[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING AND RESTORING AMERICA'S
ICONIC WATERS
=======================================================================
(116-25)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-625 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida, BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
Vice Chair DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
JARED HUFFMAN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa DOUG LaMALFA, California
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
HARLEY ROUDA, California Puerto Rico
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 69
WITNESSES
Preston D. Cole, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources:
Oral statement............................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Dave Pine, Supervisor, First District, San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors, and Chair, San Francisco Bay Restoration
Authority:
Oral statement............................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Laura L. Blackmore, Executive Director, Puget Sound Partnership:
Oral statement............................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation:
Oral statement............................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Kristi Trail, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation:
Oral statement............................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Tom Ford, Director, Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program and
Executive Director, The Bay Foundation, also on behalf of the
Association of National Estuary Programs:
Oral statement............................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Napolitano..................................................... 69
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Hon. Elaine G. Luria, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Napolitano.................... 71
Letter of June 24, 2019, from Hon. Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of
Michigan, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Napolitano.......... 71
Letter of June 24, 2019, from Thomas Wegner, Board Chairman, and
Adam Payne, County Administrator, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Napolitano.................... 73
Letter of June 21, 2019, from Darren J. Nichols, Executive
Director, Great Lakes Commission, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Napolitano................................................ 74
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Chad Lord, Policy Director, Healing
Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Napolitano................................................ 78
Statement of Jim Murdaugh, Ph.D., President, Tallahassee
Community College, Tallahassee, FL, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Webster................................................... 82
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Preston D. Cole,
Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources........... 87
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Dave Pine, Supervisor,
First District, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and
Chair, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority................. 94
Questions from Hon. Denny Heck to Laura L. Blackmore, Executive
Director, Puget Sound Partnership.............................. 96
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to William C. Baker,
President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation........................... 99
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Kristi Trail,
Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation........ 100
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Kristi Trail, Executive
Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation.................. 105
Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Tom Ford, Director,
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program and Executive
Director, The Bay Foundation, also on behalf of the Association
of National Estuary Programs................................... 106
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 21, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Protecting and
Restoring America's Iconic Waters''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will
meet on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2167 of
the Rayburn House Office Building, to receive testimony from
state and local officials, and non-governmental organizations
related to ``Protecting and Restoring America's Iconic
Waters.'' The purpose of this hearing is to review the
successes, challenges, and need for continued funding for
restoration efforts related to the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes,
San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and
the National Estuary Program (NEP).
BACKGROUND
This memorandum summarizes the National Estuary Program and
efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes, San Francisco
Bay, Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and Lake Pontchartrain Basin,
as well as the need to continue funding these initiatives.
These programs are overseen by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (NEP)
Estuaries are bodies of water that receive both fresh water
outflows from rivers and tidal inflows from the ocean, and are
transition zones between fresh water rivers and saline water
from the ocean. Estuaries contain a wide range of habitats and
support a diversity of wildlife. These areas serve as natural
filters for pollutants and also provide commercial value in
tourism, fishing, and recreation. As part of the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1987, Congress established the NEP, a non-
regulatory program to protect and restore these vital
environments and their surrounding watersheds.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 100-4 (33 U.S.C. 1330).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, 28 estuaries \2\ nationwide are designated NEPs
that receive funding, guidance, and technical assistance from
EPA.\3\ Each program designs its own plans and strategies
(generally known as a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans) to address water quality and ecological challenges
unique to its estuary. Community-wide engagement is met with
science-based strategies to reduce pollution from urban storm
water and agricultural runoff, eutrophication, habitat loss,
introduced invasive species, and altered freshwater flows.
These collaborative efforts across local governments,
communities, businesses, and other stakeholders allow high
leveraging of federal dollars with non-federal sources of
funding--$19 for every $1 of federal money on average,\4\ with
several programs leveraging higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.epa.gov/nep/local-estuary-programs (contact
Subcommittee Majority staff for district overlap with programs).
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-program.
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/nep/financing-strategies-used-national-
estuary-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estuaries under the NEP have also seen great success,
restoring or protecting over 2 million acres since 2000.\5\
Collectively, NEP estuaries score higher than non-NEP estuaries
for water quality indices, and this success has brought
continued interest from 38 additional estuaries to be included
in the NEP, according to EPA. This popularity comes from its
collaborative non-regulatory watershed-based approach, which
provides an opportunity to address environmental problems
affecting communities with local participation and provides
flexibility in deciding which approaches will best suit the
community. The NEP has made huge strides in educating the
public about environment problems, fostering better management
of water resources, reducing pollution, and restoring habitats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.epa.gov/nep/national-results-national-estuary-
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Estuary Program was reauthorized in 2016 \6\
to provide $26,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2017-2021.
Appropriated amounts for that time period have been above the
authorized levels, at $26,723,000. For FY 2020, H.R. 3055,
which includes the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill in Division C, includes $31,723,000 in
funding for the program, an increase of $5,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ P.L 114-162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GREAT LAKES
The Great Lakes Basin includes parts of the states of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and New York, all of the State of Michigan, and part of
Ontario, Canada. The Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 30
million people, representing one tenth of the U.S. population
and nearly one third of the Canadian population.\7\ The Great
Lakes is the largest freshwater system in the world, holding
about 21 percent of the world's fresh water supply and about 84
percent of the U.S. fresh water supply.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/facts-and-figures-about-great-
lakes.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, industrialization, and development have
impacted the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great Lakes are
particularly vulnerable to contamination because outflow rates
from most of the Lakes are very slow and they do not flush
pollutants out quickly. As a result, some pollutants discharged
into the Great Lakes have settled into the sediments at the
bottom in portions of the Lakes.
Non-indigenous species and excessive nutrients from a
variety of sources have significantly impacted portions of the
Great Lakes ecosystem, causing ecological and economic damage.
For example, in 2014, Toledo, Ohio, implemented a drinking
water ban that affected 500,000 people in response to a harmful
algal bloom caused in part by excessive nutrient runoff. In
addition, decades of industrial activity in the region have
left a legacy of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and other
contamination in sediments.\9\ While efforts have been made to
address these problems, there remain serious concerns in
numerous areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-15-841T, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Water
Resource and Environment, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative: Some Information on Projects and Progress Made Available to
Congress and the Public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, Executive Order 13340 was issued, creating the
Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (Task Force). The Task
Force's charge is to address nationally significant
environmental and natural resource issues involving the Great
Lakes. In 2010, Congress established the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to provide additional resources
toward critical long-term goals for the Great Lakes ecosystem,
and its progress is overseen by the Task Force.\10\ Task Force
agencies conduct work themselves or through agreements with
state, local, or tribal government entities, nongovernmental
organizations, academic institutions, or other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Lakes program is authorized by section 118 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268;
commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). The President's
FY 2020 budget originally requested $30 million for the GLRI,
and then subsequently changed the request to $300 million.
Congress funded this program at $300 million in FY 2019. H.R.
3055, which includes the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill in Division C, includes $320
million in FY 2020 funding for GLRI.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY
The San Francisco Bay Estuary is one of the largest
estuaries on the west coast, encompassing roughly 1,600 square
miles and draining more than 40 percent of the State of
California. The San Francisco Bay is one of three major
geographic areas within the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed,
which cumulatively provides drinking water to nearly 25 million
Californians and irrigates over 4 million acres of
farmland.\11\ The Bay is located in an area that produces over
$370 billion in goods and services a year and is home to more
than 3.5 million jobs. The Estuary is home to an array of flora
and fauna, with nearly half of the birds that migrate along the
Pacific Flyway and about two-thirds of the State's salmon
passing through the Estuary.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/about-watershed#about.
\12\ EPA, National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report, EPA-
842/B-06/001 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Bay experiences exceedances in State
water quality standards for pesticides, invasive species,
mercury, and other metals and toxic substances. Beaches have
elevated levels of bacteria because of sewage spills and
crumbling sewage infrastructure. According to the EPA, the Bay
has lost more than 90 percent of shoreline wetlands and 40
percent of the total San Francisco Bay aquatic ecosystem in the
past 150 years due to habitat destruction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/what-are-challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, the San Francisco Estuary entered the EPA's NEP.
