in this section address three areas:
        1. The effects of riverfront location on residential property
    value, discussed in Section 4,
        2. The value to recreational anglers of access to the Lagoon and of
    increased catch rates for their targeted species, discussed in Section
    5, and
        3. The value of commercial shellfishing for Lagoon-dependent
    species, discussed in Section 6.
        The following subsection introduces concepts important to
    understanding economic valuation.
    Types of Economic Value
        The broadest, and perhaps most straightforward, distinction to make
    in economic valuation is between market and nonmarket values. Market
    values are the most common type of dollar values measured because
    market values result from the normal day-to-day transactions for
    private goods such as food, clothing, and household goods. Market
    values are relatively easy to identify as long as information is
    available about the total volume of the transactions.
        On the other hand, nonmarket values are values that people have for
    goods they enjoy but for which there are no explicit transactions to be
    monitored and therefore no readily available dollar values from such
    transactions. For example, when a recreational angler decides to fish
    in the Lagoon, he or she derives value from the fishing experience yet
    does not have to make an explicit payment for the right to fish (other
    than a license, if required). The fact that the angler does not pay for
    the right to fish is a result of the ``public good'' nature of the
    Lagoon. That is, the Lagoon is not owned by any entity, rather it is a
    resource held in common by the public. By way of comparison, if the
    angler had instead decided to go bowling, he would have had to pay for
    the recreational activity according to the time of participation (e.g.,
    number of frames or games). The amount the angler would be willing to
    pay to fish is the proper measure of the nonmarket value of
    recreational fishing in the Lagoon. But, since no transaction actually
    occurs, some method must be used to identify this nonmarket value.
        Recreational fishing also provides a good example of an activity
    that has both market and nonmarket value components. Since the angler
    may incur certain expenses to go fishing in the Lagoon (e.g., bait,
    fuel expenses, and equipment), he has revealed a willingness to pay the
    market price for goods and services that accompany the fishing
    experience. This is a measure of the market value of recreational
    fishing. Combining this market value with a measure of the nonmarket
    value yields the total economic value of recreational fishing,
    generally

        Total Economic Value = Market Value + Nonmarket Value

        Many activities that utilize the resources of the Lagoon such as
    recreational boating, swimming, and nature study have both market and
    nonmarket values. Therefore, a complete valuation of the Lagoon must
    consider the total economic value whenever appropriate. Some
    activities, however, may be fully valued in the market and have no
    nonmarket value component. Other activities, such as passive viewing of
    the Lagoon or a concern that the resources of the Lagoon continue to
    exist for future generations (referred to as existence value), have no
    market value component and would be measured solely by nonmarket value.
        A second important distinction in the types of economic values is
    between direct and indirect values. Direct values are the result of an
    explicit. causal linkage to an activity. For example, the sales of fish
    landings of the commercial fishing industry is an expression of the
    value of the waters and especially the quality of the water of the
    Indian River Lagoon since the industry harvests the commercially
    valuable (market) products of the marine ecosystem. Similarly,
    recreational anglers' activities have a direct value that is explicitly
    linked to the Lagoon. On the other hand, indirect values are less
    explicit and difficult to link with resources. For example, a boat
    manufacturer located near the Lagoon may have higher sales due to
    recreational boating activities on the waters of the Lagoon. But the
    Lagoon has only an indirect value to the manufacturer because boats can
    be sold in other markets or used in other water bodies and the
    manufacturer's output is not tied as directly to the Lagoon as is the
    commercial fisherman's output.
        This report addresses only the direct economic values of human
    Lagoon-related activities. as indirect values are beyond the scope of
    the study. The analysis includes both market and nonmarket uses of the
    Lagoon, and estimates in Section 3 a passive use value from willingness
    to pay data collected in the surveys of residents and nonresident
    visitors.
        Economic values for recreation activities and passive use developed
    from the surveys are based on the contingent valuation method (CVM).
    This widely applied method uses survey questions to elicit people's
    values for goods and services that are not provided through traditional
    market processes. The questions are typically designed to measure an
    individual's willingness to pay for a good or service, whether enjoyed
    actively or passively. The question format may be developed to create a
    hypothetical market or a hypothetical referendum. The hypothetical
    referendum is designed to elicit from the respondent an estimate ofthe
    increase in his or her value resulting from a choice, such as
    supporting increased stormwater management for Lagoon environmental
    quality improvement. \1\ This referendum format was used in both the
    resident and nonresident surveys.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Questions asked respondents directly what he/she would be
    willing to pay in the form of an increase in local taxes for certain
    programs to improve Lagoon environmental quality.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The hypothetical referendum applied to estimate a willingness to
    pay for Lagoon CCMP programs by its nature generates somewhat
    subjective dollar values. Because the individual is responding to an
    interview rather than an actual purchasing or decision-making
    situation, his or her statement of willingness to pay is made without
    an actual consideration of affordability or ability to pay. The
    respondent does not have to open a wallet or check book before stating
    a willingness to pay. He probably does not consider what purchases he
    may have to delay or forego in order to state his willingness to pay.
    Willingness to pay estimates of dollar value are therefore
    approximations.
        The following four subsections of Section 2 describe the analytical
    approach and the results of the economic valuation:

          Lagoon riverfront location effects on residential
    property value;
          Market and nonmarket value of resident and nonresident
    recreational activities;
          Resident and nonresident willingness to pay for Lagoon
    environmental quality; and
          Market value of commercial fishing.
        A fifth subsection assembles and summarizes economic values.

                     Lagoon Riverfront Residents Land Value

        The influence of the presence and environmental quality of a
    waterbody, particularly in coastal areas, on the value of adjacent or
    nearby land is significant. The value that people have for the Lagoon
    is partially capitalized \2\ in the prices of land in proximity to the
    Lagoon with the result that land parcels located near or on the
    riverfront can be expected to command higher prices than parcels
    further from the riverfront. Both market and nonmarket values, such as
    the aesthetic value of the Lagoon view, may be capitalized in land
    value. The difference between the aggregate value of land near or on
    the Lagoon riverfront and the aggregate value of parcels more remote
    from the riverfront is an approximate measure of the capitalized value
    that people have for the Lagoon.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\  Capitalized value may be defined as the present value of a
    stream of benefits obtained from the land over the anticipated
    ownership period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To approximate the capitalized value, the study obtained appraised
    residential-use land value data developed by county property
    appraisers. The staff of Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, Indian River,
    St. Lucie and Martin counties provided parcel counts and appraised land
    values for riverfront and nonriverfront residential use property.
    County data files permitted only riverfront land to be distinguished
    from nonriverfront land; the value effects of location near, as opposed
    to on, the riverfront could not be estimated. The analysis performed
    with the data addresses the impact on land value only and not
    improvements to land. \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ An analysis of the effect of riverfront location was not made
    for improvements to land because of the uncertainty in the data
    introduced by the wide variation in improvements. Nevertheless, the
    value of improvements made to riverfront residential properties is
    informative. Appraised value of improvements to riverfront property
    range from $431 million in Brevard County to $89 million in St. Lucie
    County. The total appraised value of improvements aggregated across the
    five counties is approximately $1.17 billion. Since these appraised
    values are approximately 85 percent of market value, the aggregate
    market value of improvements is about $1.4 billion. In contrast to
    values for land alone discussed above, the value of improvements is
    only partially attributable to riverfront location.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As shown in Table 2-1, in the five-county region the difference in
    residential land appraised value attributable to Lagoon riverfront
    location is approximately $700 million. Considering that the county
    appraised land values are approximately 85 percent of estimated market
    value, consistent with Florida Department of Revenue Guidelines, \4\
    the difference in residential land market value attributable to Lagoon
    riverfront location would be about $825 million ($700 million divided
    by 0.85). This figure is an underestimate ofthe actual influence ofthe
    Lagoon on land values since it includes residential riverfront only and
    not all land in proximity to the Lagoon.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Florida Administrative Code 12D-8002 (4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On a county-by-county basis, as Shown in Table 2-1, the difference
    in appraised land value attributable to the Lagoon ranges from $304
    million in Brevard County, which includes about half of the length of
    the Lagoon system, to $69 million in St. Lucie County. In the case of
    Volusia County, about half of the north-south dimension of the county
    is within the Lagoon region and half is within the Halifax River
    Region; therefore half, or $100 million, of the total Volusia County
    difference in appraised land value attributable to estuaries and their
    tributaries is included in the aggregate $700 million.
        In order to compare the capitalized land values with other annual
    dollar flows estimated in this study, the land values must be converted
    to annual dollar flows. These approximate capitalized values may be
    converted to annual flows by the simple exercise of multiplying the
    capital value by a discount rate that represents the time value of
    money. That is, the discount rate selected should exclude risk and
    inflation expectations normally contained in market interest rates. A
    risk-free interest rate is represented by 30-year U.S. government
    bonds. As of August 31, 1995, the 30-year bond rate was 6.6 percent.
    \5\ This rate is adjusted to exclude inflation expectations by
    deducting the 1994 rate of inflation, or 2.6 percent. \6\ Therefore the
    analysis used a discount rate of 4.0 percent (6.6 less 2.6) to convert
    capitalized land values to an annual flow. The annualized total market
    value of riverfront location is approximately $33 million ($825 million
    multiplied by 0.04).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Wall Street Journal, 31 August 1995.
        \6\ Carol McLarty, oral communication, 8 September 1995. Bureau of
    Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another approach to examining the difference in value attributable
    to Lagoon riverfront location is to develop certain ratios for
    comparison. A ``value indicator'' may be constructed by relating
    percentage of value and percentage of parcel count for both riverfront
    and nonriverfront land. as detailed in Section 4 of this report. The
    ratio of the value indicator for riverfront land to that for
    nonriverfront land relates the relative value of the two locations.
    Table 2-2 summarizes the results of this exercise for the five
    counties. Volusia County demonstrates the highest ratio of riverfront
    to nonriverfront value at 8.1 while Brevard County demonstrates the
    lowest ratio at 4.6. In other words, this comparison suggests that
    riverfront land in Brevard County is 4.6 times as valuable as
    nonriverfront, while in Volusia County riverfront land is 8.1 times as
    valuable as nonriverfront.
        While land values are not as sensitive to incremental improvements
    in environmental quality of the Lagoon as recreational and commercial
    fishing values, it is clear that a significant value is associated with
    the Lagoon presence. Deteriorating environmental conditions in the
    Lagoon over the long term could negatively affect the value of
    riverfront property.

                Table 2-1. Incremental Value of Residential Land Attributable to the Indian River Lagoon
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Incremental
                                              Riverfront  Nonriverfront    Average     Value of Land
                     County                    Average       Average        Parcel     Attributable       Market
                                                Parcel        Parcel      Difference   to Riverfront     Value\1\
                                                Value                      in Value      Location
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Volusia\2\.............................     $132,919       $15,937      $116,981    $100,077,000    $117,738,000
    Brevard................................      106,351        23,174        83,177     303,930,000     357,565,000
    Indian River...........................      237,197        31,429       205,768      90,949,000     106,999,000
    St. Lucie..............................       71,928        12,578        59,350      69,025,000      81,206,000
    Martin.................................      212,136        40,389       171,128     137,066,000     161,254,000
        Total..............................     $125,362       $20,548      $104,814  $701,047,000\3
                                                                                                   \    $821,762,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Appraised value divided by 85 percent, as discussed in text.
    \2\Volusia County entries are adjusted to recognize that roughly half of the north-south dimension of the county
      is within the Lagoon basin (Mosquito River) and half is within the Halifax River basin. Since county parcel
      counts and values could not be separated for the two basins, the total numbers of each are simply divided in
      half. Thus the value of Indian River Lagoon riverfront residential land in Volusia County is estimated at
      $100.1 million, while the total value of all estuarial riverfront land (Mosquito River plus Halifax River) is
      $200.2 million.
    \3\The total value calculated vertically will not equal the total calculated horizontally because of statistical
      anomalies in the data. The statistically non-normal distribution of the nonriverfront parcel values reduces
      the average nonriverfront parcel value, which in turn inflates the average riverfront parcel value and the
      average difference. Thus when the average riverfront parcel value is multiplied by the total riverfront parcel
      count, the product is overestimated.

                         Table 2-2. Comparison of Riverfront and Nonriverfront Value Indicators
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Riverfront                        Value of
                                  County                                  Value       Nonriverfront    Riverfront to
                                                                        Indicators   Value Indicators  Nonriverfront
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Volusia..........................................................         7.91               0.98           8.1
    Brevard..........................................................         4.21               0.92           4.6
    Indian River.....................................................         7.15               0.95           7.5
    St. Lucie........................................................         5.46               0.95           5.7
    Martin...........................................................          4.9               0.93           5.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Value of Recreational Activities

        The two surveys conducted in this study sought to identify the
    types of recreational activities, rates of participation in those
    activities, and value of market expenditures made for those activities
    by both residents and nonresident visitors to the five counties ofthe
    Indian River Lagoon.
        As detailed in Section 3 and associated appendices, a stratified,
    random digit dialing telephone survey of 1,000 adult (at least 18 years
    of age) residents was conducted in February and March of 1995. Two
    hundred interviews were conducted in each county, resulting in sampling
    error rates of + 3 percent for the region and + 8 percent for each
    county (with a 95 percent level of confidence in both cases).
        The nonresident visitor survey was completed during April and May
    1995, using personal interviews with adults who are not Florida
    residents. A total of 500 interviews were completed. producing a
    sampling error rate of + 4.5 percent. Interviews were conducted at five
    popular visitor destinations in the region. Sebastian Inlet, Ron Jon
    Surf Shop, Melbourne Airport. Mangrove Matties and Kennedy Space
    Center. Due to limited information on visitor populations in individual
    counties, the survey results cannot be evaluated for individual
    counties.
    Recreational Participation
        Survey results indicate that participation in water-based
    recreation in the Indian River Lagoon is significant for both residents
    and visitors. Resident respondents indicated a 24 percent participation
    rate in recreational fishing and 17 percent in boating, as shown in
    Figure 2-1. Visitors indicated a heavier preference for swimming and
    nature observation, with participation rates at 55 percent \7\ and 48
    percent, respectively, as shown in Figure 2-2. Overall, the results
    indicate that a large share of nonresident visitors associate their
    recreational activities with the Lagoon.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The swimming participation rate for visitors seems high,
    particularly in comparison with the rate for residents at 9 percent.
    While visitors may correctly report that 55 percent swim in the Lagoon,
    a potential problem could be that visitors did not distinguish the
    Lagoon from the ocean and are really reporting swimming in the ocean.
    This issue is discussed further in Section 3 This high participation
    rate and possible confusion is reflected in a very high dollar value
    for visitor swimming, as discussed below and shown in Figure 2-4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recreational Value
        Total annual recreational expenditures by residents are estimated
    by multiplying the per person participation rate for each recreational
    activity times each county estimated 1993 population (from the 1994
    Florida Statistical Abstract, Table 1.35). The multiplication product
    is then multiplied by the average respondent-estimated annual
    expenditures for that recreational activity. Total annual recreational
    expenditures by visitors are similarly estimated by multiplying the per
    party estimates given by those surveyed times the total number of
    visitor parties. Resident recreational activities total $256.5 million
    across the five counties, with recreational fishing at $149.1 million
    representing over half of the total as shown in Figure 2-3. The largest
    single activity value for visitors is swimming at $112.2 million, which
    reflects the high participation rate reported, but may also reflect
    some confusion between swimming in the Lagoon and swimming in the
    Atlantic Ocean. Total 1995 visitor recreational expenditures are $230.9
    million, including recreational fishing expenditures estimated at $43.3
    million. Visitor expenditures are summarized in Figure 2-4.
        Combined estimated 1995 recreational expenditures of both residents
    and visitors surveyed total $487.4 million. The combined estimated
    expenditure for recreational fishing and shellfishing alone totals
    $198.5 million, demonstrating the significance of recreational fishing
    in the economic value of the Lagoon. These expenditures for fishing as
    well as the other activities represent the estimated market value of
    the recreational activities, as discussed earlier. Table 2-3 summarizes
    both resident and visitor respondent-estimated expenditures for
    recreational activities in the region (Section 3 and related appendices
    provide more detail).
        While a nonmarket value also exists for all of these activities in
    the form of the value of access to the activities which exceeds the
    cost of the activities (in economic parlance, consumer surplus).
    collecting and analyzing the necessary data is beyond the scope of this
    study. However, because data were already available for recreational
    fishing, the value of access to the Lagoon for resident recreational
    fishing is estimated in this report. The data \8\ utilized were
    collected for the Indian River Lagoon region in 1992. Section 5
    describes in detail the development and application of statistical
    techniques known as random utility travel cost models with which the
    value of access is estimated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey, 1992, developed
    by the National Marine Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, with an add-on component titled the
    University of Florida Participation Survey. See J. W. Milon and E. M.
    Thunberg, ``A Regional Analysis of Current and Future Florida Resident
    Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing (Report SGR-I 12).''
    University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant, 1993.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Using travel cost model techniques, the annual value of access to
    the Lagoon for recreational fishing by residents is estimated to range
    from $589 per angler in Martin County to $110 per angler in Se. Lucie
    County. Extending the per angler values across 1995 county populations
    and participation rates yields a total nonmarket access value of $140
    million per year for recreational fishing in the Indian River Lagoon.

      Table 2-3. Estimated 1995 Expenditures for Lagoon-Related Recreation
                              (Millions of Dollars)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                Activity                Resident     Visitor    Expenditures
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fishing and Shellfishing........       $155.2        $43.3        $198.5
    Swimming........................         23.7        112.2         135.9
    Boating.........................         49.1          9.5          58.6
    Nature Observation..............         22.2         65.8          88.0
    Water Sports....................          4.8          N/A           4.8
    Hunting.........................          1.5          0.1           1.6
        Total Expenditures..........       $256.5       $230.9        $487.4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The annual total economic value of resident recreational fishing
    may be approximated by adding the estimated nonmarket access value of
    $140 million to estimated expenditures of $155.2 million. providing an
    estimated $295.2 million for the annual total economic value of
    recreational fishing by residents of the five-county Lagoon region.
    Adding the estimated visitor expenditures for recreational fishing,
    $43.3 million, yields an estimated total value for Lagoon recreational
    fishing of $338.5 million per year. Since this study does not include
    the Lagoon access value to visitors. $,38.5 million is only a partial
    estimate of the total economic value of recreational fishing to all
    anglers enjoying the Indian River Lagoon.

