[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2101-S2102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Edwards):
  S. 493. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, to evaluate, develop, and implement pilot 
projects in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to address problems 
associated with toxic microorganisms in tidal and non-tidal wetlands 
and waters; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


            TOXIC MICROORGANISMS ABATEMENT PILOT PROJECT ACT

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last Thursday's Baltimore Sun reported 
that Pfiesteria, a sometimes toxic microorganism, has been found in 
five more Maryland rivers. The article explained that new research is 
proving what scientists have suspected since serious outbreaks of toxic 
Pfiesteria first occurred in 1997--namely that Pfiesteria exists in a 
wide area. While the organism isn't always toxic, the fact that it has 
been found in a wide area coupled with the fact that it has proved 
injurious in the past, strongly supports the assertion that Pfiesteria 
poses a potential threat to the economic well-being of thousands of 
businesses in the fishing, recreation, and tourism industries along the 
east coast.
  In 1997, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina suffered from several 
separate incidents that involved fish behaving in an erratic manner, a 
large number of fish with lesions, and fish kills. State and outside 
scientists concluded that Pfiesteria was the most likely cause of the 
problem. In Maryland, the fishing industry alone, lost millions of 
dollars in revenue.
  In 1998, the magnitude of reported Pfiesteria outbreaks was 
considerably less, however, we cannot become complacent. The report in 
the Baltimore Sun confirms that the 1997 Pfiesteria outbreaks may not 
have been a one-time phenomenon. We must begin to safeguard the 
economy, both regional and national, from the impacts of Pfiesteria.
  Today, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, 
and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards in introducing a 
bill, entitled the Toxic Microorganism Abatement Pilot Project Act, 
which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to begin developing 
tools and techniques to abate the flow of nutrients into our waters and 
thereby prevent or at least minimize the effects of future toxic 
Pfiesteria outbreaks.
  In 1997, the Administration directed that an interagency research and 
monitoring strategy be developed in response to the outbreaks of 
Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Several Federal agencies participated 
in the development of this strategy including the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control, and the 
Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding to implement the plan 
was included in the fiscal 1998 and 1999 budgets. Unfortunately, the 
key federal agency with expertise in habitat maintenance, water 
resources and engineering principles--the Army Corps of Engineers--was 
not included in the interagency task force and the agency's unique 
qualifications were not integrated into the strategic plan. While 
research into the exact causes of toxic Pfiesteria blooms is 
imperative, it is just as important that we take early, aggressive, and 
concrete steps to prevent such blooms if we can.
  This bill is designed to ensure that all available expertise is 
brought to bear in combating these biotoxins. The legislation would 
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an evaluation and to 
engage in pilot projects to develop tools and techniques for combating 
Pfiesteria and other toxic microorganisms. At the end of each pilot 
project, the Army Corps of Engineers will be required to submit a 
report to Congress that describes the project, its success, and the 
general applicability of the methods used in the project.
  Because of its expertise in construction and watershed management, 
the Army Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in responding to 
the threats posed by toxic microorganisms. This legislation provides 
the funding and authority for the agency to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a copy of the 
Baltimore Sun article be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 493

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Toxic Microorganism 
     Abatement Pilot Project Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) effective protection of tidal and nontidal wetlands and 
     waters of the United States is essential to sustain and 
     protect ecosystems, as well as recreational, subsistence, and 
     economic activities dependent on those ecosystems;
       (2) the effects of increasing occurrences of toxic 
     microorganism outbreaks can adversely affect those ecosystems 
     and their dependent activities;
       (3) the Corps of Engineers is uniquely qualified to develop 
     and implement engineering solutions to abate the flow of 
     nutrients;
       (4) because nutrient flow abatement is a new challenge, it 
     is desirable to have the Corps of Engineers conduct a series 
     of pilot projects to test technologies and refine techniques 
     appropriate to nutrient flow abatement; and
       (5) since the States of Maryland, North Carolina, and 
     Virginia have recently experienced serious outbreaks of 
     waterborne microorganisms and there is a large store of 
     scientific data about outbreaks in those States, pilot 
     projects in those States can be effectively evaluated.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means Maryland, North 
     Carolina, and Virginia.
       (3) Toxic microorganism.--The term ``toxic microorganism'' 
     means Pfiesteria piscicida and any other potentially harmful 
     aquatic dinoflagellate.

     SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC HABITAT REMEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the

[[Page S2102]]

     Secretary shall evaluate, develop, and implement a pilot 
     project in each State (on a watershed basis) to address and 
     control problems associated with the degradation of 
     ecosystems and their dependent activities resulting from 
     toxic microorganisms in tidal and nontidal wetlands and 
     waters.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the completion of 
     the pilot project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) the pilot project; and
       (2) the findings of the pilot project, including a 
     description of the relationship between the findings and the 
     applications of the tools and techniques developed under the 
     pilot project.
       (c) Federal and Non-Federal Shares.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project 
     under subsection (a) shall be 75 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of evaluating, developing, and implementing a pilot project 
     under subsection (a) shall be provided in the form of--
       (A) cash;
       (B) in-kind services;
       (C) materials; or
       (D) the value of--
       (i) land;
       (ii) easements;
       (iii) rights-of-way; or
       (iv) relocations.
       (d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--Subject to subsection 
     (c), in carrying out this section, the Secretary shall enter 
     into local cooperation agreements with non-Federal entities 
     under which the Secretary shall provide financial assistance 
     to implement actions taken to carry out pilot projects under 
     this section.
       (e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section in cooperation with--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (4) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration;
       (5) the heads of other appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies; and
       (6) affected local landowners, businesses, and commercial 
     entities.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 25, 1999]

   Pfiesteria Found in 5 Md. Rivers--Presence Widespread in Rivers, 
                     Streams But Not Always Harmful


                       no ``one-time phenomenon''

     toxic microorganism detected for first time in Ocean City area

                           (By Heather Dewar)

       New research is proving what scientists long suspected: 
     that the toxic microorganism Pfiesteria piscicida lives in 
     many Maryland rivers and streams, even though it doesn't 
     always kill fish or make people sick.
       Pfiesteria expert Dr. JoAnn Burkholder has found the 
     dangerous dinoflagellates in samples taken from the bottom 
     muck of five Maryland waterways, including two where it had 
     not been found before. One of those waterways, the St. Martin 
     River, flows into the state's coastal bays west of Ocean 
     City.
       It was the first time the toxic microorganism had turned up 
     in a river that flows toward the Atlantic Coast tourist 
     mecca, though it has not caused any known fish kills or human 
     illnesses there, said David Goshorn of the Maryland 
     Department of Natural Resources.
       ``We have suspected all along that Pfiesteria is pretty 
     widespread,'' Goshorn said, ``and what she has done is to 
     confirm our suspicion.''
       A spokesman for the Maryland Coastal Bays Program said the 
     finding of Pfiesteria cells in local waters was ``not 
     surprising, but it is worrisome at the very least.''
       ``My guess is that Pfiesteria being there, as long as it 
     isn't toxic in the real world, is not that harmful,'' said 
     Dave Wilson Jr., a spokesman for the coastal bays 
     conservation effort. ``Hopefully, people will understand that 
     Pfiesteria is not running rampant in the coastal bays, but it 
     does have the potential to do so.''
       The aquatic organism has been found in coastal waters from 
     New Jersey to Georgia, but it causes fish kills or human 
     illnesses only when conditions are just right or just wrong, 
     Burkholder said.
       Pfiesteria ``is probably all over the bay,'' said 
     Burkholder, who presented preliminary findings to Maryland 
     officials at a two-day scientific meeting of Pfiesteria 
     experts near Baltimore-Washington International Airport 
     yesterday. ``It's just that most of the time it's going to be 
     pretty benign.''