Through the NEP, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) was developed and serves as the blueprint for
addressing the San Francisco Bay's challenges.
In August 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
published a report on the coordination of watershed restoration
efforts between Federal and nonfederal entities in the San
Francisco Bay Delta Watershed.\14\ GAO found that ``information
on the status of all restoration efforts across the watershed,
including their accomplishments, is unknown because information
is not being fully collected or reported.'' \15\ As a result,
GAO recommended that the Department of Interior work with the
Council on Environmental Quality to update or revise the
Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta to
reflect different entity roles and responsibilities.
Additionally, GAO also noted that the lack of sufficient
federal funding is one of the biggest risks to long-term
restoration efforts.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO-18-473, San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed: Wide Range of
Restoration Efforts Need Updated federal Reporting and Coordination
Roles.
\15\ GAO-18-473, San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed: Wide Range of
Restoration Efforts Need Updated federal Reporting and Coordination
Roles.
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Bay Restoration Act, H.R. 1132, has been
introduced to establish a San Francisco Bay Restoration Grant
Program and to authorize appropriations for Bay restoration
activities. H.R. 3055, which includes the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill in
Division C, includes $5,019,000 in FY 2020 funding for the San
Francisco Bay.
PUGET SOUND
The Puget Sound is the nation's second largest estuary,
supporting more than 4.5 million people, more than $365 million
in gross domestic product, and a wide variety of species.
However, according to the CCMP for the Puget Sound, development
and human use have degraded its water quality and habitat, and
harmed critical species like salmon and killer whales.
In July 2018, GAO published a report on numerous Federal
and state efforts that support Puget Sound restoration, and the
efficacy of their coordination.\17\ GAO found that Federal and
Washington State entities engaged in a number of activities,
including habitat protection, water quality improvement, and
monitoring.\18\ Funding for these efforts came from a variety
of sources, including the EPA, which reported spending about
$142 million for activities in Puget Sound through the NEP and
the Puget Sound Geographic Program from 2012 to 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ GAO-18-453, Puget Sound Restoration: Additional Actions Could
Improve Assessments of Progress.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate restoration
efforts through two primary interagency groups: the state-led
Puget Sound Management Conference and the Puget Sound Federal
Task Force. The task force complements the work of the
management conference by coordinating the efforts of Federal
agencies to support the CCMP.
The PUGET SOS Act, H.R. 2247, has been introduced to
support Puget Sound programs and to provide funding for
restoration activities. H.R. 3055, which includes the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill in
Division C, includes $33 million in FY 2020 funding for the
Puget Sound.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of the Nation's
estuaries. Primarily located between Maryland and Virginia, it
is nearly 200 miles long, 35 miles wide at its largest point,
and covers more than 4,500 square miles. The watershed includes
the District of Columbia and parts of six states: Delaware,
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The Chesapeake Bay covers approximately 64,000 square miles and
is a rich habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals. It
is home to more than 3,700 species of plants and animals
including blue crabs, ducks, herring, oysters, shad, and
striped bass.
In 1983, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay
Commission (the Bay Commission),\19\ and the EPA signed an
initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement (the Bay Agreement) with the
aim of protecting and restoring the Bay. The Bay Agreement
established the Chesapeake Executive Council and created the
Bay Program, a partnership between Federal, state, and local
entities, as well as academic institutions, and nonprofit
organizations that direct and conduct activities towards the
restoration of the Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Bay Commission is a tristate commission representing
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent Bay Agreements were signed by the states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the District of Columbia,
the Bay Commission, and the EPA in 1987, 1992, and 2000, with
West Virginia adding its signature in 2002. In 2006, senior EPA
managers, and in 2007, the Executive Council acknowledged that
the water quality goals of Chesapeake Bay Agreement 2000 would
not be achieved. As a result, in 2010, the Bay Program and EPA
established a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the bay and
upstream waters in the watershed. According to the EPA, the
TMDL is an allocation of allowable waste loadings to the Bay
from various sources that should result in the restoration of
water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Program is
authorized through section 117 of the Clean Water Act.\20\ The
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office, based in Annapolis,
Maryland, provides support to the Bay Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, including water quality, is
under stress. Sustained and elevated levels of pollution have
resulted in water quality and habitat degradation and have also
contributed to the decline in population of some species.
According to the EPA, the key to restoring water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed is to achieve significant reductions
in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment loads. The
sources of these pollutants consist of agricultural runoff,
wastewater treatment facilities, land-use changes and urban
stormwater runoff, and atmospheric deposition.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA, Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, May
2010. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/
chesapeake-strategy-enforcement-2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, the EPA completed a midpoint assessment of state
and Federal agency efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment
pollution into the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA found that the six
Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia
have made considerable progress in reducing pollution to local
waters and the Chesapeake Bay, resulting in record acreage of
underwater grasses and the highest estimates of water quality
standards attained in more than 30 years.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA, Midpoint Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum
Daily Load, July 27, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2018-07/documents/factsheet-epa-midpoint-assessment-chesapeake-bay-
tmdl.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's FY2020 budget requested $7.3 million for
the Chesapeake Bay Program. Congress funded this program at $73
million in FY 2019. H.R. 3055, which includes the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill in
Division C, includes $85 million in FY 2020 funding for the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin watershed covers a 5,000
square mile area and includes 16 Louisiana parishes and four
Mississippi counties. Approximately 2.2 million people live in
the area of Lake Pontchartrain, the 630 square mile lake at the
center of the basin, making it the most densely populated area
in Louisiana. The Basin also includes Lakes Borgne and
Maurepas. Together these three lakes comprise one of the
largest estuaries in the U.S. The Basin supports numerous
species of fish, birds, mammals, and plants, and its fisheries
contribute over $35 million to the local economy by providing
much of the seafood harvested in the Gulf Coast.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://saveourlake.org/about-us/our-basin/basin-issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding area
continue to face environmental challenges, the Basin and its
resources have made a significant comeback. Much of this
success is due to a collaborative effort between Federal,
state, and local entities who share an interest in a clean,
healthy Lake and Basin.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program was
created in 2000 as part of the Estuaries and Clean Waters
Act.\24\ H.R. 3055, which includes the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill in Division C,
includes $948,000 in FY 2020 funding for the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ P.L. 106-457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESSES
Preston D. Cole, Secretary, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Dave Pine, Supervisor, District 1, San Mateo
County Board of Supervisors, Chair of the San Francisco Bay
Restoration Authority Governing Board
Laura Blackmore, Executive Director, Puget Sound
Partnership
William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation
Kristi Trail, Executive Director, Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Tom Ford, Director, Santa Monica Bay National
Estuary Program, The Bay Foundation
PROTECTING AND RESTORING AMERICA'S ICONIC WATERS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Grace F.
Napolitano (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, everybody. It is good to
have you here today.
I am calling this meeting to order.
Today we will discuss the importance of the Environmental
Protection Agency's, EPA's, geographic programs and National
Estuary Program, the NEP.
EPA's geographic programs help to identify and assist
specific areas across a region, often across multiple States.
Funding for these programs has been key to protecting and
restoring some of the most cherished waterways in the Nation.
The National Estuary Program focuses on restoring and
protecting 28 estuaries of national significance across the
country.
Estuaries and coastal areas are major economic drivers,
accounting for some 28 million jobs, and these areas are
locations for ports and harbors. They need protection since
impaired estuaries can actually impact fishing and tourism
revenues, cause costly damage from flooding, shoreline erosion,
and damaged infrastructure.
The Trump administration has proposed drastically cutting
funding for the geographic programs and the NEP. Fortunately,
Congress has restored funding for these important efforts.
However, we need to renew our commitment to these programs
and the protection of our Nation's waters. Despite efforts by
the States, and in some places, voluntary efforts, progress has
been slow, and we need to do more to protect and restore our
Nation's iconic waters.
Congress needs to step up and provide funding and the
appropriate authorities to EPA to restore these watersheds.
That is why I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues to
prioritize and fund these programs.