              Willingness to Pay for Lagoon Environmental Quality

    Perception of Present Lagoon Environmental Quality
        In the surveys of residents and visitors, respondents were asked a
    series of questions intended to elicit their perceptions of the
    environmental quality of the Lagoon, their opinions of the relate the
    effectiveness of environmental quality programs intended to improve the
    quality of the Lagoon. and their willingness to pay for such programs.
    On a scale of I (excellent) to 7 (very bad). residents rated the
    present condition of the Lagoon at an average of 4.37. Since 4.37 is
    significantly above the scale midpoint of 3.5, this average response
    indicates a public perception that the Lagoon is somewhat deteriorated;
    moreover, a majority of residents indicated that the Lagoon is either
    continuing to deteriorate or staying the same.
        Nonresident visitors, on the other hand, rated the Lagoon quality
    at an average of 2.87. significantly lower than the scale midpoint 3.5.
    This average response indicates a perception that the Lagoon is of
    above average environmental quality. The majority of visitors also
    responded that they had insufficient information to judge whether the
    Lagoon is improving or deteriorating in quality. The results of the two
    surveys show that residents have a more negative view of Lagoon
    environmental conditions than those who visit the area for a short
    time. This may reflect the poorer environmental quality of resources in
    visitors' home regions and/or a ``halo effect'' of the vacation
    experience in which the Lagoon appears highly aesthetic and therefore
    above average in environmental quality because it is an unaccustomed
    sight.
    Perception of Lagoon Restoration and Improvement Programs
        The resident survey included descriptions of three action plans
    that are composites of several CCMP action plans. The several CCMP
    action plans were combined into three composites in order to give
    survey respondents a more complete picture and still stay within the
    time constraints of the interviews. The survey asked the respondents to
    give an opinion on the relative effectiveness of those action plans.
    The composite action plans are:

          Wetlands Protection--described simply as enforcing and
    supporting conservation measures to limit development of privately
    owned wetlands;
          Land Acquisition--described as creating a public trust
    fund to buy and maintain wetlands; and
          Stormwater Management--described as limiting storm water
    runoff and improving water quality.

        The composite action plans are discussed in more detail in Section
    3 and Appendix 3-A.
        Respondents indicated that they perceive stormwater management most
    likely to improve environmental quality in the Lagoon. Notably, this
    priority was consistent across all five counties. Land acquisition was
    perceived as the least effective plan, consistently across all five
    counties.
    Willingness to Pay for Lagoon Restoration and Management Programs
        Resident willingness to pay for the stormwater management action
    plan was consistent with the indicated perception of the plan's
    potential effectiveness. The average annual household willingness to
    pay for stormwater management is $58. The median value of annual
    household willingness to pay is $40, the amount that 50 percent of the
    respondents would be willing to pay for stormwater management. Land
    acquisition has an average willingness to pay of $33 per household with
    a median of $29, and wetland protection has an average willingness to
    pay of $25 per household with a median of $19. Depending upon the
    action plan, from 68 to 75 percent of respondents indicated their
    willingness to pay for a program to improve the environmental quality
    of the Lagoon.
        The survey questionnaire also presented the three action plans as
    ``programs,'' alternatively combining two action plans. Those programs
    which included stormwater management have higher means and medians than
    those programs that do not have stormwater management. As discussed in
    Section 3, the highest respondent annual willingness to pay for such a
    combination is $66 (median $52) for a combined wetland/stormwater
    management program Average willingness to pay for a total combined
    program of all three action plans is $60 (median $30). Overall there
    are relatively rumor differences between the composite plan
    alternatives and the total program' suggesting a maximum amount that
    residents are willing to pay for any program to improve the Indian
    River Lagoon.
        The survey of nonresident visitors asked if they would be willing
    to pay a special tax on lodging and restaurant bills that would be
    earmarked for these programs (note that no such tax is presently
    contemplated). The average willingness to pay per visit by travel group
    or party is $23 (median $25). Of The 500 respondents, 78 percent
    indicated they are willing to pay some increase in tax.
    Resident and Visitor Passive Use Values
        The willingness to pay values for both residents and visitors
    represent passive use values associated with the Indian River Lagoon.
    Passive use value represents the preference that individuals may have
    for natural resources such as the Lagoon that is in addition to current
    direct uses of the resource. Passive use values may reflect an
    individual's desire to use the resource in the future, to know that the
    resource is available for others to use now or in the future, or simply
    to know that the resource will continue to exist in its present or an
    improved condition.
        In the case of resident willingness to pay, statistical analysis
    described in Section 3 and Appendix 3-E shows that the estimated values
    are only weakly related to current direct uses of the Lagoon.
    suggesting that nearly all of the estimated willingness to pay may be
    characterized as passive use value. Aggregating the resident respondent
    willingness to pay across the number of households in the region yields
    a total estimated annual resident passive use value of $14.6 million to
    $25.9 million, depending on whether average or median values are used.
        Multiplying the mean nonresident visitor willingness to pay across
    the estimated number of visitor travel groups or parties yields a total
    of $29.9 million. Statistical analysis of nonresident visitor responses
    in Appendix 3-E shows that a smaller share of this total may be
    considered passive use value, as a larger share of their willingness to
    pay is related to direct use motives than is the case with residents.

                       Market Value of Commercial Fishing

        Over twenty species of commercially valuable shellfish and finfish
    have traditionally been harvested from the Indian River Lagoon or are
    dependent upon the Lagoon during some stage of their development. The
    annual dockside value of the landings of both shellfish and finfish was
    $12.8 million in 1992 and $17.0 million \9\ in 1994.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Unpublished data, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida
    Department of Environmental Protection.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As of July 1, 1995, gill and entangling nets are prohibited in
    Florida waters as the outcome of a 1994 voter referendum This study,
    therefore, considers the market value of only those commercial species
    which can be legally harvested: clams, blue crab (hard and soft shell),
    shrimp, and oysters. Of the total 1992 landings, approximately $8.4
    million or 66 percent was contributed by these four species. Of the
    total 1994 Endings, $12.6 million or 74 percent was contributed by
    shellfish (the increase is due almost exclusively to an increase in
    clam harvests). The 1994 landings total of $12.6 million is used in
    this study to estimate the contribution of commercial fishing to the
    1995 total economic value of the Lagoon.
        Section 6 of this report develops a statistical model based on the
    historical relationship between submerged aquatic vegetation and
    shellfish landings. The model is applied to simulate increases in value
    of shellfish landings based on assumed increases in coverage of the
    Lagoon floor with submerged aquatic vegetation and increases in the
    reconnection of mosquito impoundments with the Lagoon. The model and
    projected values can be used to estimate the change in value of the
    commercial fishery in response to improved water quality and seagrass
    coverage but are not a direct input to estimating the present, 1995
    economic value ofthe Lagoon.

          Estimated Economic Value of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995

        The economic values estimated in this study are composed of:

          Annual expenditures for recreational activity and the
    nonmarket value of access to the Lagoon for recreational fishing;
          Annual values in terms of willingness to pay for programs
    to improve Lagoon environmental quality, and the expression of
    willingness to pay as a passive use value for the Lagoon; and
          The effect of Lagoon riverfront location on the value of
    residential land.

        The economic value of the Lagoon resource is approximated in this
    study as annual flows of $487.4 million in market expenditures for
    recreational activities, $140 million in nonmarket value of access to
    the Lagoon for recreational fishing, $44.5 to $58.0 million in passive
    use values of those who live and visit the Lagoon, $12.6 million for
    commercial fishing value and $33 million annually in the incremental
    value of residential land attributable to riverfront location. The
    total estimated annual economic value of the Lagoon ranges from $717.4
    to $730.9 million, depending upon whether one uses average or median
    values for estimated passive use value. These values are displayed in
    Table 2-4.
        The annual economic value of the Lagoon is distributed across each
    of the five counties in Table 2-5. Brevard County clearly enjoys the
    greatest proportion of the Lagoon's annual economic value at $193.4
    million, reflecting both the relatively long shore line and large
    population of that county. Indian River County has the least proportion
    of Lagoon annual economic value, consistent with a relatively short
    shore hoe and small population compared to the other five counties in
    the Lagoon region. Other demographic characteristics and recreational
    levels which influence the distribution of economic value across the
    counties are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this report. The
    distribution of resident versus nonresident recreational expenditures
    and activity levels is also discussed in detail in Section 3.
    Commercial shellfishing estimates across the counties are not available
    since the data are not collected by the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection on a county-by-county basis.
        It is important to note that these dollar values are approximations
    based on statistical techniques that have wide acceptance and use in
    the field of economics and specifically resource economics. Tables 2-4
    and 2-5 thus show an approximate annual economic value of the Indian
    River Lagoon that comprises the majority of human use and nonuse values
    for the natural resource.
        The annual economic value of the Lagoon is distributed across each
    of the five counties in Table 2-5. Brevard County clearly enjoys the
    greatest proportion of the Lagoon's annual economic value at $193.4
    million, reflecting both the relatively long shore line and large
    population of that county. Indian River County has the least proportion
    of Lagoon annual economic value, consistent with a relatively short
    shore line and small population compared to the other five counties in
    the Lagoon region. Other demographic characteristics and recreational
    levels which influence the distribution of economic value across the
    counties are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this report. The
    distribution of resident versus nonresident recreational expenditures
    and activity levels is also discussed in detail in Section 3.
    Commercial shellfishing estimates across the counties are not available
    since the data are not collected by the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection on a county-by-county basis.
        It is important to note that these dollar values are approximations
    based on statistical techniques that have wide acceptance and use in
    the field of economics and specifically resource economics. Tables 2-4
    and 2-5 thus show an approximate annual economic value of the Indian
    River Lagoon that comprises the majority of human use and nonuse values
    for the natural resource.

                             Table 2-4. Estimated Total Annual Economic Value of Human Uses
                                                  (Millions of Dollars)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Value of                              Total Use
                           Use Category                          Resident Use   Value of Visitor Use       Value
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recreational Fishing and Shellfishing.....................          $295.2                 $43.3          $338.5
    Swimming..................................................            23.7                 112.2           135.9
    Boating...................................................            49.1                   9.5            58.6
    Nature Observation........................................            22.2                  65.8            88.0
    Water Sports..............................................             4.8      Included in boat
                                                                                            category             4.8
    Hunting...................................................             1.5                   0.1             1.6
    Passive Use...............................................       14.6-25.9             29.9-32.1       44.5-58.0
    Commercial Shellfishing...................................            12.6        Not applicable            12.6
    Riverfront Residential Land...............................            33.0        Not applicable           33.00
        Total Lagoon Value....................................    $456.6-467.9          $260.8-263.0    $717.4-730.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Table 2-5. Estimated Total Annual Value of Human Uses of the Indian River Lagoon in 1995 By County
                                                  (Millions of Dollars)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Value by County
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Indian                                Region Total
             Use Category             Volusia      Brevard       River      St. Lucie      Martin
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recreational Activities:
        Fishing\1\................       $ 58.0      $ 124.3       $ 22.2       $ 31.3       $ 50.8           $286.6
        Shellfishing..............          2.5          2.7          0.6          0.2          0.1              6.1
        Swimming..................          6.7          7.6          3.1          2.8          3.5             23.7
        Boating...................          5.6         27.5          3.7          4.9          7.5             49.1
        Nature Observation........          2.6          9.7          5.7          2.1          2.1             22.2
        Water Sports..............            0          2.1          1.0          1.1          0.5              4.8
        Hunting...................            0            0          1.5            0            0              1.5
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recreational Activities Sub-
     total........................         75.4        173.9         37.8         42.4         64.5            394.0

    Passive Use (Residents).......      4.9-8.7      5.2-9.2      1.2-2.2      1.9-3.4      1.4-2.4        14.6-25.9
    Commercial Shellfishing.......          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A             12.6
    Riverfront Residential Land...          4.7         14.3          4.3          3.2          6.5             33.0
        TOTALS....................    85.0-88.5  193.4-197.4    43.3-44.3    47.5-49.0    72.4-73.4      454.2-465.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Includes both estimated nonmarket values and estimated expenditures.

                                     ______

             Addendum B to the Written Statement of J. Walter Milon

      ``Environmental Sustainability for a Healthy Economy in the Indian
                              River Lagoon Basin''

                                    foreword
        The Indian River stretches for 156 miles spanning Volusia, Brevard,
    Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties. These five counties are
    currently home to more than one million residents and in 1995 hosted
    almost 6 million visitors. Last year, residents and visitors enjoyed 24
    million recreation days fishing, boating, and swimming in the Lagoon,
    or otherwise taking advantage of its natural beauty (One recreation day
    is measured as one person engaged in one activity for one day. While
    not everyone recreates, those that do, do so often. This is how
    recreation day estimates can exceed population estimates.) Forecasters
    expect that future recreational activity in the Lagoon will increase,
    as more people are drawn to the area's enviable amenities.
        Recreation and tourism are important parts of the regional economy
    that together account for about half a billion dollars a year in
    purchases of Lagoon-related goods and services. Other uses of the
    Lagoon bring its total value to more than $730 million a year. These
    purchases include goods and services supplied by businesses directly
    related to recreation and tourism, such as surf shops and hotels, and
    also by businesses that indirectly support recreation and tourism, such
    as grocery stores and insurance companies. In 1995, Lagoon-based
    recreation and tourism supported more than 19,000 jobs economy-wide and
    generated more than $250 million in personal income for residents of
    the five Indian River Lagoon counties.
        Sustaining the Lagoon's economic contribution to the community
    depends on the continued health and possible enhancement of Lagoon
    ecology. It is not hard to imagine, for example, that in the absence of
    management actions, unabated pollution, overuse, and other stressors
    associated with the two percent annual population growth in the five-
    county area could quickly degrade Lagoon resources.
        The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) of the
    Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) is the blueprint
    for environmentally sustainable development in the watershed. The CCMP
    specifically addresses priority problems that threaten environmental
    sustainability and future recreational opportunities. It offers 69
    separate recommendations that are designed to enhance Lagoon resources
    and support economically important recreational activities, such as
    fishing, shellfishing, boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and
    nature observation. If implementing the CCMP prevents even a 10%
    decline in the value of the Lagoon, it will sustain more than $70
    million a year in economic benefits to the five counties within the
    watershed.
        Preserving the health of the Lagoon is not cost-free. But
    investment in management actions to sustain or improve the health of
    the ecosystem are good for the local economy and good for local
    residents if its benefits exceed its Costs. Since the Lagoon is already
    relatively clean and its living resources relatively plentiful, it
    should not be surprising that costs of maintaining and improving this
    healthy environment are modest.
        Implementing the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program's
    CCMP will cost less than $18 million a year, including about $7.4
    million a year to continue selected on-going programs ant $10 million a
    year for new activities such as wetlands creation and stormwater
    management. This cost is small compared to the extensive investments in
    the Lagoon being planned by local governments, the state of Florida,
    and the federal government.
        While these costs are reasonable and far less than the benefits one
    could reasonably expect as a result, it's a fair question to ask
    whether individuals in one area will pay more than individuals in
    another. In fan, this turns out not to be the case since costs are
    spread relatively evenly across the five-county region.
        To illustrate the relative cost distribution, we can divide the
    cost of new CCMP anions assigned to each county by the number of
    households in each county. The average household in Volusia County
    would pay the least, $17.66 a year, while the average household in
    Indian River County would pay the most, $22.61 a year. Households in
    Brevard, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties would pay $18.44, $20.13, and
    $22.59 a year, respectively. The types of actions, scale of projects,
    and number of households determine average costs. The difference
    between the lowest and highest average household cost is small, about
    the cost of a sandwich. This result indicates a relatively fair
    distribution of CCMP costs across the region.
        Interestingly, area residents are willing to pay between $52 and
    $66 a year to implement the CCMP--roughly three times the average cost
    per household--if CCMP actions result in a healthier ecosystem and
    additional opportunities to fish, swim, and generally enjoy the
    Lagoon's resources, according to a survey of 1,000 residents. Tourists
    also said they want to support CCMP implementation and are willing to
    pay about $9 a person per visit to improve the quality of the Lagoon.
    To the extent visitor dollars help support implementation, as they will
    through sales taxes, average costs to resident households will be less
    than presented above.
        Finding ways to pay for CCMP actions should not delay
    implementation: benefits are high, Costs are reasonable and distributed
    equitably, and residents and tourists are willing to pay more. Some
    $7.4 million in CCMP actions are already financed from a variety of
    sources including local wastewater and stormwater fees, SWIM funds,
    property truces, federal grants, and special appropriations of the
    Florida legislature. These and other, targeted sources of revenue also
    are effective and efficient ways to finance new and expanded programs.
        This document explains why the Indian River Lagoon CCMP's
    scientifically-based management actions are needed to sustain an
    environmentally healthy economy well into the next century and shows
    that CCMP actions are cost-effective and fair. In concise detail, it
    describes for residents and their elected officials how the CCMP can
    deliver stronger local economies, increased revenues, and more jobs,
    even as population grows and stress on natural systems increases. In
    the years to come, we will point to our resource-rich watershed with
    pride, knowing that our decisions today sustained a way of life unique
    to the Indian River basin.
                                                   Derek Busby,
                Director, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.
                                     ______

    A Healthy Lagoon Supports Economically Valuable Recreation and Tourism
        More than 1.25 million people live in the five counties bordering
    the Indian River Lagoon. Last year, another 6 million visited the area.
    Recreational opportunities and an enviable quality of life afforded by
    Lagoon resources are a major reason people live in and visit the
    region.
        Lagoon-based recreational activity generates significant local
    economic value--more than $730 million in 1995. This value is tied to
    the estimated 24 million recreation days the Lagoon supported last
    year, 14 million for residents and 10 million for tourists. A
    recreation day is equal to one person engaged in one recreational
    activity for a day. This is the same level of activity as the entire
    population of Melbourne going fishing, boating, swimming, jetskiing,
    windsurfing, hunting, or manatee watching on or near the Lagoon every
    day ofthe year.
        Recreational uses, along with other land and water-based
    activities, however, can place stress on the Lagoon ecosystem. Angling
    can reduce Lagoon fishery stocks, boats can be a source of water
    pollution, and ocher motorized watercraft can disturb aquatic life in
    sensitive areas. Surface runoff, discharge from wastewater treatment
    planes, and improperly managed septic tanks also can impair the
    Lagoon's health.
        Protecting the Lagoon will be critical over the next ten years as
    more people move to and visit the area. The number of residents in the
    five IRL counties is expected to increase from 1.25 to 1.54 million
    between 1995 and 2005. This would be an increase of 24 percent. If the
    number of visitors increases at the same rate, by 2005 over 7.3 million
    tourists will be coming to the region each year. At current
    recreational participation rates, in ten years the Lagoon could be
    providing almost 30 million recreation days, 6 million more than last
    year.
    CCMP Action Plans
          Point Source Discharges: Ensure compliance with the IRL
    Act and reduce or eliminate, where possible, industrial wastewater
    discharges to the IRL.
          On-Site Sewage Disposal: Determine the impacts of onsite
    sewage disposal on the resources of the IRL and develop and implement
    strategies to address these impacts.
          Fresh and Stormwater Discharges: Develop and implement
    strategies to address the impacts of freshwater and stormwater
    discharges on the resource of the IRL.
          Marinas and Boat Impacts: Engage the boating public and
    marine industry as active participants in the protection and
    restoration of IRL rcsources.
          Biodiversity: Develop and implement a coordinated
    research and management strategy to preserve, protect and restore
    biodiversity in the IRL.
          Land Acquisition: Develop and implement coordinated
    strategy to protect environmentally endangered habitats within the IRL
    basin through acquisition.
          Wetlands: Preserve, protect, restore and enhance the
    wetland resources of the IRL region.
          Sea Grasses: Protect and restore so grass integrity and
    function in the IRL by attaining and maintaining water quality capable
    of supporting healthy submerged aquatic vegetation community to a depth
    of 1.7 m.
    The CCMP is a Blueprint for Environmentally Sustainable Growth
        The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management
    Plan, or the CCMP, is a blueprint for preserving Lagoon resources into
    the next century, and as such, it is a guide for maintaining economic
    prosperity in the IRL region.
        The CCMP embraces the three primary goals of the Indian River
    Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan, or IRL SWIM, a
    program administered jointly by the St. Johns River and South Florida
    water management districts. By adopting SWIM goals in its CCMP, the IRL
    National Estuary Program recognizes the SWIM program's significant
    planning and restoration accomplishments. The CCMP adds a fourth goal
    that specifically addresses funding needs.
    Indian River Lagoon CCMP Goals
        I. To attain and maintain water and sediment of sufficient quality
    to support a healthy estuarine Lagoon system.
        II. To attain and maintain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which
    supports endangered and threatened species, fisheries, commerce, and
    recreation.
        III. To achieve heightened public awareness and coordination of
    interagency management of the Indian River Lagoon ecosystem.
        IV. To identify and develop long term funding sources for
    prioritized projects and programs to preserve, protect, restore, and
    enhance the Indian River Lagoon system.