                          weather as a factor

       Experts say Pfiesteria seems most likely to multiply, 
     attack fish and sicken people in warm, shallow, still waters 
     that are a mix of fresh and salt, are rich in nutrients--like 
     the pollutants that come from human sewage, animal manure or 
     farm fertilizer--and also rich in fish, especially oily fish 
     like menhaden. Weather also plays a role, but scientists 
     aren't certain what it is.
       Maryland experts think unusual weather patterns, combined 
     with high nutrient levels, helped trigger significant 
     Pfiesteria outbreaks in the Pocomoke River and two other 
     Eastern Shore waterways in 1997. The three waterways were 
     closed, and 13 people were diagnosed with memory loss and 
     confusion after being on the water during the outbreaks.
       Researchers think a different set of weather quirks helped 
     limit Pfiesteria to three small incidents last year, none of 
     which killed fish or caused confirmed cases of human illness.
       A spokesman for Gov. Parris N. Glendening, who pushed for 
     controversial controls on farm runoff after the 1997 
     incidents, said Burkholder's latest findings show that action 
     was justified.
       ``What they point to is that this is not a one-time 
     phenomenon,'' said Ray Feldmann of the governor's office. 
     ``We cannot take a bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approach to the 
     phenomenon we saw in the summer of 1997. We still need to be 
     concerned about this.
       ``We're encouraged that we've got a plan in place that has 
     the potential for helping to hold off future outbreaks.''
       Burkholder, a North Carolina State University researcher 
     who helped discover Pfiesteria in the late 1980s, said 
     Maryland waters do not seem to be as prone to toxic outbreaks 
     as the waters of North Carolina, which has experienced 88 
     Pfresteria-related fish kills in the past eight years.
       The latest finding ``tells me that Chesapeake Bay is not 
     ideal for toxic Pfiesteria, but you have the potential to go 
     a lot more toxic unless you take appropriate precautions,'' 
     Burkholder said. ``Do you want to be a center for toxic 
     outbreaks, or do you not?''
       The preliminary results are part of a study for the DNR, 
     which is trying to map the extent of Pfiesteria in Maryland 
     waters.
       In October and November, when the dinoflagellate is usually 
     burrowed into bottom mud, DNR workers took 100 sediment 
     samples from 12 rivers. They were the Patuxent and Potomac on 
     the Western Shore; the Chester, Choptank, Chicamacomico, 
     Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manokin, Big Annemessex and Pocomoke, 
     all flowing into the Chesapeake Bay on the Eastern Shore; and 
     the St. Martin, which flows into Assawoman Bay near Ocean 
     City, and Trappe Creek, which enters Chincoteague Bay near 
     Assateague Island National Seashore.
       In the first 30 samples, Burkholder found Pfiesteria 
     piscicida in concentrations high enough to kill fish in the 
     Big Annemessex, Chicamacomico, Pocomoke, and St. Martin. She 
     found the same organism on the Wicomico, but the cells did 
     not kill fish in her laboratory. In Trappe Creek, she found a 
     dinoflagellate that did not kill fish and has not been 
     identified.
       Burkholder and other experts stressed that there have been 
     no recent fish kills or signs that people have gotten sick at 
     the sites where DNR workers took the Pfiesteria-infested 
     samples in October and November.
       The Patuxent, Potomac, Chester and Choptank turned up no 
     traces of Pfiesteria, but Burkholder said she has about 70 
     more sediment samples waiting to be analyzed, and expects to 
     find signs of the microorganism in at least some of them.


                         rhode river discovery

       Another marine scientist discovered Pfiesteria almost by 
     accident in the Rhode River south of Annapolis this fall.
       Park Roblee of the University of North Carolina has 
     developed a test that can spot Pfiesteria in the water, but 
     he cannot tell whether the organism is in its toxic stage. He 
     told scientists at this week's meeting that he got samples 
     from the Rhode River expecting them to be Pfiesteria-free but 
     to his surprise they came up positive.  Again, there were no 
     signs of a fish kill in the area.
       Roblee said workers from his laboratory traveled the coast 
     from New Jersey to Florida, taking water samples ``basically 
     wherever I-95 crossed a river or stream that flowed into an 
     estuary.'' The samples showed signs of Pfiesteria at eight 
     out of 100 sites, he said.
       In other findings reported yesterday, University of 
     Maryland researcher David Oldach said no signs of serious 
     illness were found in 1998, the first year of a five-year 
     study of people who might come in contact with Pfiesteria. 
     Oldach said 90 Eastern Shore watermen and 25 people who don't 
     work near the water have volunteered for the study and 
     undergone testing.
                                 ______