Congresswoman Luria has legislation to reauthorize and
increase funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program. Congressman
Heck has legislation to authorize a program for Puget Sound.
Congresswoman Speier has legislation to address pollution
issues in the San Francisco Bay, and I expect that we will see
later this Congress legislation to address the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative and the National Estuary Program.
I thank my colleagues for stepping up to deal with this
important water quality issue. Today's hearing will be an
opportunity to hear about the current impairments, challenges,
and recommendations for improving these waters.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
value of our Nation's water and estuaries to our country.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today, and to all
of you, I am pleased to see you.
Thank you especially to Mr. Tom Ford, executive director of
The Bay Foundation who is here today to talk about the Santa
Monica National Estuary Program in southern California, my
area.
I look forward to everybody's testimony.
[Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Today, we will discuss the importance of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Geographic Programs and the National
Estuary Program (NEP).
EPA's Geographic Programs help to identify and assist specific
areas across a region, often across multiple states. Funding for these
programs has been key to protecting and restoring some of the most
cherished waterways in the nation. The National Estuary Program (NEP)
focuses on restoring and protecting 28 estuaries of national
significance across the country.
Estuaries and coastal areas are major economic drivers, accounting
for some 28 million jobs. These areas are locations for ports and
harbors. They need protection since impaired estuaries can impact
fishing and tourism revenues, and cause costly damage from flooding,
shoreline erosion, and damaged infrastructure.
The Trump administration has proposed drastically cutting funding
for the Geographic Programs and the NEP. Fortunately, Congress has
restored funding for these important efforts. However, we need to renew
our commitment to these programs and the protection of our nation's
waters.
Despite efforts by the States and, in some places, voluntary
efforts, progress has been slow and, we need to do more to protect and
restore our nation's iconic waters. Congress needs to step up and
provide funding and the appropriate authorities to the EPA to restore
these watersheds.
That is why I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues to prioritize
and fund these programs. Congresswoman Luria has legislation to
reauthorize and increase funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program;
Congressman Heck has legislation to authorize a program for the Puget
Sound; and Congresswoman Speier has legislation to address pollution
issues in San Francisco Bay. I expect that we will see legislation
later this Congress to address the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
and the National Estuary Program. I thank my colleagues for stepping up
to deal with these important water quality issues.
Today's hearing will be an opportunity to hear about current
impairments, challenges, and recommendations for improving these
important waters. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on
the value of our nation's waters and estuaries to our country.
Thank you witnesses for being here today. Thank you especially to
Tom Ford, Executive Director of The Bay Foundation, who is here today
to talk about the Santa Monica National Estuary Program in Southern
California.
I look forward to everyone's testimony.
Mrs. Napolitano. At this time I am pleased to yield to my
colleague, the ranking member of our subcommittee, Mr.
Westerman, for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano.
And thank you all for being here today.
This subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
regional watershed programs and water bodies in areas that are
part of EPA's National Estuary Program.
Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are
important to the ecological and economic basis of our Nation.
Fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and tourism are heavily
dependent on healthy estuarine systems.
For example, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in Louisiana is
home to 22 essential habitats, and its fisheries provide much
of the seafood harvested along the gulf coast. Yet despite
their value, most estuaries in the United States have
experienced stress from physical alteration and pollution,
often resulting from development and rapid population growth in
coastal areas.
EPA's estuary program identifies nationally significant
estuaries that are threatened by pollution, land development,
and overuse, and provides grants that support development of
management plans to protect and restore them.
This program is designed to resolve issues at the watershed
level, integrate science into the decisionmaking process,
foster collaborative problem solving, and involve the public.
Unlike many other EPA and State programs that rely on
conventional top-down regulatory measures to achieve
environmental goals, the estuary program uses a framework that
focuses on stakeholder involvement and interaction in tailoring
solutions for problems that are specific to that region.
This approach helps achieve protection and restoration
goals. We need to be sure that the individual estuary programs
continue to effectively implement their management plans for
protecting and restoring estuaries.
We also need to be careful not to add new layers of
programmatic bureaucracy on any of the programs that could
divert valuable resources away from actually implementing their
plans.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and
learning about the progress that is being made in these
estuaries and watersheds.
[Mr. Westerman's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on regional
watershed programs and water bodies and areas that are part of EPA's
National Estuary Program.
Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are
important to the ecological and economic bases of our nation.
Fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and tourism are heavily dependent on
healthy estuarine systems. For example, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in
Louisiana is home to 22 essential habitats, and its fisheries provide
much of the seafood harvested along the Gulf Coast.
Yet, despite their value, most estuaries in the United States have
experienced stress from physical alteration and pollution, often
resulting from development and rapid population growth in coastal
areas.
EPA's Estuary Program identifies nationally significant estuaries
that are threatened by pollution, land development, and overuse, and
provides grants that support development of management plans to protect
and restore them. This program is designed to resolve issues at a
watershed level, integrate science into the decision-making process,
foster collaborative problem-solving, and involve the public.
Unlike many other EPA and state programs that rely on conventional
top-down regulatory measures to achieve environmental goals, the
Estuary Program uses a framework that focuses on stakeholder
involvement and interaction in tailoring solutions for problems that
are specific to that region. This approach helps achieve protection and
restoration goals.
We need to be sure that the individual estuary programs continue to
effectively implement their management plans for protecting and
restoring estuaries.
We also need to be careful not to add new layers of programmatic
bureaucracy on any of the programs that could divert valuable resources
away from implementing their plans.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and learning
about the progress made in these estuaries and watersheds.
Mr. Westerman. And I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. DeFazio, for any statement he
may have.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the chair. Thank you for holding this
extraordinarily important hearing.
We can approach the issue from one of many ways. If you are
really hard-hearted and you really do not believe in protecting
the environment and the cost of protecting the environment or
enhancing and restoring the environment, you can just look at
the economic impact.
In coastal States, the estuaries contribute $116 billion
annually to the economy. Two million people are employed by
ocean estuary-based tourism and recreation. Eighty percent of
the commercial and recreational fish caught depend on estuaries
for part of their lives.
So those are just a few of the reasons why we need to
support these programs.
There is a lot of talk about tropical forests as the lungs
of the world. Well, the estuary is the beating heart of a
healthy marine ocean system.
And so, I am pleased that we are here today. The Chesapeake
has made scant progress, unfortunately, and needs more
attention.
The Great Lakes, we have ongoing issues. The Puget Sound,
in particular, down in the southern part of the sound, has
issues. I was up there for some meetings. I think it was the
year before last. They made me an honorary member of the Puget
Sound Caucus.
Of course, I represent Oregon. I have critical estuaries in
my district which are in much better shape, much less known,
and of course, we did add the Columbia River Basin to the list
of geographic programs in 2016.
So we have at least begun to focus on the problems, but a
heck of a lot more work needs to be done, and that is why we
are here today.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Estuaries are critical water bodies for the ecological and economic
health of our communities, and there is a national interest in their
protection and enhancement. These waters are economic centers in
coastal states, delivering more than 80 percent to U.S. employment and
contributing $116 billion annually to the economy. More than two
million people are employed by ocean and estuary-based tourism and
recreation. Almost 80 percent of the commercial and recreational fish
caught depend on estuaries for part of their lives. These are just a
few of the reasons why we need to protect and restore these waters.
As we know, healthy coastal areas are also important to ameliorate
the impacts of extreme weather events and ensure the resiliency of our
communities. By restoring and protecting our coasts, we can lessen the
impacts of hurricanes and other storm events that cause physical and
economic damage to our communities.
Today, we will be hearing from stakeholders from different parts of
the country about the importance of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPAs) Geographic Programs and the National Estuary Program
(NEP). I look forward to learning about the successes of and challenges
to these programs and hearing recommendations on how to ensure
continued restoration and protection of these important watersheds.
We have seen results when we invest in our national, natural
treasures. The Geographic Programs have made great strides in improving
the health of places like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and
in 2016, we were successful in adding the Columbia River Basin to the
list of Geographic Programs. Similarly, EPA's National Estuary Program
has made strides towards improving our nation's estuaries.