        In 15 separate action plans (see sidebar), the CCMP specifically
    addresses priority problems that threaten environmental sustainability
    and future recreational opportunities. In the absence of management
    actions tO avoid or minimize such threats, the Lagoon has a limited
    ability to absorb human stress without degrading. This ability is
    called carrying capacity.
        When an ecosystem like the Indian River Lagoon reaches its carrying
    capacity, environmental degradation occurs, recreation days decrease,
    and economic values diminish Fortunately, carrying capacity is not
    fixed. Management measures, such as those in the CCMP, can reduce
    stressors, enhance the Lagoon's ability to replenish its resources, and
    minimize the impacts of development on natural resources.
        Within the 15 action plans, 69 separate recommendations are
    designed to enhance Lagoon resources that support economically
    important recreational activities, including fishing, shellfishing,
    boating, water sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation. The
    anion plans represent a combination of hands-on restoration work, such
    as wetlands restoration, impounded marsh reconnection, sea grass
    planting, and stormwater abatement projects. They also include art
    array of actions that will strengthen and integrate on-going activities
    and help make the most of available financial resources.
        Many local, state, and federal organizations will help implement
    the CCMP. The region's five counties--Volusia, Brevard, Indian, St.
    Lucie, and Martin--as well as the 41 cities in the region will play
    lead roles. The St. Johns and South Florida water management districts,
    local water control districts, and other regional organizations,
    including the Treasure Coast and East Central Florida regional planning
    councils and the successor to IRLNEP also are key participants. State
    and federal agencies will help fund CCMP implementation and provide
    technical assistance. These include the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection and Department of Community Affairs, and the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
    CCMP Action Plans
        Impounded Marsh Management: Restore the functions of marshes
    impounded for mosquito control purposes.
        Endangered and Threatened Species: Protect endangered and
    threatened mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates
    of the IRL.
        Fisheries: Conserve and protect fin and shell fisheries of the IRL.
        Public Involvement and Education: Facilitate implementation of the
    IRL CCMP through public involvement and education.
        Future Implementation: Establish a modified management structure
    that will oversee the implementation of the IRL CCMP and provide for an
    organization to support the activities of the modified management
    conference.
        Data and Information Management: Develop and implement a strategy
    to coordinate the management and dissemination of data and information
    concerning the IRL.
        Monitoring: Develop and maintain a monitoring network which will
    provide adequate and reliable data and information on water quality,
    sediment quality and the biological resources of the IRL on which
    management decisions may be based.
    Just How Valuable is the Lagoon? $733 Million a Year
        In 1995, the value of Lagoon resources to residents tourists was
    more than $733 million. The bulk of this amount, $533 million, is
    counted in direct expenditures, including recreational spending,
    commercial shellfish landings, and the premium paid for Lagoon-front
    property. This value is captured in everyday market transactions, such
    as boat rentals, shellfish sales, and home purchases. These
    expenditures to not include water-borne commerce, since shipping
    generally is unaffected by water quality.
        The Lagoon's total economic value also includes another $200
    million that is not reflexed in market transactions. For example, the
    value of fishing in the IRL is great enough that anglers are willing to
    pay more than they currently spend for bait, fuel, and other items.
        Additionally, residents and tourists are willing to pay more to
    improve the Lagoon beyond what they already pay for environmental
    programs (through taxes). These are often called nonmarket values and
    they can be estimated and added to values that are more easily measured
    in market transactions.
    Lagoon-Based Recreational Spending Tops $487 Million Annually
        Residents and tourists spent more than $487 million last year to
    enjoy fishing, shellfishing,swimming, boating, other water sports,
    nature observation, and hunting in and around the Lagoon. Residents
    spent $257 million while visitors spent $231 million. Total spending
    levels may be much higher as this figure does not include related
    purchases of the more expensive recreational equipment that people
    don't typically buy every year, such as boats or recreational vehicles.
        The Lagoon Provided Shellfish Worth Almost $13 Million in 1994
        Commercially harvested clams, oysters, crabs, and shrimp were worth
    $12.6 million at the docks in 1994. Various finfish also contribute to
    commercial landings, but it has been difficult to calculate their value
    since July 1, 1995, when the ban on gill and entangling nets went into
    effect and commercial finfishing practices changed dramatically. Even
    before the ban, clams, shrimp, and crabs represented more than half of
    the total value of all commercial fishing.
        $825 Million in Property Values Are Tied to the Lagoon
        Proximity to the Lagoon adds $825 million to market value of
    Lagoon-front property relative to non-Lagoon-front property in the five
    IRL counties. On an annual basis, the Lagoon generates $33 million a
    year in value for residential landowners. This is because people pay a
    premium to be on the water for aesthetics and convenience. Market
    values of riverfront property range from $358 million in Brevard county
    to $81 million in St. Lucie county, generally reflecting relative
    length of each county's Lagoon shoreline.
    Access to Lagoon Fishing Grounds is Valued at $140 Million a Year
        Currently, anyone can fish in the Lagoon free of charge because it
    is a public resource. That is to say, no organization, public or
    private, charges an entry fee to fish. Anglers do of course pay modest
    sums for fishing licenses and boat registration fees. They also pay
    sometimes not so modest sums for boats, rods, and other fishing
    equipment. The amount people spend on such fees and equipment generally
    reflects only part of the value to them of fishing in the Lagoon. In
    fan, many IRL anglers would be willing to pay more to fish in the
    Lagoon, up to a certain dollar amount, before they would choose to fish
    somewhere else.
        Collectively, IRL residents are willing to pay up to $140 million
    more a year than they currently pay to fish in the Lagoon, according to
    a study prepared for IRLNEP. This value could increase to $200 million
    by 2010, based on projected population and fishing participation rates.
        Individual access values vary by county of residence. The average
    angler living in Martin county is willing to pay $589 more a year to
    fish in the IRL system, while the average angler living in St. Lucie
    county is willing to pay $110 more a year.
        Fishing access values are not the only kind of access value that
    can be calculated. Based on the IRLNEP study, we can expect that
    residents and tourists also would be willing to pay more than they
    currently pay for other Lagoon-based recreational activities, such as
    nature observation and boating. Estimates of these values have not been
    developed, but they would certainly show that the value of Lagoon
    resources is substantially higher than the $733 million per year
    already estimated.
    People Would Pay Up to $58 Million More to Protect the Lagoon
        Residents care enough about the Lagoon that they are willing to pay
    up to $26 million more each year to protect its resources. A survey
    asked 1,000 IRL households about three environmental programs:
        Stormwater Management--Residents said they would be willing to pay
    the most for stormwater management, about SSO per household a year,
    saying they believe limiting stormwater runoff will result in the
    greatest water quality improvements.
        Land Acquisition--Residents said they are willing to pay about $30
    per household a year to create a public trust fund to buy and maintain
    wetlands.
        Wetlands Protection--Residents said they are willing to pay about
    $22 year to enforce and support conservation measures to limit
    development of privately owned wetlands.
        When presented with a combination of these programs, respondents
    said they would be willing to pay an average of $60 per household a
    year, suggesting a maximum amount that residents are willing to pay for
    any program to improve the Lagoon. Notably, residents are willing to
    pay the most among three generic programs for the one that is not only
    an environmental priority but that probably will be most expensive for
    the region to implement: stormwater management.
        In addition to the $26 million residents said they were willing to
    contribute to Lagoon management, nonresidents said they would be
    willing to pay up to $32 million more a year to support stormwater
    management and wetlands protection programs for the Lagoon. A survey of
    SOO nonresident visitors showed that the average travel party (2.75
    people) is willing to pay an additional $23 per party each time they
    visit the Lagoon if revenues were earmarked for the Lagoon.
    The Lagoon Provides 19,000 Jobs and $250 Million in Annual Income for
            IRL Residents
        The Lagoon's value also can be measured by the number of jobs and
    income associated with Lagoon-based activities, in addition to monetary
    value of goods, services, and other values.
        Lagoon-based recreation currently provides over 19,000 jobs. This
    is equal to five times the workforce at Patrick Air Force Base, two and
    a half times the workforce of Harris Corporation, and exceeds the
    entire workforce of Cape Canaveral, including government employees,
    contractors, and other on-site workers, by more than 3,000.
        Lagoon-based recreation also currently provides $250 million in
    personal income for area residents. This averages $200 a year per
    resident, which could buy about 50 pounds of clams.
    The CCMP Will Protect Lagoon Values and Create Benefits for the IRL
            Community
        The CCMP will do two things: at a minimum it will prevent further
    degradation of the Lagoon ecosystem that would have occurred in the
    absence of its management anions; and it will enhance the quality and/
    or quantity of Lagoon resources beyond current levels. Both outcomes
    will provide significant economic benefits to the IRL community.
        In economic terms, a benefit is defined as an increase in value or
    prevention of loss of value. If, as experts expect, the value of Lagoon
    resources will decline as use increases, preserving any portion of
    current value constitutes a benefit in the same way that increasing
    current values creates a benefit.
        The potential benefit of the CCMP can be illustrated in the
    following example. Imagine that the economic value of Lagoon resources
    will increase 5 percent with implementation of CCMP management actions,
    but will decrease 5 percent without implementation. The economic
    benefit of CCMP implementation under these assumptions is 10 percent of
    the total value (the absolute difference between the two cases). In
    this example, the CCMP is worth well over $70 million a year
    (undiscounted) to the local economy.
        Recall that by 2005, the Lagoon will be supporting millions more
    recreation days and the cumulative effects could have significant
    consequences for the Lagoon. It is not hard to imagine that in the
    absence of CCMP management anions, pollution, overuse, and other
    stressors associated with the two percent annual population growth rate
    projected for the five counties could quickly degrade the Lagoon
    ecosystem. With the CCMP, resource managers can maintain the Lagoon's
    carrying capacity and continue to provide the recreational
    opportunities that residents and visitors have come to expecta.
        It is impossible to predict the exact value of the Lagoon with and
    without the CCMP because our scientific understanding of complex
    ecological cause and effect relationships is still evolving. Using
    existing science, CCMP management anions have been specifically
    targeted to address environmental problems that could threaten economic
    sustainability. At a minimum, we can be sure that the CCMP will provide
    an economic benefit for every dollar of value it preserves, as well as
    every dollar of value it creates. Moreover, it is clear from the
    analysis presented thus far and continued below that that the IRL
    community has hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in its quest for
    environmentally sustainable development.
    Economic Gains in Lagoon-Based Recreation and Tourism are Multiplied
            Throughout the IRL Economy
        The economies of the five counties bordering the Indian River
    Lagoon depend on healthy natural ecosystems for their welfare.
    Businesses related to fisheries, recreation, tourism, and agriculture
    generate about $4 billion worth of goods each year within Brevard, St.
    Lucie, Volusia, Martin, and Indian River Counties. The economic sectors
    comprising these natural resource-dependent businesses account for
    about three quarters of the value of all primary goods (i.e., non-
    service sector) in this region. Manufacturing, including everything
    from T-shirts to semi-conductors, accounts for the remainder of the
    non-service sector output.
        In turn, much of the construction industry and retail trades depend
    directly on the primary producing sectors for their livelihood. Hotels,
    for example, are not built unless tourists want to visit the Indian
    River Lagoon region. Retail shops depend on residents and tourists to
    buy their goods; insurance agencies and bankers need local marinas,
    tackle shops, and other Lagoon-related businesses to buy their
    services. So in many ways, the regional economy depends on primary
    economic sectors like recreation, tourism, agriculture, and
    manufacturing to drive much of the activity in other areas of the
    economy.
        These interrelationships multiply any increase in the value of
    Lagoon-based recreation and tourism throughout the regional economy,
    increasing the total impact of CCMP implementation beyond what appears
    in the recreation and tourism sector alone. Every time residents spend
    $10 on recreation in the Indian River Lagoon, total sales in the region
    increase by $12.40. The additional increase results from spending by
    businesses like marinas, tackle shops, or grocery stores to buy more
    goods for their shelves and pay their employees to continue operations.
        Every time tourists spend $100 for a hotel room, total sales in the
    region increase by $192. The additional increase results from hotel
    owners' purchases of local supplies and services to keep the hotel
    running. Suppliers to the hotel industry, in turn, reinvest portions of
    their earnings in the local economy to supply their businesses.
        Conservatively, residents and tourists spend $487 million a year on
    Lagoon related activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating,
    water sports, lodging, and restaurants this figure excludes purchases
    of boats, recreational vehicles, and other major capital goods). When
    this level of expenditure ripples through the regional economy, it
    results in nearly $75O million worth of goods and services.
        The tourism and recreation seaors also create thousands of jobs
    within the five-counry region. For cxarnple, every $1 million in
    tourist spending on Lagoon-based activities generates between 51 and 56
    jobs, depending on whether it is spent in the lodging or retail seaor.
    Simply preserving the quality of the Indian River Lagoon, therefore,
    sustains more than 19,000 jobs across all five counties. Enhancing
    water quality, increasing habitat, or providing additional points of
    access to the Lagoon can generate thousands more jobs over the next 5
    years.
        All other things being equal, Florida economists predict IRL
    economy will grow almost 16 percent between 1995 and 2000, implying an
    increase of $81 million in the annual value of Lagoon-based recreation
    and tourism. This presumes that the Lagoon continues to support its
    current share of the economy. It also presumes that the quality and
    quantity of Lagoon resources can be sustained, as the CCMP Is designed
    to do.
        Through the multiplier effect described above, an increase of this
    magnitude will create another $43 million in local trade, for a total
    impact of $124 million. This level of activity will add more than 3,000
    new Jobs to the 19,000 currently supported by Lagoon-based economic
    acuity. Such additional employment opportunities are comparable to
    adding another Holmes Regional Medical Center or Rockwell International
    to the list of local employers.
    But What About Costs?
        All told, the CCMP will cost slightly less than $18 million a year
    over the first five years of CCMP implementation (the CCMP planning
    period is five years). About $7.4 million of this represents Costs for
    activities and programs that were on-going or planned before the CCMP
    was developed. The $7.4 million includes more than $5 million for
    managing fresh and stormwater discharges. Framers of the CCMP included
    selected ongoing actions in the Plan to highlight important efforts and
    facilitate integrating new CCMP anions into existing county, special
    dstra, and other resource management plans.
        Costs for new projects a little over $10 million a year. Almost all
    of these new COStS, $8 million annually, are for technical engineering
    studies and design work associated with reducing and managing fresh and
    stormwater discharges. This work lays the foundation for construction
    projects that will address fresh water and stormwater discharge
    problems. At this time, COStS of actual construction are still being
    estimated, but is reasonable to expect the total for the five-county
    region will total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
        The remaining $2 million in new COStS includes a variety of in-the-
    ground projects, such as muck removal, as well as a number of new
    initiatives that will enhance planning and coordination among the
    Lagoon's many stewards. The relative proportion of existing to new
    COStS within CCMP action plans varies substantially. This variability
    is more a function of the organization of actions among plans than
    necessarily reflexive of past expenditures and future needs in any one
    area.
    Average Costs Per Family Will Be Modest
        Bringing CCMP costs down to the household level helps to put them
    into perspective. If all CCMP COStS, for already planned as well as new
    activities, were divided equally among IRL households, each would pay
    $33.81 a year. Existing programs would claim $14.17 and new initiatives
    would capture the remaining $19.64. Remember that 1,000 IRL households
    said they would be willing to pay an additional $60 a year to support
    programs like those contained in the CCMP. The average cost of the CCMP
    per household is roughly half of what the average household said such
    programs were worth to them.
        The truth is, however, that IRL residents will not bear the full
    COSt of CCMP implementation. Floridians outside the IRL community will
    contribute to state programs and water management district projects,
    through state sales taxes and federal income taxes redistributed to the
    state in the form of federal assistance. This will reduce the total
    CoSt of the CCMP to the IRL community. American and foreign tourists
    also will offset some CCMP costs by paying for implementation as sales
    and other special taxes levied on the goods and services they purchase
    while in the region flow to government programs.
    Costs Are Spread Equitably Across the Five Counties
        While COStS of implementing the IRL CCMP are reasonable and far
    less than the benefits one could reasonably expect as a result, it's a
    fair question to ask whether individuals in one area will pay more than
    individuals in another. In fat, this turns out not to be the case since
    costs are spread relatively evenly across the five-county region.
        Together, all new CCMP costs represent less than one half of one
    percent of each county's total annual personal income. If COStS of new
    CCMP anions were paid entirely by residents (see above to see how this
    will not be the case), the average citizen in Volusia County would pay
    the least, $7.42 a year, while the average citizen in Indian River
    County would pay the most, $9.50 a year. Citizens in Brevard, St.
    Lucie, and Martin Counties would pay $7.75, $8.46, and $9.49 a year,
    respectively.
        For all intents and purposes, costs per person are the same in all
    five counties. The difference between the highest and lowest average
    cost per person is just barely enough to buy a Big Mac on Sarno
    Boulevard with nothing left after sales tax, not even for a small soda.
    Many Options Exist to Finance the Indian River Lagoon CCMP
        Fortunately, paying for the CCMP can be relatively painless,
    without any need to raid the region's piggy bank. Implementing agencies
    have already allocated funds for slightly less than half of the Plan's
    total costs. The IRLcommunity can pay for the remaining $10 million in
    annual costs with a variety of revenue sources in ways that spread
    costs equitably, place some responsibility on tourists that enjoy
    Lagoon resources, and minimize burdens for any one group.
        For many CCMP anions, the easiest ways to fund implementation will
    rely on enhanced revenues from existing sources. To some extent,
    population growth alone will bring an increase in revenues. For
    selected sources, however, local officials may want to adjust tax rates
    and/or fee levels to be more in line with funding needs for targeted
    activities.
    Existing Revenue Sources
          Local wastewater and stormwater utility fees;
          Local general revenues (ad valorem tonics);
          SWIM funds including WMD ad valorem tax revenues and
    state matching funds;
          Non-SWIM WMD funds, including ad valorem tax revenues,
    permit fees, state and federal grants and funds from state land
    acquistion trusts;
          State land acquisition and environmental trust funds such
    as CARL Preservation 2000, and others;
          State general revenues and sate grant and loan programs
    Federal hmdinr. including grants from EPA, USFWS, and others.