NEPs support local stakeholders as partners to develop solutions
and fund local priorities. NEPs engage industries, businesses, and
other community members to develop solutions that everyone can support.
The strength of the National Estuary Program is the 28 unique,
voluntary programs established under the Clean Water Act to protect and
restore estuaries of national significance.
Each NEP marshals its local community in a non-regulatory,
collaborative, and science-based strategy that strengthens the overall
success of our national response. For each dollar the Federal
government provides, NEPs leverage their response with $19 in local
funds. These funds are used to protect and improve coastal
environments, communities, and assets of national significance, and
economies.
Investing in these programs is an investment in America's future.
Protecting our estuaries, regional watersheds, and coastal areas is
necessary to protecting our economy, fish and wildlife, and the homes
and jobs of millions of people.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration does not seem to understand
the importance of these programs and continues to propose cutting
severely or altogether eliminating programs focused on protecting our
nation's important waters--unless, of course, there is a political
advantage for supporting these programs. For example, the Trump
administration recently decided to support $300 million in funding for
the Great Lakes after initially proposing only $30 million in the
President's budget.
This is short-sighted given the economic importance of estuaries
and coastal areas, investing in their health will result in more
economic benefits.
We need to set a better example than the current administration and
use our Congressional authority to continue these programs and to fund
the restoration of geographically-important regions and estuaries.
Mr. DeFazio. And I thank the gentlelady for holding the
hearing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
Next, I will recognize Mr. Garret Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today,
and I want to thank you all for hosting this hearing. These are
some of the most important estuaries that our Nation has to
offer that are represented here on the panel today, but I am
especially excited to introduce Ms. Kristi Trail from Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation.
She is a great asset to the State of Louisiana. The Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation is a critical organization. I
remind this committee often that we drain from Montana to New
York to three Canadian Provinces and all drain down through our
area.
Right now we are seeing record time of flood stage in the
Mississippi River system. We normally open the Bonnet Carre
spillway that flows through Lake Pontchartrain once every 10
years. We have opened it four times in the last 4 years.
Congressman Rodney Davis from Illinois calls Louisiana his
sewage treatment plant. I am not sure that is a compliment, but
the bottom line is that all of this development and everything
that happens in the upper basin comes down and affects our
State.
And while I know that everyone has their challenges in
managing these estuaries, Ms. Trail, environmental engineer,
LSU grad, and much corporate work experience in the engineering
field is, again, a great asset to the organization. It is
fantastic and they have some incredible challenges dealing with
the complexity of the ecosystem.
So I appreciate you inviting her and allowing her to be
here today.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
I ask unanimous consent that the following statements be
made part of today's hearing record:
Representative Jackie Speier in support of the San
Francisco Bay Restoration Act;
Representative Elaine Luria, in support of the Chesapeake
Bay Program Reauthorization Act;
Michigan Governor Whitmer; Sheboygan County, Wisconsin; the
Great Lakes Commission; and Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes
Coalition, in support of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative.
Any objection?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
[The information is on pages 69-82.]
Mrs. Napolitano. We will proceed to hear from our witnesses
who are going to be testifying today. Thank you for being here,
and welcome.
We have Secretary Preston Cole with the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
Supervisor Dave Pine with the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors.
Ms. Laura Blackmore, executive director of the Puget Sound
Partnership.
Mr. William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
Since Mr. Graves already introduced Ms. Kristi Trail, I
will turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Rouda, to introduce the
witness, Mr. Tom Ford, director of the Santa Monica Bay
National Estuary Program.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I am pleased to introduce Tom Ford, the director of the
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program and executive
director of The Bay Foundation.
Tom has been engaged in the study and restoration of kelp
forests since he first moved to L.A. in the 1990s, and his
efforts to promote fisheries and increase coastal resilience
has been internationally recognized.
His work helps ensure that residents and visitors from
around the world are able to enjoy and benefit from the Santa
Monica Bay's over 55 miles of coastline that contains some of
the world's most loved beaches.
Estuaries like the Santa Monica Bay play an important role
in coastal economies, habitat protection, and as key buffer
zones for coastal communities and inland waterways, especially
in the wake of continued sea level rise, increasingly severe
storm surges, and dangerous flooding.
I commend Tom's longstanding commitment to restoring,
preserving, protecting, and enhancing the Santa Monica Bay
National Estuary, and I appreciate the many hours that he has
dedicated to ensuring the high quality of life with the
approximately 5,000 species and over 4 million people that call
the Santa Monica Bay and its watershed home.
Southern California is better off for his continued
research, critical pollution and ecological monitoring, and
advocacy work, and I am grateful for his participation in
today's hearing.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouda.
Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
into the record, and our witnesses are asked to limit your
remarks to 5 minutes.
Mr. Cole, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF PRESTON D. COLE, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DAVE PINE, SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT,
SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND CHAIR, SAN FRANCISCO
BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY; LAURA L. BLACKMORE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP; WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT,
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION; KRISTI TRAIL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN FOUNDATION; AND TOM FORD, DIRECTOR,
SANTA MONICA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, THE BAY FOUNDATION, ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION
OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am coming to you on the heels of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Governors and Premiers Conference held in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, and where Governor Tony Evers is the chair of that
group, and certainly I am representing him here today from the
great State of Wisconsin.
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Bruce Westerman and
Mr. DeFazio, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you
today on behalf of the Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, and
the eight Great Lakes States.
As you have seen in my written testimony, the Great Lakes--
Superior, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Erie--are a national
treasure, with 30 million Americans depending on them for
clean, fresh water.
Sometimes referred to as the ``Nation's fourth coast,'' the
Great Lakes are a breathtaking place to watch a sunrise or the
perfect backdrop for making memories.
But our Great Lakes are more than just nice to look at.
These are waters that are the largest source of freshwater on
the planet, a lifeline for millions of people. They provide a
backbone for a $6 trillion regional economy, making it the
third largest regional economy in the world.
And they generate more than 1.5 million jobs and $60
billion in wages each year, which is why protecting and
restoring these irreplaceable waters is a nonpartisan priority
for the people in the Great Lakes region.
Wisconsin is part of this region, and it is home to an
abundance of natural resources, including our precious waters.
With more than 1,000 miles of shoreline, the Great Lakes have a
profound effect on Wisconsin's environment, our economy, our
culture, and our quality of life.
To give you an idea of the impact on Wisconsin, consider
this. More than 1.6 million Wisconsinites get their drinking
water from Lake Michigan or Lake Superior.
Nearly 50 percent of the State's gross domestic product
originates in coastal counties.
More than $7 billion in cargo moves through Wisconsin's
ports each year, contributing to $1.1 billion of business
revenue and generating $241 million in taxes.
In Wisconsin, the Great Lakes and rivers that feed them
have a long history as important centers of trade and industry.
But as our cities grew, these economic hubs, rivers, and
harbors were polluted. Vital fish and wildlife habitats were
lost. Polluted runoff from excess nutrients has caused harmful
algal blooms from Green Bay to Lake Erie.
And now, these impacts are keeping us from experiencing
these waters in their fullest potential.
But all is not lost. In 2010, Congress led to establish the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which is providing an
enormous boost for the projects that restore our waters.
For the last 8 years, more than $380 million in Federal
funding through GLRI has made over 500 projects possible
throughout Wisconsin and the Great Lakes Basin.
In many cases, the GLRI funds are leveraged with State
funds, local units of government, and private funding. This
cost sharing allows big-ticket projects to be accomplished that
would be simply too expensive for any one entity to pay for
alone.
In Wisconsin, the GLRI is helping protect citizens and our
natural resources. For example, in the Milwaukee Estuarial
Concern, more than $31 million of GLRI funds were matched with
$12 million of Wisconsin State funds to remove 119,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediment from the Milwaukee Estuary near
the heart of the city.
The end result was the removal of more than 11,000 pounds
of toxic PCBs from rivers that flow into Lake Michigan.
It is about an hour's ride from Milwaukee along the lake to
the Sheboygan River Area of Concern where more than $50 million
of GLRI funds were matched by $33 million of State funds to
remove 300,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment.
As a result, 39,000 pounds of toxic PCBs were removed, and
yet thousands of acres of wildlife habit were restored.