        With existing or new revenue sources, citizens and government
    representatives typically expect that some relationship exists between
    a revenue source and the activities it supports. Many believe that
    individuals and businesses should pay for environmental programs in
    proportion to their contribution to problems or the benefits they
    receive from ecosystem protection. While it is not always possible to
    achieve this goal, several potential funding sources match up well with
    CCMP anions. One simple funding package is illustrated on the next
    page.
                           one ccmp funding scenario
        This example illustrates how the $10 million in new annual CoStS
    needed for CCMP implementation could be raised according to the
    following criteria: (1) Nonresidents pay a reasonable share; t2) A
    relationship exists between the revenue source and its use; and (3) No
    single group pays a disproportionate share. These criteria were adopted
    by the IRLNEP Finance and Implementation Task Force, which oversaw
    projects to estimate COStS and benefits associated with CCMP actions,
    and develop a financing strategy. One other criterion was followed for
    this example: keep it simple.
        For convenience, responsibility is split equally between residents
    and nonresidents--Residents pay $6 million a year and nonresidents pay
    $4 million a year. This division roughly reflects the breakdown between
    resident and nonresident Lagoon recreation days: 14 million to 10
    million in 1995.
        In this example, residents' responsibility is split equally in two
    $3 million shares to approximate the significance of CCMP costs related
    to storrnwater management compared to all other CCMP costs. One share
    is funded through a storrnwater utility charge and the other is funded
    through an incremental increase in ad valorem tax rate that the Sr.
    Johns and South Florida water management districts collect from IRL
    county residents. Nonresidents pay their share through a single source,
    a tax on lodging charges.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Revenue source              Annual target           Basis               Rate           Example charge
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stormwater utility charge.......  $3 million........  523,865 households  $5.73/HH/yr.......  $5.73/HH/yr
    Ad Valorem Tax through WMDs.....  $3 million........  appraised property  0.07 mills........  $10.50/yr for
                                                           in 5 IRL counties                       $175,000 house
                                                           @ $45 billion.                          (with $25,000
                                                                                                   homestead
                                                                                                   exemption)
    Lodging Tax.....................  $4 million........  Lodging receipts    5.8%..............  $5.80 on $100
                                                           of $69.2 million.                       hotel bill
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under one example of this approach, it may be appropriate to fund
    anions mitigate impeas of marinas and boating on the Lagoon with
    revenues from sources such as watercraft sales taxes, marine fuel
    taxes, or boat registration and mooring fees. Similarly, fishing
    license fees would provide a way for anglers to pay for fishery
    research and stock management programs.
        When CCMP projects will provide services or otherwise generate
    benefits over a long period of time and require considerable Front
    capital, as is the case with wastewater treatment plants and stormwater
    management facilities, it is customary tO rely on loans or bonds. These
    allow large, up-front COStS to be repaid over time consistent with
    growth in population and use of Lagoon resources and have the added
    advantage of distributing costs in proportion to a commuriity's
    contribution to the problem.
        When CCMP anions result in broadly available benefits, broad-based
    revenue sources are often acceptable funding options. For example, a
    small increase in the ad valorem tax rate of the water management
    district could provide additional funds for wetlands restoration,
    impounded marsh management, land acquisition, or species protection
    programs.
                                   conclusion
        IRENEP's CCMP for the Indian River Lagoon specifies the scientific
    rationale and management anions needed to sustain an environmentally
    healthy economy well into the next century. Its actions are Cost-
    effective and fair. Elected officials should be particularly interested
    in the CCMP because it can deliver stronger local economies, increased
    revenues, and more jobs--even as population grows and stress on natural
    systems increases. In the years to come, we will point to our resource-
    rich watershed with pride, knowing that our decisions today sustained a
    way of life unique to the Indian River basin.
                                     ______

             Addendum C to the Written Statement of J. Walter Milon

           Statement of the St. Johns River Water Management District

        Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public
    Works Committee: The St. Johns River Water Management District would
    like to present a supporting statement for the testimony of Professor
    J. Walter Milon of the University of Florida The St. Johns River Water
    Management District has been the state sponsor for the Indian River
    Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), in partnership with the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since 1990. During that period,
    the District has provided over $16 million in support of restoration
    activities while EPA has provided approximately $5.5 million.
        Why has our District expended so much to protect and restore the
    Indian River Lagoon? The answer is simple--it is a sound investment.
    Estuaries are the biologically essential, economically priceless, but
    vulnerable connections between the land and the oceans. The entire
    nation is served by estuaries. Commercial and recreational fishing,
    maritime commerce, boating and tourism are just some of the activities
    that people undertake on and along our coastal waterways.
        In an age of shrinking public resources, local officials and
    citizens (while generally supportive) have increasingly asked about the
    economic sense of large public expenditures for environmental
    protection. Until recently, however, it was not possible to illustrate
    the Lagoon's worth in terms beyond its considerable aesthetic beauty.
    With the advent of the Apogee study described by Professor Milon, it
    became clear that the estimated costs of restoration were dwarfed by
    the social and economic benefits provided by the Lagoon. These results
    provided vital information to inform the public about the role of the
    Lagoon in the regional economy and to rally local political support for
    the CCMP.
        Sustaining the Lagoon's economic contribution to the community
    depends on the continued health and possible enhancement of Lagoon
    ecology. It is not hard to imagine that, in the absence of management
    actions, unabated pollution, overuse, and other stressors associated
    with the two percent annual population growth in the five counties
    could quickly degrade Lagoon resources.
        The IRLNEP, like other estuary programs within the NEP,has
    developed a blueprint for environmentally sustainable development in
    the watershed. The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and
    Management Plan (CCMP) specifically addresses priority problems that
    threaten environmental sustainability and future recreational
    opportunities. It recommends specific actions that are designed to
    enhance Lagoon resources and support economically important
    recreational activities, such as fishing, shellfishing, boating, water
    sports, hunting, swimming, and nature observation.
        Admittedly, preserving the health of estuarine systems is not cost-
    free, but investments in actions to sustain or improve the health of an
    ecosystem are good for the economy and good for local residents if the
    benefits exceed the costs. As in many other estuaries around the
    nation, the Lagoon is already relatively clean and its living resources
    relatively plentiful. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the
    costs of maintaining and improving this healthy environment are
    modest--especially when compared to the likely costs of restoring the
    Lagoon as additional degradation occurs.
        The Apogee study helped to focus on the benefits that improving the
    Lagoon would bring to the region's residents. Many of these benefits
    are already being recognized in the form of improved water quality for
    shellfish aquaculture which is a growing industry in the Indian River
    Lagoon. Recreational fishing is the largest single sector of human
    activities documented for the Lagoon. The reconnection of saltwater
    marshes which were separated from the Lagoon by dikes has greatly
    enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. One study showed a
    significant increase in the number of species utilizing reconnected
    marshes versus those which are impounded. Five species were documented
    using impounded marshes while over 90 species were recorded using
    reconnected marshes.
        The St. Johns River Water Management District is proud to be
    playing a role in restoring one of America's most significant
    waterbodies. Many local and state initiatives are underway to implement
    the Indian River Lagoon CCMP. Some $17.4 million in CCMP actions are
    already financed from a variety of sources including local wastewater
    and stormwater assessments, private grants, and legislative
    appropriations through the state's Surface Water Improvement and
    Management (SWIM) program.
        We believe that this work has clearly demonstrated the wisdom of
    investing in the nation's estuaries by showing that the cost of letting
    degradation occur is high compared to the cost of protecting and
    restoring our estuaries now. Through the National Estuary Program, our
    District and the over one-hundred local governments bordering the
    Lagoon are sharing the responsibility and the rewards of protecting and
    restoring a beautiful resource. We look forward to the continued
    involvement and support of our federal partners in this important work
    without which such progress would not have been possible.
        With the above information in mind, the St. Johns River Water
    Management District fully supports both S. 1321, a bill to reauthorize
    the National Estuary Program, and S.1222, the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Partnership Act. Full implementation of these bills will
    allow for continued and improved federal support of local efforts to
    maintain and preserve our natural heritage. The need for this
    legislation is highlighted by the fact that funding for the individual
    members of the National Estuary Program has effectively declined over
    the years as new programs have been initiated and overall funding
    levels for the program nationwide have remained relatively constant.
    The increase authorized by S. 1321 and the additional resources
    projected under S.1222 are critical to local efforts to protect and
    restore the nation's estuaries.
        Thank you for the Committee's interest in the study results
    presented by Professor Milon and for the opportunity to share our
    views. Hopefully this information will be useful to the Committee
    during its deliberations. The St. Johns River Water Management District
    will be pleased to provide any assistance that the Committee may
    request as it works to pass this vital legislation.
                                     ______

      Responses to Additional Questions for Walter J. Milon from Senator
                                     Chafee
        Question 1: Much of what our efforts in the past have focused on,
    with respect to water quality for estuaries and other waters, is
    pollution prevention, not habitat restoration. How do you see the two
    actions, protecting the resource from further degradation, and nursing
    the resource back to health, interacting to reach the larger goal of
    improving overall water quality?
        Response. The goals of the Clean Water Act of 1972, with
    refinements in subsequent CWA reauthorizations, to achieve fishable and
    swimmable waters and to eliminate discharges were useful targets to
    help the public understand the purpose of pollution control. These
    goals, however, do not address the issue of what overall level of
    ``ecosystem quality'' does the public want for water resources such as
    estuaries. In this context, ecosystem quality includes not just water
    quality and fish populations but also other flora and fauna that are
    dependent on an estuarine habitat. Habitat restoration offers the
    potential to enhance overall environmental quality in degraded
    ecosystems and should be considered a logical progression in our
    national efforts to protect the environment. The problem, however, is
    that it is often difficult to predict how policies or actions will
    result in specific habitat improvements and to determine the public
    benefits from these improvements. In my own research I have found that
    the public (in this case Florida residents) strongly supports coastal
    resource restoration proposals if the results of the proposals are
    clearly defined. Federal policies that promote research on the
    environmental consequences of habitat restoration actions along with
    research on public perceptions and expectations about ecosystem health
    are needed to provide a sound scientific basis to advance our national
    policy goals beyond water pollution prevention.