The Demonstration Farms Network in the lower Fox River
Basin in northeastern Wisconsin is yet another shining example
of the important contribution that GLRI is making towards
enhancing Wisconsin's environment and our economy.
Through this effort, which is led by the NRCS, with support
from the State and county conservation agencies, farmers are
demonstrating cutting-edge management practices and sharing
valuable lessons learned with their peers, from how to improve
soil health to reducing nutrient runoff into Lake Michigan.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Cole, your time has expired.
Mr. Cole. Yes, ma'am.
However, serious threats still remain. Cutting restoration
funding will only make projects harder and more expensive.
We see the Federal Government as a partner in our shared
goals of healing the lakes through the world's largest
freshwater projects. Without your help, there will be trouble
in the water.
To be candid, at a time when many citizens are concerned
about what the Federal Government will do for them or to them,
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is a shining example of
what the Federal Government is doing for them.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Cole. And thank you for your time.
[Mr. Cole's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Preston D. Cole, Secretary, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Members of the subcommittee. I'm honored to provide this testimony
and speak with you today regarding this incredible resource that
accounts for 90% of the United States' fresh surface water--the Great
Lakes.
I am also happy to be here today on behalf of my boss, Wisconsin
Governor Tony Evers. Governor Evers has made clean water a priority,
declaring 2019 as the Year of Clean Drinking Water in Wisconsin. In
addition, as chair of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Governors and
Premiers, Governor Evers is continuing to lead a regional effort that
has as its hallmark, broad bipartisan support for these lakes as both
an environmental and economic juggernaut for North America. In fact,
nearly two decades ago, the Great Lakes Governors identified nine
regional priorities that became the basis for the 2005 Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration Strategy. That ``blueprint for action'' at the
time estimated that at a minimum we would need $20 billion to address
all the priorities and since then the region has moved forward with one
voice, in support of significant federal investment in this strategy to
protect and restore our Great Lakes.
Our Great Lakes are the largest system of fresh waters on Earth. It
is a treasured system, but we need to continue to invest in our Great
Lakes. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) has jump started
the federal commitment to implementing the 2005 collaboration strategy.
The GLRI is clearly working, but much more needs to be done. Your
ongoing bipartisan support of the Great Lakes is commendable and a
testament to the importance of the Great Lakes to our region and
nation. Over 30 million Americans rely on the Great Lakes for drinking
water; and the Great Lakes region, if it was a nation, would have the
world's third largest regional economy at $6 trillion annually, and
directly generates more than 1.5 million jobs.
The GLRI investment of more than $3 billion to date is significant
and represents a healthy down payment to protect and restore the most
significant fresh, surface water resource on the planet--our Great
Lakes. Protecting and restoring them is a non-partisan priority for the
people of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York. To date, the GLRI has funded more than
4,500 projects throughout the region, cleaning up toxic hot spots,
restoring critical habitat, preventing the spread of invasive species
and reduce polluted runoff into the region's waterways. These
investments are not only producing great environmental results, but
great economic results as well.
This is why, speaking on behalf of Governor Evers and for the state
of Wisconsin, I am urging Congress to reauthorize the GLRI for five
years at $475 million per year--the amount first appropriated in 2010.
This increase, from the current authorization of $300 million a year
will build on the important foundation built over the last decade,
which has proven to be not only a tremendous ecological investment, but
a wonderful economic investment as well.
Economy and Environment
We have made some important strides in cleaning up our Great Lakes
and this work we do together has resulted in environmental benefits and
economic revitalization critical to quality of life of the region and
nation. Our communities have seen direct benefits with economic
recovery and people are reconnecting to the water. The GLRI provides
critical funding for protection and restoration efforts. Since 2010 the
multi-agency GLRI has provided funding to 15 federal organizations to
strategically target the biggest threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem
and to accelerate progress toward achieving the following long-term
goals:
Fish safe to eat
Water safe for recreation
Safe source of drinking water
All severely polluted sites, known as ``Areas of Concern
\1\'' cleaned up
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas of Concern were designated by the International Joint
Commission as geographically-defined sites in the Great Lakes Basin
having severe environmental pollution. They were designated in 1987 as
part of an international agreement between the U.S. and Canada known as
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. There are 43 Areas of Concern
listed: 26 in the United States, 17 in Canada. So far, four AOCs in the
U.S. and three in Canada have been cleaned up and removed from this
list (``delisted''). https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmful algal blooms eliminated
No new self-sustaining invasive species
Existing invasive species controlled
Native habitat protected and restored to sustain native
species.
For the first year of GLRI, Congress allocated $475 million in
federal fiscal year 2010. Congress has since allocated approximately
$300 million for each of the following nine federal fiscal years \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Report to Congress and the President. Pp 26-27.
https://www.glri.us/sites/default/files/fy2017-glri-report-to-congress-
201902-36pp.pdf. See also: https://www.glri.us/projects#map
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local governments and nonprofit organizations are
eligible to receive grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency for projects addressing:
1. toxic substances;
2. invasive species;
3. nonpoint source pollution;
4. habitat protection and restoration; and
5. monitoring.
Non-governmental groups, industries, businesses, cities, states,
and tribal governments are forging partnerships and working with
federal agencies to clean up toxic hot spots, restore fish and wildlife
habitat, and combat invasive species.
Environmental and Economic Benefits
Cleaning up the Great Lakes is critical for the health and quality
of life of the region and nation. Here are a few examples:
GLRI funding is accelerating cleanup of Great Lakes toxic
hotspots. Work in one of these hotspots in Muskegon, Michigan, is
projected to increase property values by nearly $12 million, contribute
$600,000 in new tax revenues annually, and attract 65,000 new visitors,
generating more than $1 million in new recreational spending.
GLRI funding is cleaning up a legacy of toxic sediments
in waterfront areas. Cleanups are ready to begin at 10 sites in five
states, with 50 contaminated sediment cleanups projected over the next
five years. Nearly $90 million is needed for toxic sediment cleanups in
FY 2020, which are projected to leverage more nearly $60 million from
non-federal partners.
GLRI funding is helping protect drinking water for 48
million people by working with farmers to prevent nearly 800,000 pounds
of phosphorous from polluting the Great Lakes and causing harmful algae
blooms. In 2014, a toxic bloom cut off access to clean drinking water
for more than 500,000 people. Blooms also threaten Lake Erie's critical
$15 billion tourism industry.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Great Lakes Commission. Mar. 2019. The Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative: Creating Jobs and Revitalizing Communities. https://
www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/GLC-GLRI-FactSheet-March2019-FINAL.pdf
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is also creating jobs and
revitalizing struggling communities across the eight-state Great Lakes
region. The Great Lakes provide the backbone for a $6 trillion regional
economy--the world's third largest regional economy. The Great Lakes
directly generate more than 1.5 million jobs and $60 billion in wages
annually.
A recent economics study, sponsored by the Great Lakes Commission
and the Council of Great Lakes Industries, released in September 2018,
found that every $1.00 spent on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
from 2010 through 2016 will produce at least $3.35 of additional
economic activity in the Great Lakes region through 2036. The number
was even higher in some Great Lakes communities (see chart). For
instance, each dollar invested in Buffalo, NY and Detroit, MI will
produce more than $4.00 of additional economic activity through
2036.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 2018. University of Michigan Research Seminar in Quantitative
Economics. Socioeconomic Impacts of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. https://lsa.umich.edu/econ/rsqe/impact-analysis/great-
lakes-restoration.html. See also: 2018. Great Lakes Commission.
Assessing the Investment: The Economic Impact of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative. https://www.glc.org/work/blue-economy/GLRI-
economic-impact.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Other findings of this study conducted by economists at the
University of Michigan, Central Michigan University, and Duke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
University include:
GLRI has enhanced tourism in the Great Lakes region.
Every dollar of GLRI project spending from 2010 through 2016 will
generate $1.62 in economic value in tourism-related industries through
2036.
GLRI increased the value that residents place on living
in coastal areas. Every project dollar spent between 2010 and 2016
produced quality of life improvements in coastal communities worth
$1.08 to residents as measured in housing values, which means that
people place a higher value on living in those communities because of
GLRI projects.