        Question 2: The results of your study are quite impressive, but
    because of the warmer climate in Florida, I would imagine that the
    Indian River Lagoon has longer fishing, recreation and tourism seasons
    than Narragansett Bay or the Long Island Sound, which would increase
    the economic benefits of the study. Have any studies been conducted on
    the economic value of estuaries in colder climates? If so, how do the
    results of such studies compare with your findings?
        Response. The economic value of an environmental resource will
    clearly depend on the number of people (residents and tourists) who
    have access to the resource and the quality of that resource. While
    estuaries in colder climates may have fewer user days than the Indian
    River Lagoon, larger user populations and higher expenditures can
    easily compensate. Under the National Estuary Program, several studies
    have been completed to document these economic benefits. Unfortunately
    the studies differ in their scope and level of detail so they are
    difficult to compare. For example, a 1993 study on Massachusetts Bay
    reported the value of the Bay ranged between $319-$963 million. A 1992
    study of Long Island Sound estimated the economic value of fishing and
    recreation to be more than $5.6 billion. Neither of these studies
    addressed the property, amenity, or ecosystem values associated with
    these estuaries. One of the most recent studies, and most similar to
    the Indian River Lagoon study in scope and detail, was conducted for
    Peconic Bay on Long Island. This study found that total revenues for
    estuarine-dependent activities accounted for over $400 million or about
    20 percent of the local economy (copies of the study can be obtained
    from Professor Jim Opaluch at the University of Rhode Island (401/874-
    4590)). This share of total economic activity attributable to
    estuarine-dependent activities is strikingly similar to the 17 percent
    share we reported in the Indian River Lagoon study. Thus, these results
    support the proposition that estuaries provide a significant
    contribution to local economies throughout the U.S.
                                   __________
     Statement of Ted Morton, Coastal Protection Program Counsel, American
                                Oceans Campaign
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Good morning. My name is
    Ted Morton. I am the Coastal Protection Program Counsel for American
    Oceans Campaign. American Oceans Campaign (AOC) is a national, non-
    profit organization based in Santa Monica, California and is dedicated
    to protecting and enhancing our nation's oceans and coastal resources.
    I also serve as Chairman of the Aquatic Ecosystems Work Group of the
    Clean Water Network. The Clean Water Network is comprised of more than
    1000 citizen, conservation, labor, religious and other groups
    nationwide working to improve the quality of streams, rivers, lakes,
    wetlands, and coastal waters.
        Since 1991, American Oceans Campaign has focused a significant
    amount of attention to the health of estuaries. Working with numerous,
    dedicated advocates from estuaries across the nation, we have long-
    supported making more Federal funds available to improve estuarine
    water quality and restore estuarine habitats. American Oceans Campaign
    produced and distributed several public service announcements about the
    importance of estuaries. We served on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
    Project's Management Committee. In April 1996, American Oceans Campaign
    published Estuaries on the Edge, an examination of the 28 estuaries
    that are part of the National Estuary Program.
        On behalf of my organization and its members, I wish to express my
    thanks to Senators Chafee and Baucus, and to the other members of the
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, for inviting me to
    testify today on legislative proposals to improve estuary protection.
                                  introduction
        Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the nation's premier water
    quality law--the Clean Water Act. Across the nation, communities used
    the anniversary to assess the condition of their lakes, streams,
    rivers, and coastal waters. Many communities discovered that
    significant progress had been achieved. More lakes and rivers are
    considered safe for swimming and fishing today, than in 1970. In many
    estuaries, the acreage of seagrasses and other aquatic vegetation is
    increasing from levels just a decade ago. Much of the progress is
    attributed to concentrating on ``point source'' pollution controls,
    such as sewage treatment plant and industrial facility discharges.
    Also, the public is becoming more involved in hands-on, community-wide
    projects to protect their waters and citizens are letting their elected
    officials know that they expect clean, healthy waters for their
    families and communities. These efforts are helping to improve the
    quality of many water bodies.
        But, the examination prompted by the 25th anniversary also revealed
    we still have much work to do before America meets one of the goals of
    the Clean Water Act--to make all waters swimmable and fishable. In
    particular, our coastal waters are troubled. A recent national water
    quality report disclosed that about 38 percent of the nation's surveyed
    estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or
    swimming. \1\ Many beach waters and shellfish harvesting areas are
    closed due to pathogen and toxic contamination. In 1995, almost one-
    third of our nation's shellfish harvesting areas were closed or
    harvest-limited; polluted urban stormwater was identified as the
    leading source of pollution contributing to harvest restrictions. \2\
    Other coastal waters are subject to an increasing number of fish
    consumption advisories. Finally, estuarine habitat is threatened by
    unwise development, sedimentation, and destructive fishing practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. EPA, Water Quality Conditions in the United States: A
    Profile from the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory Report to
    Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1998).
        \2\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, The 1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified
    Growing Waters (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997), 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since last summer, disturbing accounts of our nation's coastal
    water quality have been featured in the headlines. For example, the
    outbreak of a toxic microbe, Pfiesteria piscicida, in tributaries of
    the Chesapeake Bay caused fish kills and human health problems. Red
    tides along the Texas shore killed an estimated 14 million fish last
    September and October. Sea turtles with tumors have been found off the
    coasts of Florida. Sewage spills closed a number of Long Island Sound
    area beaches last summer. The ``dead zone,'' an area approximately the
    size of New Jersey where dissolved oxygen levels are too low to sustain
    fish, continues to appear off the coast of Louisiana and Texas each
    year. And, El Nino-related storm events overwhelmed sanitation and
    storm sewer systems in California this winter, causing untreated sewage
    to flow to the Pacific Ocean and forcing health officials to close
    numerous beaches.
        In order to improve the conditions of estuaries it is imperative to
    develop and follow a comprehensive national strategy that entails many
    critical components, including water quality improvements, habitat
    restoration, smarter land use decisions, public education efforts, and
    greater investments. I believe that a combination of Senator Chafee's
    Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222) and
    Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays' Water Pollution Control and
    Estuary Restoration Act (H.R. 2374) provides a significant start to
    ensure that a comprehensive national strategy for estuary protection is
    put in place.
                          the importance of estuaries
        Estuaries are dynamic bodies of water along our nation's coasts
    which are formed by the mixing of freshwater from rivers and streams
    with saltwater from the ocean. Typically, these waters are semi-
    enclosed by surrounding mainland, fringing wetlands, peninsulas, or
    barrier islands. Many of the renowned water bodies of the United States
    are estuaries--Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, San
    Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound, for example. In addition to bays and
    sounds, estuaries are commonly known as lagoons, sloughs, bayous, and
    inlets.
        The combination of freshwater and saltwater creates a distinct
    environment where aquatic plants and wildlife thrive. An abundance of
    land and ocean nutrients, ample light which promotes the growth of
    aquatic vegetation, and a continuous mixing of the system by winds,
    tides, and river inflows create conditions which give life to some of
    the richest and most productive ecosystems in the world.
        In addition, estuaries support a variety of coastal businesses and
    are valued as places to live and visit. In 1990, it was estimated that
    45 percent of the nation's population live in estuarine areas \3\--and
    the predicted population trends suggest that this percentage will rise
    in the upcoming years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and National Ocean Service, Estuaries of the United
    States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base (Rockville, MD:
    U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990), 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The functions and values of estuaries are considerable. For
    example:
         Estuaries provide valuable commercial benefits.
    Approximately 28 million jobs are generated by commercial fishing,
    tourism, water-dependent recreation, and other industries based near
    estuaries and other coastal waters. \4\ It is estimated that commercial
    and recreational fishing contributes $152 billion to the nation's
    economy and generates approximately two million jobs. \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Dwight Holling, et. al., State of the Coasts: A State by State
    Analysis of the Vital Link Between Healthy Coasts and a Healthy Economy
    (Washington, DC: Coast Alliance, 1995), 8.
        \5\ William M. Kier Associates, Fisheries, Wetlands, and Jobs: The
    Value of Wetlands to America's Fisheries (Sausalito, CA: Clean Water
    Network, et. al., 1998), 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Estuaries provide important spawning and nursery habitat
    for commercial and recreational fish species. More than 75 percent of
    the U.S. commercial fish catch uses estuaries during at least one stage
    of life--usually the critical early stages. \6\ In the Southeastern
    United States, 96 percent of the commercial fish catch and more than 50
    percent of the recreational catch are comprised of fish and shellfish
    that are dependent on estuarine and coastal wetlands. \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Elliot A. Norse, Ph.D., Global Marine Biological Diversity: A
    Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making (Washington,
    DC: Island Press, 1993), 65.
        \7\ U.S. EPA, Wetlands Fact Sheet No. 2 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
    1995).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Estuarine wetlands improve water quality by filtering
    pollutants before they reach coastal waters.
         Estuarine wetlands and barrier islands protect shorelines
    and inland areas from coastal storms and flooding. In their natural
    state, these areas are able to temporarily store large quantities of
    flood waters and help to minimize damaging impacts of storm events.
                     major threats to productive estuaries
        Estuaries are threatened by rapid population growth along the
    coasts, habitat loss, and pollution. Some of the major problems
    affecting our nation's estuaries include:
         Nutrient pollution. Nitrogen can enter estuaries from a
    variety of sources, including sewage treatment plants, failing septic
    systems, combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from agricultural
    lands, stormwater, and atmospheric deposition. Excessive loadings of
    nitrogen disrupt estuarine life by accelerating the growth of algae.
    When large blooms of algae develop, they block sunlight needed by the
    estuary's submerged aquatic plants. In addition, as algae decompose,
    they require such great amounts of oxygen, that other aquatic life are
    deprived of oxygen. Oxygen-deficient conditions (called hypoxia) can
    result in massive fish kills.
         Loss of Habitat. Due to development pressures and
    increasing pollution, natural estuarine habitats are being destroyed.
    Coastal wetlands, mangroves, and submerged seagrasses provide important
    nursery, spawning, and sheltering areas for fish, shellfish, and other
    wildlife. Ninety-two percent of the original wetlands base of the San
    Francisco Bay area has been destroyed. \8\ In addition, between 1950
    and 1982, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay decreased from 40,627 acres to
    21,647 acres--a 47 percent reduction \9\--because of increased
    pollution, development and boating activities. The loss of fish habitat
    is a frequently cited, contributing factor in the severe declines of
    fish populations along our nation's coasts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ San Francisco Estuary Project, Comprehensive Conservation and
    Management Plan (Oakland, CA: San Francisco Estuary Project, 1992), 44.
        \9\ Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Charting the Course for
    Tampa Bay, 1996 (St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay National Estuary
    Program, 1996), 14-15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Pathogens. Disease-causing microorganisms, called
    pathogens, contaminate productive shellfish beds and recreational beach
    waters in estuaries across the United States. Pathogens are found in
    animal and human waste and enter estuaries from overburdened sewage
    treatment plants, raw sewage overflows, agricultural runoff, and
    malfunctioning septic systems. Eating shellfish or ingesting water
    contaminated with pathogens can cause a variety of diseases in humans,
    including gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and others.
         Toxics. Often, elevated levels of toxics can be detected
    in the sediments, the water column, and in the tissues of fish,
    shellfish, and other organisms that inhabit estuaries. Heavy metals,
    pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and hydrocarbons are the
    most common toxic contaminants in estuaries. These toxic substances
    originate from a variety of sources, including agricultural runoff,
    polluted urban stormwater, automobile emissions, and industrial
    discharges.
       national estuary program and chesapeake bay program as models for
                        comprehensive estuary protection
        Estuaries are highly valued and intensely used waters, but only
    recently were they recognized by Congress as a unique and severely
    depleted resource requiring special attention. In 1987, Congress added
    a specific provision to the Clean Water Act (section 117) to provide
    direction and funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
    (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program. The Program is recognized for its work on
    addressing nitrogen pollution and encouraging sound land-use planning.
        During the 1987 Clean Water Act reauthorization, Congress also
    established the National Estuary Program (NEP). The primary purpose of
    the NEP is to resolve many of the complex issues that contribute to the
    deterioration of our nation's estuaries.
        Governors of coastal states nominate particular estuaries for
    inclusion in the National Estuary Program. The EPA selects ``nationally
    significant estuaries'' to participate in planning activities. After
    designating a particular estuary, the EPA becomes responsible for
    convening management conferences to address all uses affecting the
    restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological
    integrity of each estuary. Conference participants include
    representatives of the relevant interstate, or regional agencies,
    Federal agencies, the Governor(s) and appropriate state agencies, local
    government agencies, affected industries, educational institutions, and
    citizens. The mission of these conferences is to develop a
    Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that will protect
    and restore the water quality and living resources of estuaries. The
    priority actions identified in the CCMP are to be consistent with other
    provisions of the Clean Water Act and other Federal laws.
        The NEP has been, and continues to be a model for outstanding
    watershed management plans; however, implementation of the plans is
    more problematic. Over the years, we have discovered as more and more
    plans are completed, they unfortunately languish on the shelf waiting
    for the dollars necessary for implementation.
        Currently, 28 nationally significant estuaries participate in the
    National Estuary Program. These estuaries were added in five distinct
    rounds, or ``tiers.'' Seventeen of the 28 estuaries have completed
    their plans and are proceeding to implement the identified priority
    actions. The table on the next page provides a quick summary of the
    status of the local programs.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Nationally Significant Estuary     Year Designated       CCMP Status
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Puget Sound (WA)................  1987..............  Approved 1991
    Buzzards Bay (MA)...............  1987..............  Approved 1992
    Narragansett Bay (RI)...........  1987..............  Approved 1993
    San Francisco Estuary (CA)......  1987..............  Approved 1993
    Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds (NC)...  1987..............  Approved 1994
    Long Island Sound (CT, NY)......  1987..............  Approved 1994
    Galveston Bay (TX)..............  1988..............  Approved 1995
    Santa Monica Bay (CA)...........  1988..............  Approved 1995
    Delaware Inland Bays (DE).......  1988..............  Approved 1995
    Sarasota Bay (FL)...............  1988..............  Approved 1995
    Delaware Estuary (DE, NJ, PA)...  1988..............  Approved 1996
    New York/New Jersey Harbor (NY,   1988..............  Approved 1996
     NJ).
    Massachusetts Bay (MA)..........  1990..............  Approved 1996
    Casco Bay (ME)..................  1990..............  Approved 1996
    Indian River Lagoon (FL)........  1990..............  Approved 1996
    Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary      1990..............  Approved 1996
     (LA).
    Tampa Bay (FL)..................  1990..............  Approved 1997
    Peconic Estuary (NY)............  1992..............  Expected 1998
    Tillamook Bay (OR)..............  1992..............  Expected 1998
    Corpus Christi Bay (TX).........  1992..............  Expected 1998
    San Juan Bay (PR)...............  1992..............  Expected 1999
    Barnegat Bay (NJ)...............  1995..............  Expected 1998
    Lower Columbia River (OR).......  1995..............  Expected 1998
    Morro Bay (CA)..................  1995..............  Expected 1999
    Maryland Coastal Bays (MD)......  1995..............  Expected 1999
    Mobile Bay (AL).................  1995..............  Expected 1999
    New Hampshire Estuaries (NH)....  1995..............  Expected 1999
    Charlotte Harbor (FL)...........  1995..............  Expected 2000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        One of the strengths of the National Estuary Program and the
    Chesapeake Bay Program is their reliance on a watershed approach to
    address and solve the problems of the estuary. By identifying,
    examining, and correcting environmental problems that may originate
    upstream, the estuary restoration plans and actions have a
    substantially better chance of success. National Estuary Programs are
    designed to consider a myriad of issues: stormwater pollution, nutrient
    enrichment, heavy metals, seagrass loss, wetlands destruction, sewage
    treatment, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, fishery landing
    trends, wildlife populations, land-use practices, and others. Past
    approaches to restoration and protection have typically concentrated on
    a narrow examination of a particular type of pollution or a particular
    species of fish. Although many of these efforts are making progress, a
    more complete understanding of the cumulative effect of all the
    estuary's stresses should produce more extensive beneficial results.
        Another strength of the programs is the range of participation they
    attract from interested parties. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, along
    with other conservation organizations and many local businesses are
    actively working to enhance and improve protections for the Bay. The
    work of NEP Management Conferences provide great opportunities for
    collaboration and building consensus among the varied interests of the
    community. Joint decisionmaking during the studying and planning phase,
    although sometimes difficult to achieve, can lead to far fewer hurdles
    during subsequent implementation.
                   estuary legislation of the 105th congress
        American Oceans Campaign is very pleased with the growing attention
    that the 105th Congress is paying to the plight of estuaries. At least
    four bills have been introduced that call for improvements for estuary
    protection. In addition, several Members of Congress have sought
    increased appropriations for the National Estuary Program in order to
    fund implementation actions.
        It is my opinion, that the enactment of the Estuary Habitat
    Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222), introduced by Senators Chafee
    and Breaux, and the Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act
    (H.R. 2374), introduced by Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays,
    would significantly advance a successful, comprehensive approach to
    estuary protection. The combination of these two bills would foster
    beneficial estuarine habitat restoration activities; augment efforts to
    minimize water quality impairment from both polluted runoff and point
    sources; encourage broad-scale, meaningful public participation in
    estuary enhancement actions; and authorize substantially more Federal
    dollars for restoring estuaries and vital estuarine habitat.
        The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (S. 1222). On
    September 25, 1997, Senator Chafee, along with several members of this
    Committee, introduced S. 1222. The objectives of the bill include
    improving coordination among various Federal and non-Federal estuary
    habitat restoration programs and increasing the level of Federal
    funding dedicated to these important restoration efforts. The bill is
    supported by leading estuary protection organizations across the
    nation, American Oceans Campaign, and by several other organizations
    that are part of the Clean Water Network. American Oceans Campaign
    considers the approach detailed in S. 1222 to be an essential component
    of a national strategy to improve the health of estuaries.
        In particular, the bill will improve efforts to restore estuarine
    habitat in numerous ways:
        It establishes an ambitious, critical goal of restoring one million
    acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. Numerous commercial and
    recreational fish and shellfish species use estuarine habitats for
    nurseries and shelter. Such an increase in estuarine habitat should
    significantly aid efforts to restore estuarine and marine fisheries to
    sustainable levels.
        It establishes a Federal inter-agency council to better organize
    the various Federal programs involved in estuarine habitat restoration.
    The Collaborative Council is to be comprised of the heads of five
    leading Federal agencies involved in estuary protection and land-use
    decisions. The activities of the Collaborative Council will increase
    awareness about estuarine health among key Federal officials and
    greatly assist coordination and priority-setting. One potential outcome
    of increased coordination will be the compilation of completed and
    ongoing restoration plans in the national estuary habitat restoration
    strategy. A data base that gives a brief account of restoration
    projects; the types of restoration methods used; the various
    governmental roles included in the project; and the effectiveness of
    the restoration will prove to be an invaluable resource for coastal
    communities that are determined to initiate their own restoration
    campaigns but unsure of how to start and what to include in a plan.
        It promotes a through national approach for restoring estuary
    habitat. The bill calls for the Council to develop a comprehensive
    strategy that addresses fish and shellfish, wildlife, water quality,
    water quantity, and recreational opportunities. Such a strategy should
    aid in directing scientific and financial attention to the most
    pressing estuarine habitat concerns, in balancing national attention
    between small scale and larger habitat restoration projects, and in
    evening geographical distribution of estuary restoration projects.
        The bill encourages community-based involvement by seeking the
    active participation of concerned individuals, non-profit
    organizations, and businesses.
        The bill authorizes appropriations to carry out estuary habitat
    restoration projects. The increased investments will allow states to
    leverage their own contributions to restoration projects and should
    accelerate and enhance estuary restoration activities.
        The Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act (H.R.
    2374). On August 1, 1997, Representatives Lowey, DeLauro, and Shays
    introduced H.R. 2374. The bill corrects the most glaring weakness of
    the National Estuary Program--the lack of consistent, adequate Federal
    funds for implementing approved comprehensive conservation management
    plans. The bill enables States and local communities to make greater
    progress in cleaning up estuaries, plus rewards the efforts put forward
    by the community to develop an action plan for their estuary.
        Working through the National Estuary Program (NEP) of the Federal
    Clean Water Act, community leaders have collaboratively crafted
    comprehensive estuary management plans (CCMPs) to restore their
    estuaries. As previously mentioned, seventeen of the twenty-eight
    estuaries in the NEP have completed their ``blueprints'' and are trying
    to implement the identified priority actions.
        The NEP provides Federal funding to assist states and local
    communities in developing watershed plans; however, no Federal funding
    is specifically allocated to help communities perform the priority
    actions of the finished plans. To be part of the National Estuary
    Program, an estuary is considered to be ``nationally significant.'' It
    should therefore be in the national interest to ensure that plans to
    restore these waters are implemented and given a proper opportunity for
    success.
        Some coastal states have been successful in securing earmarks
    through EPA appropriations bills to help support implementation
    activities. Others have used the existing Clean Water State Revolving
    Loan Fund (SRF) to fund priority actions of the CCMP; however, this has
    not proven to be a consistent source of Federal funding for estuary
    priority actions. To its credit, U.S. EPA has encouraged greater use of
    the SRF for implementing watershed protection activities through
    workshops, publications, and missives. Unfortunately, coastal
    communities continue to struggle in a quest for Federal funds to
    augment local and state funds for completing priority actions listed in
    their local CCMP. As a result, the ``blueprints'' for estuary recovery
    are not fully being put into action.
        Earlier this year, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
    released a progress report on its restoration plan, which was completed
    and approved in 1995. Of the 74 priority actions listed in the plan,
    only eleven have been fully implemented. Little or no progress has been
    achieved on sixteen actions. According to the report, a lack of funding
    is the primary reason that the clean-up plan has floundered. \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Taking the Pulse of the
    Bay: State of the Bay 19989 Executive Summary (Santa Monica, CA: Santa
    Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1998), 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        H.R. 2374 will strengthen protections for estuaries. The bill:
         requires implementation of approved estuary management
    plans. Local estuary management plans have been generally successful at
    identifying water quality problems affecting an estuary. It is
    essential that the solutions to identified problems are actually
    carried out.
         assures Federal funding for implementation. The bill
    extends the State water pollution control revolving loan fund (SRF)
    through fiscal year 2004. The SRF receives authorized appropriations of
    $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1998, gradually increasing to $4 billion in
    fiscal year 2004. The bill requires that states with approved estuary
    plans set aside a percentage of the SRF increases to be used to
    implement the priority actions of approved estuary plans. H.R. 2374
    creates a State matching requirement for receipt of the Federal funds.
         increases citizen involvement by requiring that
    representatives of conservation organizations belong to the program's
    management committee during development of the CCMP. Actively involving
    citizens in the key decisionmaking arm of the local program will help
    build support for restoration actions and expenditures that are needed
    later.
         allows Federal grants to fund select interim actions as
    local management conferences craft their plans.
         calls for a public assembly to be held and the management
    conference to be reconvened within 4 years after implementation has
    begun to gauge the success and status of the plan's implementation.
         extends the authorization of the National Estuary Program
    through fiscal year 2004.
        Because it increases authorization levels for the Clean Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund, the bill would benefit coastal and inland states.
    The need for increased funds for water quality infrastructure is
    particularly great. In 1996, EPA released a national needs survey for
    water quality infrastructure. Based on reports submitted by the states,
    the report concluded that the United States will need to spend more
    than $139.5 billion over the next 20 years to meet capital costs
    eligible for funding under the SRF. \11\ For fiscal year 1999, the
    Administration requested $1.075 billion for the Clean Water SRF. With
    the support of American Oceans Campaign, other conservation
    organizations, water infrastructure associations, and other interested
    parties, the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $1.35 billion
    for the SRF and the House Appropriations Committee has provided $1.25
    billion. American Oceans Campaign commends Senators Bond and Mikulski
    and Representatives Jerry Lewis and Stokes for their strong leadership
    in increasing funding levels for clean water programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ U.S. EPA, 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Reprot to Congress,
    Executive Summary (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If the United States is to narrow the gap between our
    infrastructure investments and our infrastructure needs, stronger
    financial commitments from the Federal Government must be made. The
    Lowey-DeLauro-Shays bill, by significantly increasing Federal
    contributions to the revolving fund, signals stronger leadership in
    meeting the future challenges of clean waters.
        H.R. 2374 has been the subject of a hearing conducted by the Long
    Island Sound Caucus, but has not yet received a hearing before the
    House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill enjoys bi-
    partisan support and currently has 20 co-sponsors. Last fall, 81
    conservation, environmental, fishing, and public interest
    organizations, representing 23 states and the District of Columbia,
    joined together in a letter in support of the bill. (Attachment 1) In
    addition, a coalition of labor and environmental interests, called the
    Clean Water/Clean Jobs Coalition supports the House bill.
        A Senate companion bill to H.R. 2374 has not been introduced. In
    previous Congresses, Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, D'Amato, and Dodd
    introduced similar bills to require implementation of CCMPs and assure
    consistent Federal funding through the State Revolving Loan Fund.
    During consideration of the Clean Water Act reauthorization in the 103d
    Congress, much of the Lieberman bill, including requiring
    implementation of approved plans, and authorizing funds from the State
    Revolving Loan Fund program, the nonpoint pollution control program,
    and the National Estuary Program to be used for implementation, was
    included in the bill (S. 2093) that passed out of this committee.
        In an effort to craft a comprehensive national strategy for
    protecting estuaries and vital estuarine habitat, the Lowey-DeLauro-
    Shays bill and the Chafee bill complement each other well. The bills
    support community involvement. The bills reward locally driven
    processes to determine what vital areas of estuarine habitat to restore
    and what important actions for water quality improvement to undertake.
    In addition, they increase the Federal financial commitment to
    improving water quality and restoring habitat.
        The National Estuary Conservation Act (S. 1321). Senator Torricelli
    introduced S. 1321 on October 28, 1997. The bill permits grants that
    are authorized under the National Estuary Program to be used to develop
    and implement comprehensive conservation management plans. The bill
    also increases the authorized levels for the NEP to $50 million a year
    for fiscal years 1999 through 2004.
        If enacted, Senator Torricelli's bill would set a meaningful
    advancement for the National Estuary Program. The bill would open the
    door to using NEP grants for implementation of approved CCMPs.
        American Oceans Campaign believes that the Torricelli approach,
    although a stride in the right direction, can only hope to exact modest
    improvements in implementing approved priority actions in estuaries.
    First, an annual Federal allocation of $50 million divided among 28
    programs in various stages of their planning and implementation will
    not fully solve the current problem of inadequate Federal funds
    available to implement CCMP actions. For all of the programs, the
    estimated cost their water quality improvement actions substantially
    exceeds $50 million. A much more significant Federal investment is
    needed to ensure these plans have a chance for success.
        Second, a reliance on NEP grants rather than the state revolving
    loan fund (as called for by H.R. 2374) to fund implementation
    activities could lead to a less reliable source of Federal funding.
    Many of the priority actions identified in the approved CCMPs will take
    several years to complete. For example, several plans address the need
    to upgrade or extend sewer service for wastewater treatment and to
    expand the use of reclaimed water. Having a reliable source of Federal
    funding to assist states and localities leverage their costs in making
    these infrastructure improvements should minimize delays and cost
    overruns, and thus, accelerate the clean up of these estuaries.
        Finally, the bill could unintentionally create conflicts between
    newer programs still involved in developing their CCMPs and older
    programs needing funds for implementation. Although it is important to
    support implementation activities, we do not want to squeeze dollars
    from programs still developing their plans. It is likely that the $50
    million will be a future target of earmarks in appropriations bills.
    The bill needs to address how the distribution between planning and
    implementing will be equitably carried out.
        At the same time, I am concerned that the increased level of
    authorization might entice EPA to significantly expand the NEP, and not
    adequately address the great need to support implementation. The
    pattern of the NEP is to accept additional nominations of estuaries
    every few years. Between 1987 and 1995, the NEP grew from six estuaries
    to 28. Certainly there are significant benefits to expanding the number
    of nationally significant estuaries: an expanded knowledge of estuary
    conditions in more parts of the nation; stronger public awareness about
    the need to protect the estuary; increased citizen involvement in
    planning the restoration of an estuary's vitality; and in the end, an
    identified, comprehensive list of key actions needed to be taken.
    However, additional local programs require greater expenditures for
    administrative, technical, and scientific support.
        In summary, local programs need significant and reliable sources of
    Federal funds to leverage the dollars already being invested by states
    and localities for implementation of comprehensive estuary management
    plans. Although S. 1321 does allow NEP grants to be used for
    implementation activities and increases the authorization level for the
    program, I believe that to significantly advance the efforts to restore
    our nation's significant estuaries, a more sizable, comprehensive and
    dependable Federal funding source is required.
        The Coastal Pollution Reduction Act (Mayaguez, Puerto Rico Deep
    Ocean Outfall Act) (H.R. 2207). Representative Romero-Barcelo
    introduced H.R. 2207 on July 22, 1997. The bill passed the House of
    Representatives on November 13, 1997. Section 3 of the bill amends
    section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act to allow NEP grants to be used
    for implementation in addition to development of comprehensive
    conservation management plans. The bill increases the authorization
    level for the National Estuary Program to $20 million in fiscal year
    1998. The bill is silent on extending the authorization of
    appropriations beyond fiscal year 1998.
        Representative Barcelo-Romero's bill corrects the limitation of the
    National Estuary Program that only allows NEP grant money to be used to
    support development activities. However, the increased authorization is
    only established for one fiscal year and is wholly inadequate an
    increase to enable significant progress in completing priority
    activities of approved CCMPs. American Oceans Campaign does not
    consider this approach to be a comprehensive measure for restoring
    nationally significant estuaries.
        American Oceans Campaign joins with other conservation
    organizations in Puerto Rico and other national ocean advocacy groups
    in opposing section 2 of H.R. 2207. This section will allow the
    Mayaguez publicly owned treatment works to apply for a waiver from
    secondary treatment requirements and to discharge inadequately treated
    sewage at a to-be-constructed deep ocean outfall site.
               other legislative issues in the year of the ocean
        Before I conclude my testimony, I would like to briefly discuss
    other important legislative issues affecting the oceans. As you know,
    1998 has been declared the International Year of the Ocean by the
    United Nations. To encourage greater ocean protections, American Oceans
    Campaign is supporting a legislative ``Ocean Package'' and is
    encouraging Members of Congress to support and ``Vote for the Ocean''
    in 1998. Key elements of this legislative package include:
        The Oceans Act (S. 1213/H.R. 3445). The Oceans Act was introduced
    by Senators Hollings, Stevens, Boxer, and Kerry, and by Representatives
    Farr and Saxton. The primary objective of the Oceans Act (H.R. 3445, S.
    1213) is to reassess and refine U.S. programs and policies that affect
    oceans and marine life in order to craft a more coordinated vision for
    the future. The bill calls for the establishment of a 15 or 16-member
    national commission to study U.S. policies affecting ocean quality and
    health, including sustainable fisheries, pollution, transportation,
    coastal hazards, and exploration. The commission would issue
    comprehensive recommendations for improving national policies and
    programs within eighteen months of its establishment.
        Current Federal policies and funding to protect oceans and coasts
    derive from different laws, and responsibilities for safeguarding the
    oceans are divided among various Federal agencies. Often, the
    objectives of these laws and agencies conflict. Using the commission's
    recommendations, directors of the many Federal agencies charged with
    protecting ocean resources will work with other governmental entities
    and non-governmental partners to develop and implement a coordinated
    ocean and coastal policy for the nation.
        The Senate has already passed S. 1213. The House bill is currently
    awaiting a mark-up by the House Resources Committee. We hope that in
    this International Year of the Ocean, the U.S. Congress will take a
    strong stand for a national ocean policy and pass the Oceans Act.
        The B.E.A.C.H. Bill (S. 971/H.R. 2094). Beaches are the leading
    tourist destination in the United States. In 1997, California's beaches
    alone attracted almost 116 million visitors. This summer, many adults
    and children will swim, snorkel, surf or wade in beach waters that,
    unbeknownst to them, are contaminated by pathogens that may cause
    gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and various nose, ear, and
    throat infections.
        To protect themselves from harmful pathogens, swimmers must rely on
    beach water quality tests conducted by local public health agencies.
    Unfortunately, the testing standards and monitoring practices used by
    coastal states and localities vary significantly, and often vary within
    a state. Several states do not regularly monitor their beach waters for
    pathogen contamination and only a distinct minority of states and local
    communities consistently notify the public about poor beach water
    conditions.
        The Natural Resources Defense Council conducts an annual survey of
    public beach closures along our nation's coasts. According to its 1997
    report, Testing the Waters, Volume VII, beaches were closed or health
    advisories against swimming were issued more than 2,596 individual
    times during 1996. Several of these lasted more than 1 day. These
    figures underestimate the true extent of the problem since many states
    to not regularly test beach waters.
        To address these problems, Representatives Pallone and Bilbray
    introduced the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health
    Act (the B.E.A.C.H. bill), H.R. 2094, last summer. Senators Lautenberg
    and Torricelli introduced a Senate companion bill, S. 971. The
    B.E.A.C.H. bill establishes a common-sense, national approach to the
    problems of inconsistent beach water quality testing and public
    notification. The bill requires coastal states to adopt water quality
    criteria for public recreational beach waters that are, at a minimum,
    consistent with U.S. EPA recommendations. It also directs EPA to work
    with states to develop monitoring programs that include timely public
    notification about contaminated beach waters.
        Beach visitors have a right to know that the waters they choose to
    play in are safe for recreation. The B.E.A.C.H. bill promotes a
    nationwide commitment to ensure beach-goers receive the basic
    information needed to protect themselves and their families from
    harmful pathogens.
        Essential Fish Habitat. There are currently a number of threats,
    both regulatory and legislative, to effective implementation of the
    essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act. The EFH mandate was overwhelmingly
    passed by Congress in 1996 in order to address what Members of Congress
    described as ``one of the greatest long-term threats to the viability
    of commercial and recreational fisheries.'' The mandate requires that
    fishery managers describe, identify, and protect areas necessary to
    fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity.
        Unfortunately, we now understand that some Members of the
    Appropriations Committees intend to repeal, weaken, issue exemptions
    for, or eliminate funding for fish habitat protection provisions of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act through this year's annual funding process. These
    Members are responding to pressure from the non-fishing industry sector
    (including timber, ranching, mining, development, hydro-power, and
    others), which is concerned that the EFH mandate may compromise their
    short-term economic gain. If these Members succeed in their attempts to
    weaken, repeal, or debilitate the EFH implementation process, they will
    have sacrificed a vital public resource to the interests of the private
    sector.
        Clean Water Appropriations. The Clinton Administration's proposed
    budget for fiscal year 1999 includes a Clean Water and Watershed
    Restoration Initiative, calling for increases for U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, and the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent polluted runoff, protect public
    health, and restore waters. American Oceans Campaign fully supports
    these increases and urges Congress to appropriate these moneys to bring
    about the needed improvements to our nation's waterways. (Attachment 2)
        Polluted runoff is a major source of water quality impairment in
    coastal waters, rivers, and lakes. Polluted runoff threatens the health
    of our families and destroys important fish and wildlife habitats. Each
    time it rains, water runs off the land and picks up toxic pesticides
    and fertilizers from farm fields and lawns, heavy metals and oils from
    streets, manure from animal feedlots, metals from mining sites, and
    sediment from constructionsites, farms, and timber operations. This
    polluted runoff carries these contaminants into our drinking, fishing,
    and swimming waters. In addition, sediment buries the underwater
    vegetation in rivers and coastal waters that sustains juvenile fish and
    shellfish.
        In order to achieve the Clean Water Act's goal of having waters
    safe for swimming and fishing, we must maximize our efforts to prevent
    polluted runoff. So far, a few of the Appropriations bills have
    included significant increases to support the Clean Water and Watershed
    Restoration Budget Initiative. As members of the committee with
    oversight responsibilities for many of the clean water programs, I
    encourage you to continue working to ensure full funding for clean
    water improvements, particularly in the polluted runoff budgets for the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration.
        Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Control Act (S. 1480). Last
    November, Senators Snowe and Breaux introduced S. 1480 to address a
    serious and growing national problem affecting our coasts. Harmful
    algal blooms, such as red tides and brown tides, are increasing in
    severity and frequency along our coasts. Outbreaks of harmful algal
    blooms can cause fish kills, poison humans and wildlife, close
    fisheries, and impair the aesthetics and recreational uses of coastal
    waters. It has been estimated that the annual economic losses
    associated with harmful algal bloom impacts range from $35 to $65
    million.
        A similarly significant problem affecting estuaries is hypoxia.
    Waters that contain low levels of dissolved oxygen are considered to be
    hypoxic. Hypoxic water conditions do not support marine life and create
    ``dead zones.'' Off the coast of Louisiana and Texas, a dead zone
    covering 6,000 to 7,000 square miles (about the size of New Jersey)
    appears during the summer months. The Chesapeake Bay and Long Island
    Sound also experience periodic hypoxic conditions.
        There is strong evidence linking nutrient loadings with hypoxia and
    growing evidence associating many outbreaks of harmful algal blooms
    with an overabundance of nutrients. Measures to restrict the amount of
    nitrogen being introduced to estuarine and coastal waters from
    agricultural operations, concentrated animal feeding operations, sewage
    treatment plants, and atmospheric deposition will assist efforts to
    control the outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
        The Snowe-Breaux Harmful Algal Bloom bill authorizes additional
    funds to support ongoing harmful algal bloom research and coastal zone
    management activities conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration. Often, these activities involve partnerships with
    coastal states and universities. American Oceans Campaign particularly
    supports dedicating additional moneys to assist states in finalizing
    and implementing coastal nonpoint pollution management programs. These
    programs provide technical and financial assistance to states to help
    develop strategies for addressing the threats of polluted runoff in our
    nation's coastal waters.
        Coastal Title to the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was last
    reauthorized in 1987. During the 103d and 104th Congresses, bills to
    reauthorize the Clean Water Act were presented for votes (the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee passed S. 2093 in 1994, the
    House passed H.R. 961 in 1995). Neither of these bills garnered the
    full support of American Oceans Campaign; however, we were supportive
    of the addition of stronger coastal protection provisions in a Coastal
    Title to S. 2093.
        In future considerations of the Clean Water Act reauthorization,
    American Oceans Campaign, along with the Center for Marine Conservation
    and other coastal advocacy organizations urge Congress to add a Coastal
    Title to the Clean Water Act. Such a title could be closely based upon
    the Coastal Title that was added to S. 2093 in the 103d Congress. A
    Coastal Title should include sections to: strengthen the National
    Estuary Program (H.R. 2374), establish coastal and marine water quality
    criteria; devise uniform beach monitoring programs that assures
    appropriate public notification when waters are too contaminated for
    safe swimming (S. 971, H.R. 2094); strengthen MARPOL compliance and
    restrict garbage from ships; ensure the availability of adequate
    pumpout facilities for recreational boat sewage and marine sanitation
    devices; and strengthen ocean discharge criteria. I would welcome the
    opportunity to help put together such a Title.
                                   conclusion
        It is time for the Federal Government to do more to advance a
    comprehensive, national strategy for estuary protection. Efforts of the
    National Estuary Program have improved the knowledge of water quality
    problems affecting estuaries and have developed numerous actions that
    will support the clean up of these waters. Coastal communities, states,
    and citizen organizations have initiated successful estuary habitat
    restoration projects and have identified several more projects needing
    immediate attention.
        The approaches contained in the Chafee Estuary Habitat Restoration
    Partnership Act and the Lowey-DeLauro-Shays Water Pollution Control and
    Estuary Restoration Act make substantial strides in achieving such a
    comprehensive strategy. Both bills recognize the important
    contributions states, localities, businesses and concerned citizens
    make to improving estuaries. They facilitate inter-agency coordination
    among various Federal agencies. They reward developing solutions to
    sometimes difficult water quality and habitat concerns. Finally, they
    increase the Federal financial contributions to ensure estuaries will
    remain special, productive places for the future.
        I urge this Committee to combine S. 1222 and H.R. 2374 in a
    subsequent Committee mark-up and work to ensure passage of these
    important estuary protection provisions by the end of this Congress. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify on legislative initiatives to
    improve estuary protections. I look forward to working with this
    Committee on these and other estuary issues.
                                     ______