The research also shows that, despite being envisioned as
an environmental program, the GLRI created or supported as many jobs
per dollar of investment as would be created by a conventional federal
stimulus program designed to boost job growth. The GLRI created or
supported an average of 5,180 jobs per year and increased personal
income by an average of $250 million per year in the Great Lakes region
from 2010-2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
These economic outcomes are possible because of restoration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
successes like these:
Four of the United States' Areas of Concern have been
delisted, and an additional eight have completed all management actions
necessary to delist.
Between 2010 through 2017, 73 Beneficial Use Impairments
have been removed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--more than six times the total number
of impairments removed in the preceding 22 years. Beneficial Use
Impairments are the benchmarks of environmental harm and characterize
AOCs.
Early detection and monitoring and vital support for the
Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee has prepared the region to
respond to new and existing aquatic invasive species. Also, federal
agencies and partners funded work to protect over 18,000 acres from
terrestrial invasive species. Since the GLRI's inception more than
134,000 acres have been protected or treated.
Combined with other funding, farmers implemented
conservation actions on more than 750,000 acres of rural lands through
2017 to reduce erosion and farm runoff that feeds toxic algal
outbreaks. GLRI's supplemental funding helped double farmland under
conservation around Western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay,
reducing projected phosphorus runoff by nearly 770,000 pounds.
Habitat connectivity for fish and wildlife is improving
as the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration worked with many partners to restore, protect, or
enhance over 200,000 acres of wetlands and other habitat. 4,967 river
miles have also been cleared of dams and barriers resulting in fish
swimming into stretches of river where they have been absent for
decades.
Thanks to the GLRI, environmental cleanup in communities across the
Great Lakes Basin is paving the way for regional economic recovery and
re-investment.
We Must Maintain Support Until the Job is Done
Even with the tremendous results we are seeing, the Great Lakes
still face serious threats. Twenty-two U.S. Areas of Concern are still
contaminated with toxic sediment, threatening the health of people and
stunting the development of communities. Harmful runoff from farm
fields continues to pollute our waters, causing toxic algae outbreaks
that threaten water systems, public health, and economic vitality.
Habitat loss and aquatic invasive species continue to damage our
region's outdoor way of life. And communities across the Great Lakes
region continue to grapple with crumbling, antiquated drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure and are faced with a staggering $179
billion over the next 20 years for needed improvements, upgrades, and
repairs in the eight-state region. Most of these threats
disproportionately impact people that have historically borne the brunt
of environmental injustice, underscoring an urgency to address these
issues for everyone in the region.
Furthermore, our changing climate is exacerbating all our region's
challenges. We are seeing effects such as changes in surface water
temperatures, changes in the frequency and intensity of storm events,
and more dramatic swings between record-breaking high and low water
levels in the Great Lakes.
Ongoing, human-induced climate changes will only bring additional
changes to the lakes, making existing stresses worse. Increased storm
intensity and frequency leads to increased loads of nutrients and other
contaminants such as sediment, pathogens, and chemicals of emerging
concern. This pollution comes from both nonpoint sources like
agricultural fields and city streets, and from point sources like
combined stormwater and sewage overflows in urban areas. These changes
will challenge infrastructure in both rural and urban areas. The
general warming of waters due to climate change will also bring both
new aquatic invasive species threats (such as Asian carp) in addition
to existing aquatic invasive species that will have new potential to
expand their range northward. Invasive species already present in the
lower lakes (such as water chestnut, European frog-bit, and flowering
rush) all are poised to spread northward.
Other climate impacts include alterations to lake temperature
stratification; which changes oxygen levels, internal nutrient cycling,
the entire ecosystem's food webs--and ultimately the entire assemblage
of species that can live in these waters. Finally, climate change has
implications for flooding, water level fluctuations, and sustainable
water supplies with ongoing questions about overall impacts decades
into the future. How these changes impact the people living in the
basin is of great concern.
The Great Lakes are also facing a new host of chemicals that were
not understood just a decade ago. Nanoparticles, plastics,
pharmaceuticals, personal care products, brominated flame retardants,
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are being detected with
increasing frequency. There are ongoing questions that remain
unanswered about these new pollutants such as their sources, cycling,
bioaccumulation through the food chain, exposures and effects,
including potential implications of multiple chemical exposures.
We do have solutions to these problems, but we need funding to
enact them. Congress must continue to fund the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative and other fundamental restoration programs that produce
results. Congressional investments will help communities replace lead
pipes, address emerging contaminants like PFAS, clean up toxic
sediments, end polluted stormwater runoff, fix aged sewer lines, and
keep water affordable and safe for everyone. Congress must support
action to stop Asian carp and other aquatic invasive species from
invading the Great Lakes. Congress must support mitigating the damage
from climate change to help the Great Lakes adapt to a changing
climate. We also need strong clean water protections, as well as
institutions that are adequately staffed and funded to enforce the
protections that we all depend on.
And the region is ready for these investments. With additional GLRI
funds, 10 contaminated sediment cleanup projects--in the Detroit River
(MI), St. Louis River (WI and MN), Niagara River (NY), Cuyahoga River
(OH), and Milwaukee River (WI)--are ready to break ground in 2020.
These projects are expected to require $88 million in federal funding
under the Great Lakes Legacy Act (funded through the GLRI), with
another $59 million to be provided by non-federal partners. Many other
site investigations are underway to prepare for cleanup projects in
coming years. Without GLRI funds, some of Minnesota's $25 million in
bonding money, for example, could be left on the table.
Conclusion
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is working, but much more
needs to be done. When the initial regional collaboration document was
developed in 2005, it was estimated that we needed $20 billion dollars
to address all the needs. So while $3.1 billion appropriated to date
may seem like a lot of money, it is still just a healthy down payment
to protect and restore the most significant fresh, surface water
resource on the planet--our Great Lakes. These investments are not only
producing great environmental results, but great economic results as
well. This is why we need to reauthorize the GLRI for five years at
$475 million per year--the amount first promised in 2010, but only
appropriated once in the first year.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pine.
Mr. Pine. Good morning. It is a privilege to testify before
this committee today.
San Francisco Bay is an iconic water second to none. It is
the west coast's largest estuary and drains water from
approximately 40 percent of California.
Despite being surrounded by over 7 million people, San
Francisco Bay is an ecological hot spot with more than 100
endangered species.
The bay provides an abundance of recreational
opportunities, including the 365-mile San Francisco Bay Trail.
And commercially, the bay contains six ports, is a major
driver of the tourism industry, and offers an inviting backdrop
for some of the largest and best known companies in the world,
which are located on its shoreline.
So, in short, San Francisco Bay is an ecological,
commercial, and recreational marvel.
Since the Gold Rush, there have been three chapters in the
bay's evolution: degradation, preservation, and now
restoration. Until the early 1960s, the bay was drastically
altered by urbanization, salt production, and agricultural uses
that reduced the bay's size by one-third and destroyed about 80
percent of the bay's tidal wetlands.
With the birth of the environmental movement, the second
chapter of the bay's evolution began as we worked to preserve
the bay and reduce pollution and bay spill.
We have now embarked on a new chapter for the bay where we
are enhancing and restoring this remarkable natural asset to
the benefit of both people and wildlife.
In 1999, scientists published the ``Baylands Ecosystem
Habitat Goals,'' calling for the creation of 100,000 acres of
healthy tidal wetlands. And tidal wetlands are vitally
important to the bay's ecosystem. They trap food in runoff, and
they also provide natural protection against flooding and sea
level rise.
Starting from about 30,000 acres of original wetlands, we
have restored or are in the process of restoring about 18,000
additional acres. But with approximately 44,000 acres yet to
restore, much remains to be done.
A few notable milestones. In 2003, 15,000 acres of South
Bay saltponds were purchased and are now being restored, and
this is the largest restoration project in the country west of
the Mississippi.
In 2008, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was
created to raise and allocate local funding for restoration.
In June 2016, Measure AA, a 20-year, $12 parcel tax was
passed by 70 percent of the voters across all nine bay area
counties. Measure AA provides about $25 million annually, or
$500 million over 20 years, to fund restoration projects.
In 2018, we initiated the Bay Restoration Regulatory
Integration Team to expedite and coordinate permitting across
the six State and Federal agencies.
But against this positive backdrop, in 2015, scientists
issued a very serious warning and wake-up call. They reported
that without accelerating the pace of wetland restoration,
existing sites that could be restored will be drowned by the
rising bay waters. They emphasized that tidal marshes
established by 2030--that is 11 years away--are more likely to
flourish.
And that is because at a gradual rate of sea level rise,
such as what we are experiencing now, marshes can trap sediment
and keep up as sea level rise accelerates.
So it is clear we are in a race against time. While many
building blocks are in place to restore the bay, we are
hampered by inadequate Federal funding.
Over the last 10 years, only 28 percent of the funds spent
on acquisition and restoration of the baylands were from
Federal sources, and now this is despite the fact that much of
the restoration has involved property owned by the Federal
Government.
Traditionally, Federal funding for other major estuaries
has dwarfed the amount that the San Francisco Bay has received.
The EPA-administered San Francisco Bay Water Quality
Improvement Fund program provides only $5 million annually.
That is why the legislation introduced by Congresswoman
Jackie Speier, H.R. 1132, the San Francisco Bay Restoration
Act, is so timely and important. Her bill would authorize up to
$25 million annually to the EPA to award grants to bay
conservation and restoration projects.
It would also establish a San Francisco Bay Program Office
within the EPA.
In conclusion, to restore the bay, we have put in place a
comprehensive, science-based plan, a 20-year local funding
source through Measure AA and a collaborative partnership to
expedite permitting.
But with sea level rise accelerating, we have limited time
to complete the remaining restoration work that is needed. The
missing ingredient is the necessary Federal funding to
complement our local efforts.
Thank you.
[Mr. Pine's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave Pine, Supervisor, First District, San Mateo
County Board of Supervisors, and Chair, San Francisco Bay Restoration
Authority
Introduction
As a San Mateo County Supervisor, chair of the San Francisco Bay
Restoration Authority, and a member of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission, I have worked extensively on
the intersecting issues of flood control, sea level rise and tidal land
restoration in San Francisco Bay. It is a privilege to testify before
this committee today. In my remarks I will review the importance of San
Francisco Bay, how the Bay has evolved over time, the extensive Bay
restoration efforts now underway, the urgency of Bay restoration given
impending sea level rise, and the critical need for more federal
funding to support this important work.
Why is the San Francisco Bay an Iconic Body of Water?
San Francisco Bay is one of our nation's greatest natural treasures
and the defining feature of the Bay Area. It is the West Coast's
largest estuary and its waters drain over 40 percent of the state of
California. San Francisco Bay has over 275 miles of shoreline, which is
half as long as the entire coast of California.
Despite being surrounded by dense urban development including some
of the largest and best known companies in the world, San Francisco Bay
is one of the nation's most important ecological habitats. Species such
as steelhead and salmon are present in Bay waters along with
California's Dungeness crab and halibut. The Bay's salt marshes,
provide key ecosystem services such as filtering pollutants from creeks
and stormwater runoff. The Bay is home to more than 100 endangered
species.
The Bay is also a key link in the Pacific Flyway. Millions of
waterfowl annually use the shallow waters of the Bay as a refuge and
exposed bay muds provide important feeding areas for shorebirds.
Commercially, the Bay is critically important to trade for the
Western United States. The Bay contains six major ports for the
shipping industry. The Port of Oakland is the eighth busiest container
port in the United States. In addition, the Bay is a critical driver of
the Bay Area's tourism industry and offers an inviting backdrop for our
booming technology and biotech sector.
The Bay also provides an abundance of recreational activities
including sailing, kayaking, world class kite surfing, fishing, and
walking, running and biking on the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Bay
Trail, which just celebrated its 30th anniversary, is a planned 500-
mile path around the entire San Francisco Bay which will connect all
nine Bay Area counties and 47 cities. To date, 335 miles of the Bay
Trail have been completed.
In short, the San Francisco Bay is an ecological, commercial and
recreational marvel.
Three Chapters in the history of the SF Bay
Since the Gold Rush and the rapid growth of the Bay Area's
population, there have been three chapters in the Bay's evolution:
degradation, preservation and now restoration.
Until the early 1960s, the Bay was drastically altered by
urbanization, salt production and agricultural uses that reduced the
Bay's size by one-third. During this period, 80% of the Bay's tidal
wetlands, which once totaled 200,000 acres, were lost and the Bay was
reduced in size by one third. At one point, the Bay was being filled in
at a rate of two square miles per year, and raw sewage and chemicals
flowed into it unchecked. There were dozens of trash dumps lining the
Bay, and the public had access to less than six miles of shoreline.
In 1961, the second chapter of the Bay's evolution began with the
creation of Save The Bay and the movement to stop additional fill along
the Bay shoreline and continued pollution of the Bay's waters. One
significant outgrowth of this movement was the creation of the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in 1965. The mission of
BCDC is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay, minimize Bay fill,
and increase public access within the Bay's 100-foot shoreline band.
These efforts were remarkably successful in bringing the Bay back from
the brink.
We have now embarked on a new chapter for the Bay where we are
enhancing and restoring this remarkable natural asset for the benefit
of both people and wildlife. In 1999, scientists published the Baylands
Ecosystem Habitat Goals report calling for 100,000 acres of healthy
tidal wetlands to protect the ecosystem and provide natural flood
protection. That work is now underway in earnest with approximately
44,000 acres of healthy tidal wetlands in place and another 35,000
acres in public ownership and available for restoration.
Restoration Milestones to Date
The Bay Area has taken substantial steps to restore the Bay and is
well prepared to undertake the vast amount of restoration that is still
needed. Some notable milestones include the following:
In 2003, under the leadership of U.S. Senator Dianne
Feinstein, 15,000 acres of South Bay salt ponds were purchased from
Cargill Inc. The purchase was funded with approximately $57 million in
state funds, $35 million from four private foundations, and
approximately $8 million in federal funds. The restoration of these
former salt ponds, which are equal in size to Manhattan Island, is the
largest restoration project in the country west of the Mississippi.
In 2008, the California Legislature created the San
Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. The Restoration Authority is a
regional body with the power to raise and allocate much needed local
funding for the restoration, enhancement, and protection of wetlands
and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline.
In 2016, the Restoration Authority placed Measure AA on
the ballot in all nine Bay Area counties--the nation's first-ever
regional effort to secure climate adaptation and restoration funding.
The measure proposed a 20-year, $12 parcel tax to raise approximately
$25 million annually, or $500 million over twenty years, to fund Bay
restoration projects. The measure was backed by a broad coalition of
environmental, business and labor leaders and passed with 70% approval
across the region.
The time consuming and expensive permitting process is a
significant hurdles to accelerating the pace and scale of wetlands
restoration in San Francisco Bay. To address this barrier, in 2018 the
Restoration Authority, the State Coastal Conservancy and others funded
the innovative Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT) to
expedite permitting for wetland restoration projects. BRRIT is a group
of dedicated, funded staff from six state and federal regulatory
agencies that review Bay restoration projects and permit applications
as a team to improve efficiency and timeliness. The BRRIT will enable
investment in San Francisco Bay wetland restoration to go further and
proceed faster.
Another important local initiative that is supporting the
restoration process is the Long Term Management Strategy for the
Placement of Dredged Materials. This program is a collaborative
partnership where the regulatory agencies, resource agencies and
stakeholders work together to maximize beneficial reuse of dredged
material in restoration projects and minimize their disposal in the Bay
and the Pacific Ocean. The selection of San Francisco Bay by the US
Army Corps in December of 2018 as one of ten pilot projects for the
beneficial reuse of dredged materials has the potential to expand this
effort.
In 2018 and 2019, the Restoration Authority approved its
first two rounds of Measure AA grants totaling $89 million. The
thirteen projects receiving funding will advance a wide variety of
restoration projects from landscape scale initiatives such as the South
Bay Shoreline Project to smaller projects such as the San Leandro
Treatment Wetlands which will test creative new techniques to combine
habitat restoration with wastewater treatment.