                Letter from Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo
                                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                               Washington, DC 20515-5401, July 6, 1998.

        Hon. John Chafee, Chairman,
        Committee on Environment and Public Works,
        U.S. Senate,
        Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Chafee: I write you today, as the sole representative
    of the 3.8 million disenfranchised U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico
    to propose an amendment to Section 301 (h) of the Federal Water
    Pollution Control Act that would allow the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
    Sewer Authority (PRASA) to apply for a waiver from certain wastewater
    treatment requirements affecting its Mayaguez facility.
        Under existing law the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not
    allowed to accept new applications for waivers from secondary treatment
    requirements. The proposal does not alter the rigorous criteria for
    issuing a waiver nor does it override the judgment of EPA. The proposal
    before your committee reflects the goal of both Congress and the
    Administration to find innovative, alternative and less costly ways to
    apply existing statutes without compromising the environmental
    objectives underlying existing law.
        Many scientists and experts agree that plans to construct deep
    ocean outfalls at locations can provide the best environmental and
    economic alternative for wastewater treatment. The plans would not only
    preserve but would even improve the coastal environments where these
    discharges occur.
        PRASA proposes the construction of a deep ocean outfall that would
    release primary treated wastewater miles from shore at a depth and
    location that will have no adverse impact on human and marine life.
        This alternative would improve the coral environment where the
    current outfall discharges and would also save the Government of Puerto
    Rico about $65 million over 20 years that can be spent to address other
    water supply and infrastructure problems affecting the island.
        EPA and the Department of Justice have agreed to enter into a
    Consent Order with PRASA that provides PRASA the opportunity to apply
    for the construction of a deep water ocean outfall, which would be an
    alternative to a secondary treatment plant. However, this alternative
    cannot even be considered without this legislation; and under the terms
    of the Consent Order, this alternative can only be considered if this
    legislation is enacted by August 1, 1998.
        If this legislation is enacted, EPA will have a choice as to
    whether or not to allow the alternative measure. If it is not enacted,
    there will be no choice, regardless of the environmental or economic
    consequences. This is what this proposal will accomplish. It is a sound
    approach to environmental regulations.
        It is imperative to stress the fact that this is only a limited and
    technical amendment that allows PRASA to refile under section 301(h).
    PRASA would be required by EPA to meet the same stringent legal and
    scientific tests, conduct the same environmental studies and implement
    the same monitoring program applicable to existing recipients of
    section 301(h) waivers. This amendment would not assure that a waiver
    would be granted; that decision would remain entirely within EPA's
    discretion.
        EPA will be the ultimate decisionmaker, and will determine if
    PRASA's proposed alternative is feasible and environmentally
    beneficial. If, after the review, that alternative is acceptable, then
    PRASA will immediately begin construction of the facility, with the
    discharge location approved by the EPA. If EPA finds the alternative
    unacceptable, then PRASA will proceed with the construction of the
    secondary treatment plant.
        Puerto Rico is not asking for preferential treatment. Rather, we
    are only requesting that EPA balance the cost of constructing a
    secondary treatment facility against the environmental, economic and
    social benefits of constructing an outfall at a deep water location.
        There are precedents for such limited amendment to section 301(h),
    most recently for San Diego during the 103d Congress. In the instance
    of San Diego legislation was enacted to allow EPA to consider a section
    301 (h) waiver application proposing a similar alternative to secondary
    treatment. I believe we deserve the same opportunity to implement an
    alternative and seek a section 301(h) waiver.
        My environmental record speaks for itself. I would not support any
    measure that I believe compromises our resources or the environment of
    the island. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and its
    common sense approach. The proposal is limited and targeted, provides
    for an efficient process, does not modify existing standards and would
    be implemented by EPA only if environmental and economic objectives are
    accomplished. I am hopeful that it will receive favorable action in the
    Senate before the August Is' deadline.
        Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any
    questions please do not hesitate to contact Ruben Padron of my staff at
    (202) 225-5046.
                Sincerely,
                                         Carlos Romero-Barcelo.
                                   __________
    Statement of Perfecto Ocasio, Executive Director, Puerto Rico Aqueduct
                              and Sewer Authority
        Mr. Chairman, my name is Perfecto Ocasio. I am the Executive
    Director of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), the
    public corporation that serves almost all of the 3.8 million American
    citizens in Puerto Rico with potable water and wastewater services.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the need for this
    legislation, which would benefit the environment and the economy of
    Puerto Rico.
        I would first like to present to the Committee a letter, from
    Governor Pedro Rossello, urging quick Senate action on H.R. 2207, as a
    matter of urgent importance to the people of Puerto Rico.
                                   background
        Under section 301(h) of the 1977 Clean Water Act, coastal
    communities, including islands, were permitted an opportunity to apply
    for an alternative to the requirements of secondary treatment for ocean
    discharges that met stringent environmental equivalency requirements.
    All applications were required initially to be submitted to the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by December 31, 1982. PRASA
    submitted seven applications. Six were tentatively approved; only one--
    the Mayaguez treatment plant outfall--was denied, finally in 1994,
    because of the location of the outfall in the sensitive coral
    environment of Mayaguez Bay.
                          consent decree alternatives
        H.R. 2207, which was passed by the House last October, would allow
    Puerto Rico to apply to the EPA for authority under section 301(h) of
    the Clean Water Act to construct a new, state-of-the-art deep ocean
    outfall at a location that avoids this coral environment. This would be
    an alternative to secondary treatment at the current outfall location
    in Mayaguez Bay. This option is specifically embodied in a recent
    Consent Decree between the EPA and PRASA, which resolves a 15-year-old
    legal dispute. The Consent Decree, supported by EPA and PRASA, requires
    PRASA to meet a detailed schedule for the construction of facilities
    necessary to achieve compliance with all of the requirements of the
    Clean Water Act.
        But it provides two alternatives. One is the construction of a
    traditional secondary treatment plant, at high cost and energy
    consumption, which will continue to discharge effluents into Mayaguez
    Bay. The second alternative, illustrated in the accompanying chart, is
    the construction of a deep water ocean outfall, sending primary treated
    effluent several miles offshore into deep ocean currents, thus
    relieving stress on the Bay and its sensitive coral ecosystems. The
    deep water outfall could be less expensive to build and much less
    expensive to operate than a secondary treatment plant. EPA would
    determine whether the deep ocean outfall meets all Clean Water Act
    standards. However, because of the urgent need for a solution, the
    Consent Decree permits EPA consideration of the deep ocean outfall
    alternative only if Congress authorizes this approach by August 1,
    1998.
                          benefits of the legislation
        This legislation provides Puerto Rico the same opportunity that
    Congress has given other coastal communities in unique situations to
    implement section 301(h). The bill does not in any way change any
    applicable standards of the Clean Water Act. Without authority to
    submit a waiver application to the EPA, PRASA may be required to spend
    many millions of dollars for a secondary treatment plant that will have
    no beneficial effect on the stressed marine environment of Mayaguez
    Bay. These funds could be used for the renovation and upgrade of Puerto
    Rico's deteriorating water facilities infrastructure and other water
    supply, treatment and wastewater projects urgently needed in Puerto
    Rico.
        H.R. 2207 makes the following findings:
        1. The existing discharge from the Mayaguez publicly owned
    treatment works is to the stressed waters of Mayaguez Bay, an area
    containing severely degraded coral reefs, and relocation of that
    discharge to unstressed ocean waters could benefit the marine
    environment;
        2. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act should, consistent with
    the environmental goals of the Act, be administered with sufficient
    flexibility to take into consideration the unique characteristics of
    Mayaguez Bay; and
        3. Scientific evidence suggests that some deep ocean areas off the
    coastline of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, might be able to receive a less-
    than-secondary sewage discharge while still maintaining healthy and
    diverse marine life.
                             coral reef protection
        Just last month the President issued an Executive Order on Coral
    Reef Protection. The legislation also provides Congress and the EPA
    with an early opportunity to further the goals of this initiative. That
    Order, which is designed to protect and preserve coral reef ecosystems,
    requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to reduce
    impacts on affected environments from pollution and sedimentation. H.R.
    2207 will allow EPA the opportunity to determine whether a deep ocean
    outfall can protect Mayaguez Bay. Without this bill, EPA and PRASA have
    no options--except an inordinately expensive one--a course of action
    that would continue pollution and sedimentation of the coral ecosystem.
    This bill does not authorize construction of a deep ocean outfall, it
    will simply allow us to conclude the necessary studies and complete an
    application for EPA's review.
                         environmental impact statement
        PRASA is already proceeding to ensure a thorough environmental
    review of all options. Under Law Number 9, Puerto Rico's local
    equivalent to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), PRASA and
    the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) are preparing an
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A draft EIS was completed in
    April recommending a deep ocean outfall as environmentally preferable.
    A copy of the EIS is being submitted to the Committee.
        The entire EIS record will be available to EPA as it considers the
    strict standards of section 301(h).
                            congressional precedents
        There are precedents for such a limited amendment to section
    301(h). The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
    Amendments of 1981 included a provision that specifically permitted the
    city of Avalon, California to file. The 1981 provision concluded:
    ``failure to broaden eligibility risks requiring treatment for
    treatment's sake, involving the expenditure of funds which could be
    better used to achieve additional water quality benefits elsewhere.
    This provision does not grant variances. It simply allows variances to
    be sought with the burden on the applicant to make his case on
    environmental grounds.''
        The Water Quality Act of 1987 also included a specific provision
    for the Irvine Ranch Water District, a California public agency, that
    permitted the District to file for a section 301(h) waiver. More
    recently, in 1994 Congress passed H.R. 5176, which allowed the city of
    San Diego to apply for a waiver under section 301(h) within 180 days of
    enactment. This action precisely parallels the provision here.
        We urge you to act quickly. A legislative solution must be in place
    before August 1, 1998. This will allow us to put to rest years of
    litigation and focus our energies and capital resources on implementing
    an environmentally sound solution for Mayaguez and other urgent
    priorities.
        Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue
    for Puerto Rico.

                                   __________
     Statement of Juan C. Martinez-Cruzado, Ph.D., Mayaguezanos for Health
                                and Environment
        Mr. Chairman: I am Dr. Juan C. Martinez-Cruzado, former President
    of and spokesperson for Mayaguezanos for Health and Environment, Inc.
    (MHE). We thank the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee very
    much for this opportunity to express ourselves to you, even though we
    are not constituents of any of you.
        Until earlier this week, I had expected to be silent today. Mr.
    Victor Negron, counsel to the Mayor of Mayaguez, had planned to present
    testimony on behalf of the government and people of Mayaguez, MHE, and
    La Liga Ecologica de Rincon. Unfortunately, a last-minute change in
    circumstances prevented him from appearing today. His written testimony
    is found on top of the packet that we have presented to the Committee.
    Accompanying his testimony is a letter from the Mayor of Mayaguez
    authorizing me to testify on behalf of the Municipality today. My
    testimony is labelled attachment 1.
        MHE is a community-based environmental community organization that
    formed during our city's successful struggle against the establishment
    of a coal-fired power plant that was to use 466 million gallons of
    seawater per day from Mayaguez Bay. We hold our Bay in high regard, and
    dream of the day in which we may be able to swim again in it without
    getting skin rashes, ear infections, and other ailments.
        We are also involved in other programs aimed at protecting the Bay.
    For example, we took vigorous action to improve the bay's water quality
    by filing a citizen suit against the tuna canneries that discharge to
    the bay and negotiating with them the construction of secondary and
    tertiary treatment facilities. This was done, I might add, despite the
    opposition of the government of Puerto Rico.
        When H.R. 2207 was introduced in the House of Representatives last
    summer we opposed it very strongly because it would have given the
    Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) an opportunity not
    only to submit a new 301(h) waiver application, but to exempt it from
    the application revision procedures of section 125.59(d) of title 40,
    Code of Federal Regulations, thereby eliminating all EPA review
    criteria and all public participation and, in effect, leaving EPA with
    no legal basis to deny any new PRASA--301(h) waiver application in
    Mayaguez. Though that highly objectionable provision has since been
    removed, we are still adamantly opposed to the bill because it has the
    effect of retarding by too many years all actions and investments
    needed to save the coral reefs and improve the water quality of
    Mayaguez Bay.
        We must stress that the history of EPA in Puerto Rico and the
    Virgin Islands is characterized by indifference and negligence, and a
    much less pro-environmental position than is generally the case on the
    mainland. The Agency's handling of--301(h) waivers is a good example.
    Since that provision was first added to the Act in 1977, more than 200
    applications for waivers were submitted. During that 20-year or so
    span, EPA has made its final determinations on all but seven of those
    applications. Not coincidentally, the remaining 7 are all in Puerto
    Rico or the Virgin Islands. In the meantime, partially treated sewage
    continues to be dumped into the Caribbean and the Atlantic.
        As Hispanics, we are very aware of discrimination by EPA, and so we
    were very pleased that President Clinton signed an Executive Order on
    Environmental Justice in 1993. However, the problem remains a very real
    one for us.
        In Mayaguez, it took EPA 6 years to conclude its enforcement
    discussions with PRASA. When they finally produced a consent decree
    (see attachment 4), EPA had agreed to sit on the law for 1 year,
    explicitly to give PRASA a chance to weaken the law that EPA is called
    on to enforce. The agreement of EPA to this provision is regarded by
    many, including us, as a preliminary approval of the proposed deep
    ocean outfall, despite the fact that no studies or documentations that
    supported its viability were available. We were also distressed to
    learn that EPA had helped draft H.R. 2207. In short, we believe that we
    have been treated worse than those who live on the mainland. We cannot
    trust EPA.
        Even though EPA concluded 7 years ago that the waters of Mayaguez
    Bay were already so stressed that no further impairment could be
    tolerated, PRASA is still discharging the same barely treated
    wastewater, at the same site, causing the same effects on our beaches
    and corals. And here we are, now considering turning the clock back to
    1979 and giving PRASA another opportunity to engage in a long--301(h)
    waiver application procedure. The people of Mayaguez, who are sick of
    waiting for action, can only regard this bill as an excuse to keep
    doing nothing about the sewage in Mayaguez Bays and an attempt to
    condemn our coral reefs to a slow death.
        The desire for a quick solution to this discharge is so great that
    even the Governor of Puerto Rico went out of his way in October, 1996,
    1 month before the general elections, to promise to the people of
    Mayaguez the start of the construction of the secondary treatment plant
    by July, 1997 (see attachment 6). That promise, however, proved to be
    an empty one.
        Last May, PRASA submitted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    for the deep ocean outfall to the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
    Board (PREQB). PRASA put in writing and on the map (see attachment 3)
    the proposed point and depth of discharge. The depth, 400 feet, is
    within, not under, the thermoclyne, suggesting that the wastewaters
    will float to the surface, rather than sink to the sea bottom.
        The proposed point of discharge is within waters used by humpback
    whales to mate and give birth, and part of the area used for whale
    watching activities. It is awfully close to the point where the
    continental shelf drops off--this area provides critical habitat to
    massive populations of fish larvae, and is thus a cornerstone of the
    local fishery.
        The proposed discharge point is only 2.5 miles from beaches of
    Rincon and Anasco, well known as tourism spots and for their surfing
    activities. Most of the year, strong ocean currents would bring the
    pollution to those beaches. When cold fronts hit Puerto Rico in the
    winter months, ocean currents shift to the southeast, where a major
    coral reef--Manchas Exteriores--would be located 1.2 miles from the
    point of discharge. As a result, the people of the municipalities of
    Anasco and Rincon are joining the opposition to this bill. Close to 100
    people attended the PREQB public hearings on June 22. Fifteen
    testimonies, all in opposition, were presented, including testimonies
    from hotel and parader owners in Rincon, fishermen in Anasco, various
    people from Rincon, Anasco and Mayaguez, as well as environmental
    organizations and marine scientists. (see attachment 8).
        An engineer presented for a second time a proposal for secondary
    treatment followed with discharge to existing wetlands for natural
    tertiary treatment (see attachment 7). Land application of secondarily
    treated wastewater will be less expensive than deep ocean disposal, and
    will remove ALL discharges from the sea.
        It is crystal clear that the deep ocean outfall is the worst
    possible solution to a fairly straightforward problem. Undoubtedly, the
    approval of H.R. 2207 will mean years and years of the current
    conditions in which our corals are slowly dying and our children can
    only swim in filth. If passed, H.R. 2207 will only keep Mayaguez in the
    polluted conditions that it has endured for so many years. We urge you
    to let H.R. 2207 die.
        If the bill is not enacted, secondary treatment will be in
    operation by 2001, according to the terms of the consent decree. Even
    though secondary treatment is in itself a mediocre solution, as it
    provides little relief to corals, this is far better than waiting
    another decade for PRASA to bicker with, and probably sue EPA over
    its--301(h) waiver application. In the meantime, our children will be
    able to swim in safe waters and a sound alternative, tertiary
    treatment, can be fleshed out.
        We hope that this option will have renewed support, given President
    Clinton's issuance of Executive Order No. 13,089, ``Coral Reef
    Protection.'' As I'm sure you know, the Order is intended to renew and
    deepen ``the Nation's commitment to preserve and protect the
    biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S.
    coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment.'' How ironic it would
    be if the Senate were to approve H.R. 2207, and send it to the
    President for his signature so soon after the issuance of the Executive
    Order.
        We must bear in mind that when Congress structured the--301(h)
    waiver opportunity in 1977, it did it so with the clear understanding
    that the opportunity to seek such waivers would expire in 5 years. In
    other words, even where a sewage plant operator could persuade EPA that
    it complied with all of the criteria found in the law, no application
    for such a waiver could be accepted after December 31, 1 982. On that
    day, the door closed. Why? Doubtless because Congress recognized that
    there is something profoundly wrong with dumping barely treated waste
    into the sea for decades. The 92d Congress was right. The 105th would
    make a terrible mistake by undercutting the only sound feature of--
    301(h).
        Not long ago, it was commonly believed that the world's oceans were
    a bottomless receptacle, a universal sink, a resource with no limits.
    Therefore, it was thought that there was no problem with barging New
    York City's garbage 112 miles offshore, and dumping it onto the sea
    floor. The Soviet Union thought there was no problem with disposing of
    decommissioned nuclear submarines by dropping them onto sea floor. Many
    people still believe that we can harvest all the fish we please from
    the world's oceans, because the ocean's ability to produce protein is
    unlimited.
        As this Committee is now very aware, all of these notions have been
    proven to be tragically wrong. We have come to realize that the oceans
    are much smaller and more fragile that we once thought. Fueled by
    population and technological growth, our collective ability to tamper
    with, if not destroy traditional ecological equilibria increases every
    year, often with disastrous consequences. We now know better than to
    think that indiscriminate dumping of waste is harmless. We can no
    longer claim ignorance as an excuse.
        Broadly speaking, there are three ways to deal with pollution; (1)
    it can be prevented--this is the modern, and most cost-effective
    approach; (2) it can be treated after the fact, as most pollution is
    now handled; or (3) it can simply be dumped, untreated into a dark hole
    where people do not know what is going on, hoping that the pollution
    will never come back to haunt us. This is the waste management
    philosophy of the Cave Men. The Senate disserves Puerto Rico by
    applying this philosophy to our island, our people, our tropical
    waters, and the tremendous array of wildlife that inhabit them.
        The 92d Congress was right when it closed to door on 301(h) waivers
    after 1982. The 105th Congress would make a terrible mistake by
    reopening that door in 1998.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                  Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc.
                                           Mayaguez, PR, July 10, 1998.
        Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
        Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
        Washington DC 20510.

        Re: H.R. 2207--Section 301(h) waiver for Mayaguez. PR Sewage
    Treatment Plant

        Dear Senator Chafee: This follows your question at yesterday's
    hearing regarding the 12 years that it took EPA to conclude PRASA's
    failed effort to obtain a Sec. 301[h] waiver for the Mayaguez plant. In
    fact the process took 16 years, because even after PRASA was curtly
    dismissed by EPA in 1991 (not even a hearing was granted on PRASA's
    patently deficient applications], PRASA filed administrative and
    judicial appeals for four more years - all the way to the Supreme
    Court! The next month they went to Congress for permission to begin the
    process all over again [H.R. 1371, 94th Cong., introduced March
    30,1995.]
        Senator Rodriquez's assertion that the Puerto Rico Senate would
    expedite the next round of paperwork, even assuming that a legislative
    body could play such a role, is at odds with the hard-ball litigation
    tactics that were being applied as recently as three years ago.
        Having now failed for 19 years to obtain from EPA a waiver allowing
    it to [1 keep the current discharge where it is, and [23 avoid
    secondary treatment, PRASA seeks from your Committee what would amount
    to an open-ended waiver chat would allow the same thing. In the
    meantime, they could file papers with EPA for another 12, or 16, or 19
    years. And the economy of the Mayaguez would continue to bear the
    burden of EPA's sewer hook-up moratorium.
        Twenty-one years ago, Congress wisely set 1982 as the deadline for
    these waiver applications. The Mayaguez matter is not the right context
    for taking chunks out of what is probably the nation's most effective
    environmental law.
    Sincerely,
                                              Juan C. Martinez-Cruzado.
                                     ______

                                        Governor of Puerto Rico
                                                          June 18, 1998

        Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
        Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
        Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Mr. Chairman: By this means I respectfully request your
    support for H.R. 2207 [the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act],
    legislation that will permit the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
    Authority [PRASA] to implement a Consent Order that it has signed with
    the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and to apply for authority
    under the Clean Water Act to construct a deepwater outfall at the
    Municipality of Mayaguez on the west coast of Puerto Rico. If H.R. 2207
    becomes law and if the EPA determines that the environmental standards
    of the Clean Water Act are met. then PRASA could relocate its
    wastewater treatment discharges to deep ocean waters. That would
    eliminate the current discharge site, which is contributing effluents
    to a sensitive coral environment in the polluted Mayaguez Bay: it would
    likewise eliminate a deterrent to the region's economic growth, by
    allowing the EPA to lift its ban on development in the Mayaguez area.
        For nearly 15 years PRASA and the EPA have been embroiled in
    litigation over a solution to the problem of reducing stress on
    Mayaguez Bay's delicate environment. Throughout the entire duration of
    my administration, dating back to 1993, EPA has imposed a prohibition
    on new development in the area because of Clean Water Act violations.
    Now, finally, PRASA and the EPA have signed a Consent Order that offers
    two alternatives. The first of these would require the very costly
    construction of a traditional secondary treatment facility that would
    continue to discharge wastewater into Mayaguez Bay. The second
    alternative would entail the construction of a deepwater ocean outfall
    that would release treated effluent several miles offshore into deep
    ocean currents. A deepwater outfall would be less expensive to build
    and much less expensive to operate than would a secondary treatment
    facility. Should a deep ocean outfall be constructed, the EPA will
    determine whether it meets all Clean Water Act standards.
        However, the process leading to creation of a new outfall - which
    both PRASA and the Mayaguez community deem to be the environmentally
    preferable alternative -- cannot commence unless is H.R. 2207 is
    enacted by August 1, 1998: that is the date which was agreed upon by
    PRASA and the EPA in their Consent Order, as a means of guaranteeing
    that a permanent solution would not be delayed indefinitely.
        The legislation in question was passed by the House of
    Representatives last year and has been endorsed by the EPA. Its
    enactment into law prior to August 1, 1998 would greatly benefit our
    precious environment, as well as the economic self-sufficiency
    aspirations of the 3.8-million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. Your
    leadership in the attainment of this urgent objective will thus be
    deeply appreciated.
        Thank you for your kind attention to this very important matter.
    Sincerely,
                                                        Pedro Rossello.
                                   __________
           Statement of the Association of National Estuary Programs
        Chairman Chafee and Members of the Senate Environment and Public
    Works Committee: On behalf of the Association of National Estuary
    Programs (ANEP), we appreciate this opportunity to submit to this
    Committee our views on protecting and restoring the Nation's estuaries.
    The Association of National Estuary Programs is a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to promoting responsible stewardship and a
    common vision for the preservation of our nation's bays and estuaries.
    ANEP's citizen members and grassroots supporters are working to ensure
    that Congress continues to support the tremendous volunteer investment
    made by citizens, scientists, and local decision makers in developing
    Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to protect the
    nation's ``estuaries of national significance.''
        We are pleased that this Committee is turning its attention to the
    plight of the Nation's estuaries, and offer our endorsement of S.1321,
    a bill to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and S.1222, the
    Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Introduced by Senator
    Torricelli, S.1321 is a bipartisan bill with 18 co-sponsors \1\ that
    would reauthorize the National Estuary Program through fiscal year
    2004. The National Estuary Program is established by section 320 of the
    Clean Water Act, and administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency in close partnership with the State and local governments,
    interested citizens, and the private sector.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\Cosponsors include Senators Graham, Mack, Sarbanes, Lautenberg,
    Chafee, Reed, Moynihan, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Murray, Faircloth,
    Landrieu, D'Amato, Gregg, Lieberman, Mikulski, and Cleland.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is well established that estuaries are the biologically
    essential, economically priceless, but fragile connections between the
    continent and the oceans. The entire nation is served by coastal
    estuaries in numerous ways such as commercial and recreational fishing,
    boating, wildlife habitat, transportation, and tourism. Through the
    National Estuary Program, local governments and interested business and
    industry groups come together with State and Federal governments to
    reach agreement on long-term management plans that protect the future
    economic and biological productivity of our estuaries.
        To date, there are 28 estuaries in the national program: Eleven
    programs are in the developmental stage and 17 are in the
    implementation stage of their individual ``Comprehensive Conservation
    and Management Plans'' (CCMPs). These 28 NEPs contain 45 percent of the
    nation's surface water area and are downstream from 26 percent of the
    nation's watersheds. These programs are clearly an important factor in
    at least a quarter of the nation's inland and coastal watersheds. The
    management plans for each of these 28 NEPs are each unique, but share
    many characteristics in that they are all based on sound science, all
    written by local stakeholder groups in partnership with the relevant
    regulatory agencies, and all approved by the local and State
    governments that will be principal partners in implementation. Local
    citizens guide the development and implementation of their plans, and
    work to leverage Federal and State dollars with contributions from
    local governments and the private sector.
        The Association of National Estuary Programs endorses S.1321.
    Through its ten years of experience, the National Estuary Program has
    become an excellent model for developing solutions to complex
    environmental problems. The 28 programs implement their management
    plans to improve water quality, habitat, and water flows. Strong
    federal support is critical. By maximizing the federal investment on
    the management plans and local partnerships that have been created, the
    National Estuary Program provides real benefits to the health of the
    nation's estuaries and the people who live there. S.1321 offers a
    simple, straight-forward reauthorization of the National Estuary
    Program.
        Through the National Estuary Program, many environmental problems
    are already improving. A few examples of NEP success stories include:
         The San Juan National Estuary Program is reducing the
    number of unauthorized raw sewage discharges from boater pump out
    stations.
         The Massachusetts Bays Program led an interagency approach
    to shellfish bed restoration that will restore and protect 13 shellfish
    beds along Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
         More than 32,000 acres of critical habitat area has been
    preserved in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Over 35,000 acres of impounded
    marsh and mangrove wetlands are being reconnected to the Indian River
    Lagoon on Florida's eastern coast, one of the most productive U.S.
    ecosystems.
         The programs in both Corpus Christi Bay, Texas and Tampa
    Bay, Florida are developing long-term dredged materials management
    plans to provide environmental protection and to maximize beneficial
    uses of dredged materials. Tillamook Bay NEP watershed, the largest
    milk producing region in Oregon, has performed a study that identifies
    sources of bacteria associated with water pollution and links land use
    practices to water quality.
        The National Estuary Program will be valuable both as a model and
    as an implementation mechanism for S.1222. Habitat restoration and
    preservation is critically needed in many of the nation's estuaries of
    national significance; fish and wildlife habitat loss is one of the
    greatest problems in our estuaries and it deserves immediate attention
    and action.
        We would like to provide two comments on S.1321. First, we endorse
    the provision that would allow funding to be used for both the
    development and implementation of the CCMPs. However, we must express
    our concern that increasing the State share of funding in the
    implementation stage from 50 percent to 75 percent because it
    diminishes the total effort that is needed to implement the CCMPs.
    Maintaining the current level of federal partnership conveys a
    commitment that attracts local sponsors and actually assists in
    leveraging additional local dollars for the projects that improve water
    quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and conserve water supplies. For
    this reason we urge the Committee to maintain the State's funding share
    for implementing the CCMPs at 25 percent.
        Second, we applaud S. 1321's authorization of $50 million for this
    national program. In years past there were just a dozen NEPs receiving
    around $12 million to develop CCMPs, about $1.0 million per NEP.
    Unfortunately, today there are 17 NEPs implementing CCMPs with another
    11 in the developmental stage while the total funding to the program
    has not increased proportionally. The increased funding authorized by
    S.1321 is necessary because there are now 28 National Estuary Programs,
    and solid federal support is needed to fully advance the mission and
    goals of each NEP. At the same time, however, S.1321 does not include a
    provision that we think it should, namely, holding firm EPA's
    administrative expenses. We want the funding increase to go toward
    restoring the nation's estuaries - implementing the local programs.
        We thank the Committee for providing us the opportunity to share
    our views with you. The Association of National Estuary Programs stands
    ready to assist the Committee as it works to pass this vital
    legislation.
                                   __________
                    Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
    John Atkin, Stamford, Connecticut, Executive Director, Save the Sound,
    Long Island Sound.

    Will Baker, Annapolis, Maryland, Chairman of Restore America's
    Estuaries, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

    Dery Bennett, Highlands, New Jersey, Executive Director, American
    Littoral Society.

    Peter Clark, St. Petersburg, Florida, Executive Director, Tampa
    BayWatch.

    Mark Davis, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Executive Director, Coalition to
    Restore Coastal Louisiana.

    Kathy Fletcher, Seattle, Washington, Vice Chair of Restore America's
    Estuaries, Executive Director, People for Puget Sound.

    Doug Foy, Boston, Massachusetts, Executive Director. Conservation Law
    Foundation.

    Todd Miller, Newport, North Carolina, Executive Director, North
    Carolina Coastal Federation.

    Barry Nelson, Oakland, California, Senior Fellow, Save the San
    Francisco Bay Association.

    Linda Shead, Webster, Texas, Executive Director, Galveston Bay
    Foundation.

    Curt Spalding, Providence, Rhode Island, Executive Director, Save the
    Bay, Narragansett Bay.

        On behalf of Restore America's Estuaries, we would like to thank
    Senator Chafee and the committee for the opportunity to present written
    testimony in support of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership
    Act, S. 1222. The members of Restore America's Estuaries welcome the
    opportunity to express our organizations' strong support and
    appreciation for Senator Chafee's leadership and vision in introducing
    legislation that will help our communities preserve and restore
    our.nation's ' coastal heritage.
        Restore America's Estuaries is a coalition off 11 community-based
    coastal environmental organizations with a combined membership of over
    250,000. Our mission is to save and restore America's estuaries and
    coastal heritage for our children, before it disappears.
        Galvanized by their love of our coastal waters, citizens
    established the R.A.E. organizations to mobilize their communities in
    protecting these special places. The R.A.E. members have been working
    for more than 30 years to protect this coastal heritage. Despite the
    significant accomplishments of the past generation of environmental
    efforts, we share a deep concern that many species of fish, birds. and
    other animals are not recovering as we had expected. We are also
    troubled by the fact that some coastal areas not previously affected by
    water pollution, are now in serious decline'. These continued problems
    are caused by the ongoing loss of habitat for fish, birds, shellfish
    and plants along our shorelines. In order to bring abundant life back
    to our bays, sounds, and lagoons, our communities must do more than
    protect the remaining habitat. We must restore the valuable habitats
    which have been destroyed.
        That is what our organizations and their members have been doing
    over the past three decades. From Seattle, Washington, to Galveston,
    Texas, to Rockland, Maine, the R.A.E. members have identified and
    targeted the habitat resources in their own estuaries that are
    threatened and in need of restoration. Working with school children,
    neighborhood organizations, and a variety of civic groups, we are
    helping our communities restore this estuary habitat one acre at a
    time.
        Together, we have pledged to restore one million acres of estuary
    habitat-by the year 2010. The need is great. in coastal states, 55
    million acres of wetlands have been destroyed. We need to turn the tide
    of this devastating trend and actually foster the rebirth of our
    estuaries and their life nurturing habitats.
        Although, each estuary is unique, they all suffer from significant
    habitat loss. 92 percent of San Francisco Bay's original wetlands have
    been destroyed. In Texas, Galveston Bay has lost 85 percent of its sea
    grass meadows. Louisiana loses 25,000 acres of coastal salt marshes
    every year, and the Chesapeake Bay's oyster harvests have plummeted
    from 25 million pounds in 1959 to only a million pounds in 1989 while
    90 percent of its seagrass has disappeared. As the pfisteria crisis has
    demonstrated in North Carolina and the Chesapeake Ray, these losses
    have dire consequences for our environment, our economy, and our way of
    life.
        When our estuaries suffer these loses of habitats our communities
    risk the loss of a wondrous heritage and a prized way of life.
    Estuaries from Long Island Sound to San Francisco Bay are a vital part
    of what makes our communities special. They serve as the focal points
    for our community life and traditions, hosting everything from harvest
    festivals to busy ports.
        Joining together land, saltwater, and freshwater ecosystems,
    estuaries provide a vital link to a healthy environment. Forming a
    critical buffer between our land and waters, estuary habitat filters
    pollution from runoff and protects our homes from flooding. Estuaries
    shelter a tremendous quantity and diversity of wildlife, providing
    essential habitat for 75 percent of America's commercial fish and
    shellfish species, 75 percent of the United States' migratory waterfowl
    and 45 percent of our endangered and threatened species depend upon
    estuary habitat for shelter' food, and breeding grounds. So, when these
    habitats are destroyed, the impact is felt far beyond local estuaries
    as it diminishes our wildlife, water quality and the health of our
    land.
        Estuaries do more than shelter our families and enrich our lives,
    they are also a valuable economic resource. One acre of estuary habitat
    produces more food than the richest Midwestern farmland.
        Commercial and recreational fishing, boating and tourism provide
    Americans with 28 million jobs. The fishing industry alone contributes
    $111 billion to the nation's economy. Our coastal waters welcome 150
    million tourists who, in just 6 states, contributed more than $105
    billion to local economies during their 1994 visits.
        In short, estuaries are national treasures. They nourish.our
    environment, strengthen our economy, enhance our leisure time, and
    protect our children's futures. We need to care for our estuaries and
    invest today to preserve and restore them.
        Our communities are already making this investment. They are hard
    at work restoring small pieces of habitat in estuaries like Tampa Bay,
    Puget-Sound, and the Chesapeake, but the resources for restoration lag
    far behind the number of excellent restoration projects available.
    Senator Chafee's
        Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act will provide
    communities with the resources they need to invest in the health of our
    estuaries and save our coastal heritage.
        Effectively leveraging limited federal resources by matching them
    with local funding, S. 1222 will restore one million acres of estuary
    habitat over the next 13 years. This goal will be accomplished by
    funding voluntary estuary restoration projects which are driven from
    the community up. Using this coordinated community-based approach,
    S.1222 gives our communities the tools they need to finish the work
    they have begun and bring life back to our estuaries.
        This legislation goes beyond providing communities with much needed
    funding. It gives federal agencies the tools to break down the barriers
    of bureaucracy and work together to build partnerships with local
    communities. In a recent report, Restore America's Estuaries catalogued
    71 different, often overlapping, federal programs which implement some
    habitat restoration. By creating nets ways for agencies to coordinate
    their efforts, S. 1222 encourages our governments to make better use of
    scarce funding and work more effectively. This translates into as much
    as $10 of on-the-ground restoration for every $1 in new federal
    funding.
        Despite all that's been done, our nation's estuaries remain in
    crisis. The migration of millions of people to the shores of estuaries
    has had its impact. Our coastal communities have only a limited rime to
    take action and reverse this situation. If we do not markedly increase
    our efforts to restore America's estuaries soon, more species of fish,
    plants, and birds may become memories just like the Atlantic salmon
    which once swam in Narragansett Bay, the sea otter which once thrived
    in San Francisco Bay, and the bay scallops which were once harvested in
    Long Island Sound. Without action now, jobs will be lost and the
    quality of life will suffer.
        When, last September, Senator Chafee introduced S. 1222, he
    recognized that the need for habitat restoration is acute and our
    coastal communities are poised to eagerly respond to this challenge.
    Restore America's Estuaries applauds Senator Chafee for his leadership
    on this critical issue. Twenty-six cosponsors, from both sides of the
    aisle, have also demonstrated that they understand the needs of our
    estuaries and the coastal communities that depend on them. If we truly
    want to restore our nation's fisheries, preserve our coastal heritage,
    and improve our economy, we must give the federal government the
    opportunity to help with this task.
        The coordinated community-based approach prescribed in S. 1222 will
    also set a powerful example for solving the more complicated
    environmental challenges of the next century. It will help refocus the
    Army Corps on the restoration of natural systems, just as is intended
    in the draft of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that is
    currently under consideration. Because S. 1222 affects the Army Corps'
    mission and purpose and because the health of America's estuaries can
    not afford years of delay, we respectfully urge immediate consideration
    of S. 1222 as part of this year's WRDA reauthorization.
        The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act presents a vision
    of great promise. It gives our communities the opportunity to leave our
    children bays and sounds that are healthier than when we found them. We
    want to thank Senator Chafee for providing the vision for this bill and
    setting such a high standard for the future stewardship of our nation's
    coastal resources.
                                   __________
         Statement of David R. Mills, Chairman of the Board of County
                      Commissioners of Sarasota County, FL
        Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you and all the members of the
    Committee for giving me the opportunity to offer testimony on the
    status and future of the National Estuary Program in general and the
    Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program in particular.
        Estuaries are very important in both environmental and economic
    terms. They provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife. Seventy
    five percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on estuaries
    during at least some stage of their life. The fishing industry provides
    $111 billion to the nation's economy annually and supports 1.5 million
    jobs. Because of their beauty and intriguing biodiversity, estuaries
    are also an asset to the nation's tourism industry.
        Ironically, some of the things that make estuaries so precious are
    the very reasons they have become threatened. Due to their natural
    beauty and hence their popularity, the overall capacity of our nation's
    estuaries as healthy and productive ecosystems is declining. Increased
    land development and activity associated with increased population in
    these areas has, in turn, caused increased stormwater runoff and other
    discharges that contribute to siltation, increased nutrients and other
    contamination.
        In 1987, Congress recognized the threats to these important coastal
    areas and included the National Estuary Program in amendments to the
    Clean Water Act. The purpose of the program is to facilitate state and
    local governments' preparation of comprehensive conservation and
    estuaries covered management plans, or CCMPs, for under the program. To
    date, 28 estuaries have been designated. Section 320 of the Clean Water
    Act authorized the EPA to make grants to states to develop their plans.
    However, the law does not provide for resources to facilitate
    implementation of the plans and 17 of these 28 plans are already
    complete.
        One of the plans that has been completed is for Sarasota Bay in
    Sarasota County, Florida, the county I serve. While each of the
    estuaries in the National Estuary Program is unique in terms of their
    physical attributes and their diverse inhabitants, they are equally
    unique in the varying threats that are posed to them. A common estuary
    pollutant in Sarasota Bay is nitrogen, an overabundance of which causes
    increased growth of algae. The algae reduces light penetration to the
    other organisms in the water and, through chemical and biological
    processes, depletes the water of oxygen. It has been determined that
    the amount of nitrogen in Sarasota Bay has tripled since intensive
    development began. The source of the increased levels of nitrogen in
    the Bay has been both small and large wastewater treatment plants,
    groundwater contaminated by septic systems and fertilizers used in lawn
    care and agriculture. Without remedial action, the EPA claims that the
    nitrogen level would increase 16 percent in the next 20 years when the
    area is fully developed according to existing plans. However, by
    implementing the restoration plan for Sarasota Bay, these levels of
    nitrogen can be 23 percent lower than they are today.
        In addition to the introduction of nitrogen into estuaries,
    surrounding development has also introduced an array of viruses,
    bacteria and parasites that can pose a threat to swimmers, surfers,
    divers and seafood consumers. Sources of these microbial contaminants
    include leaky septic tanks, boat and marina waste, recreational
    vehicles and campers, animal droppings, combined sewer overflows and
    urban and agricultural runoff. Fish and filter feeding organisms such
    as shellfish can concentrate these pathogens in their tissues and can
    cause illness to people who consume them. As a result, shellfishing
    areas and bathing beaches are often closed. Several estuaries are
    experiencing contamination problems that require extensive research
    into their origins and effects, such as the toxic microbe Pfiesteria
    piscicida, which has broken out in rivers that drain into estuaries in
    Maryland and Virginia.
        Phillippi Creek, which feeds into Sarasota Bay, is posted with
    warning signs of the potential health risks associated with exposure to
    its waters. Scientific studies done on Phillippi Creek have shown the
    presence of fecal coliform and human viruses. There are 7,500 septic
    tanks along Phillippi Creek that will have to be replaced with a
    central wastewater treatment system in accord with the proposed plan at
    a cost of some $100 million.
        The plan that has been developed for the Sarasota Bay Estuary is an
    integral one that seeks to stem environmental impacts and enhance
    natural systems. Most past environmental regulatory efforts in Florida
    have concentrated on the larger, regional wastewater treatment plants.
    While these programs have been successful in reducing nitrogen loads
    from those facilities, the 45,000 septic tanks and the 55 small
    wastewater treatment plants in the Sarasota County area contribute
    nearly twice as much pollutant as the regional facilities, despite
    handling less than half of the volume. Since the focus has not
    historically been on septic tanks and smaller facilities, that is where
    the biggest problem lies, especially for Sarasota Bay. The Sarasota Bay
    NEP's overall recommendation for this problem is the aforementioned
    replacement of a significant number of these tanks with a central
    wastewater treatment system along Phillippi Creek as well as other
    small treatment plants.
        Additionally, the Sarasota Bay CCMP calls for revised regulation of
    septic tanks and small wastewater treatment plants, programs to reduce
    the use of fertilizers and pesticides in the area, using artificial
    reefs as fisheries to replenish marine populations and restoring the
    intertidal wetlands. Effectively managed recreational use of the Bay is
    also recommended, as it will foster a sense of stewardship for the
    estuary with both tourists and residents alike.
        S. 1321 will take the next step by giving EPA the authority to make
    grants for plan implementation and authorizing annual appropriations of
    $50 million. There is also language in this bill that emphasizes and
    insures that the program remain a partnership with a matching
    requirement so that the funds will be available to upgrade sewage
    treatment plants, fix combined sewer overflows, control urban
    stormwater discharges and reduce polluted runoff into estuarine areas.
    We in Sarasota are committed to this partnership. Last November, a 1
    percent sales tax levy was passed to generate funds and we already have
    preliminary engineering work underway for this project. In other words,
    we come to Washington ready, willing and able to shoulder our share of
    the partnership envisioned by s. 1321.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your assistance
    and that of all the members of this Committee to ensure the
    preservation of our nation's estuarine areas not only as a natural
    wonder, but also as an environmental and economic asset to the regions
    in which they exist. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit our
    views on this important issue.

                                       -