At two locations, the San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines
Project is demonstrating the potential of establishing native eelgrass
and oyster beds to protect the San Francisco Bay shoreline while
creating biologically rich and diverse habitat that is resilient to
changing environmental conditions.
In May of this year, the San Francisco Estuary Institute
and SPUR, an urban planning research center, released the San Francisco
Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas. The Atlas outlines how San Francisco
Bay communities can combat sea level rise with eco-friendly reefs,
beaches and marshlands.
The Urgency of Restoration
In 2015, scientists released an update to the Baylands Ecosystem
Habitat Goals report warning that without rapid and significant
investment in wetland restoration, rising seas and greater erosion will
cause wetlands to shrink. The risk we face is that existing sites that
could be restored will be drowned by the rising bay waters. Tidal
wetlands could eventually retract to narrow strips or disappear
altogether.
Wetlands are the Bay's first line of defense--trapping polluted
runoff before it reaches open water, buffering against flooding from
rising sea levels and storms, preventing erosion, and capturing
greenhouse gases to counter climate change. If our tidal marshes
disappear, so will this vital and natural system of protection.
The report makes clear that the San Francisco Bay is in a race
against time with billions of dollars of property at risk. It
emphasizes that tidal marshes established by 2030 are more likely to
flourish and provide ongoing benefits when sea level rise accelerates
in the middle of this century. To achieve this goal, the planning,
permitting, and construction of restoration projects must be
accelerated.
The Critical Role of Federal Funding
While significant progress has been made to restore San Francisco
Bay, much more needs to be done and time is running short. The
fundamental challenge is that there is a wide gap between the funding
that is needed and the funding that is available.
In the first two rounds of grants made by the Restoration
Authority, funding requests exceeded the funding available by a factor
of 3 to 1. Similarly, the EPA administered San Francisco Bay Water
Quality Improvement Fund program, which began in 2008 and provides
grants to protect and restore San Francisco Bay, has received $176
million in grant requests but has only been able to provide $50 million
in funding.
There is also a significant gap between funding from state and
local sources and funding provided by the federal government. The San
Francisco Bay Joint Venture estimates that of the funds spent on
acquisition, restoration and enhancement of bay lands between 1997 and
2018, only 28% were from federal sources. Moreover, in August 2018, the
U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report on the SF Bay
Delta Watershed and found that the lack of sufficient federal funding
is one of the biggest risks to long-term restoration efforts.
To restore the 35,000 acres in public ownership and available for
restoration is estimated to cost at least $1.4 billion. Simply put,
without significant federal funding it will not be possible to restore
all of this acreage, much of which is owned by the federal government.
Traditionally, federal funding for other major estuaries have
dwarfed the amounts that the San Francisco Bay has received. For
example, annual EPA funding for Puget Sound is approximately seven
times the amount allocated for San Francisco Bay, which typically
receives $5 million annually, despite the fact that the Bay Area's
population is nearly twice that of Puget Sound. Similarly, EPA annual
funding for San Francisco Bay falls substantially short of the $12
million in annual EPA funding for the Long Island Sound, a much smaller
estuary.
This is why the legislation introduced by Congresswoman Jackie
Speier this year, H.R. 1132, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act, is
so timely and important. Her bill would authorize up to $25 million
each year for five years to the EPA to award grants to Bay conservation
and restoration projects. It would also establish a San Francisco Bay
Program Office within the EPA and authorize the EPA Administrator to
appoint a Director of that Program Office to oversee federal funding.
Conclusion
The Bay Area's quality of life and economy depend on a healthy and
vibrant San Francisco Bay. To restore the Bay we have put in place
comprehensive science based restoration plans, a 20 year local funding
source through Measure AA, and local collaborative partnerships to
expedite permitting and the beneficial reuse of dredge materials. But
with sea level rise accelerating, we have limited time to complete the
critical restoration work that is needed. The missing ingredient is the
necessary federal funding to complement our local efforts to establish
100,000 acres of healthy tidal wetlands.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Pine.
Next, we have Ms. Laura Blackmore, please.
Ms. Blackmore. Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman,
Chair DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me here today.
On behalf of my organization and our hundreds of partners,
thank you for convening this important hearing to talk about
protecting and restoring America's iconic waters, including my
home, Puget Sound.
Puget Sound is a beautiful place, and it is also a complex
one with 16 major rivers, 20 federally recognized Tribes, 4\1/
2\ million people, and the headquarters of 11 Fortune 500
companies. Our economy is roaring, and the natural beauty of
Puget Sound and the recreational opportunities it offers help
our businesses attract top talent.
I would welcome the opportunity to host you or your staff
for an up-close look at this breathtaking and energizing place.
Unfortunately, Puget Sound is also slowly dying. Southern
Resident orcas, Chinook salmon, and steelhead are all listed
under the Endangered Species Act.
We continue to pollute our waterways and our shellfish
beds, and habitat degradation outpaces restoration. The people
of Washington State realized something was wrong in the early
2000s. A groundswell of public support led then-Governor
Gregoire to establish a task force which recommended the
creation of Puget Sound Partnership as a State agency in 2007.
Congress at that time also included Puget Sound in the
National Estuary Program. This highly effective program, which
we will hear more about in a few moments from my counterpart,
Tom Ford, charges us with developing and implementing a
collaborative, nonregulatory blueprint for restoring and
protecting this iconic water body.
In Puget Sound, we call this blueprint the Action Agenda.
Nothing tells the story of Puget Sound more profoundly than
last summer's tragic loss of the newborn calf of Tahlequah, or
J35, a Southern Resident orca. She grieved over the body of her
dead calf for 17 days, and her pod accompanied her as she swam,
1,000 miles through Canadian and U.S. waters of the Salish Sea
with her calf's body.
We watched Tahlequah suffer, and now the world watches us.
This year, Washington State legislators passed significant
policy and budget bills aimed at orca recovery. Because of
their bold actions, we have hope that we will stave off
extinction for the Southern Resident orcas. But State resources
alone are not enough.
Federal funding and cooperation are crucial. Here is why.
Scientists say that we can still recover Puget Sound, but only
if we act boldly now.
We know what we need to do. The primary barriers between us
and more food for orcas, clean and sufficient water for people
and fish, sustainable working lands and harvestable shellfish
are funding and political fortitude.
Our data show that the funding received to recover Puget
Sound and its salmon falls woefully short of the need. The
funding gap for the 2016-2018 Action Agenda was 73 percent, and
the funding gap for salmon recovery is 84 percent.
Our monitoring shows that the funding levels were barely
holding our ground, if not managing decline of the ecosystem.
We cannot wait any longer to fully fund habitat restoration and
salmon recovery in Puget Sound.
The single greatest step we could take to ensure a durable,
systematic, and science-based effort for Puget Sound recovery
is to fully fund the implementation of these programs.
H.R. 2247, the Promoting United Government Efforts to Save
our Sound Act, or PUGET SOS, introduced by Congressmen Heck and
Kilmer this year, would authorize up to $50 million in funding
for Puget Sound recovery, a significant and very welcome jump
from the $28 million we have been appropriated over the last
several years.
It also would align Federal agency brain power and
resources. These are tremendous assets. Ensuring they are
coordinated, setting goals, and holding each other accountable
will help increase their effectiveness and provide yet another
boost to Puget Sound recovery.
Establishing the Puget Sound Program Office at EPA and
requiring a Federal task force promises that these goals will
be met.
Passing the PUGET SOS bill would demonstrate to the Nation
that Puget Sound is vital to the economic, cultural, and
environmental security of the United States. By investing
significantly in the health and well-being of Puget Sound,
Federal decisionmakers demonstrate that Puget Sound is worth
saving and is of critical importance to the national well-
being.
Washington State, our Tribes, local governments,
nonprofits, and the private sector are committed to success. We
greatly appreciate the commitment of this subcommittee to
ensuring that the Federal Government is a viable, willing
partner in this race against time.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to your questions.
[Ms. Blackmore's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura L. Blackmore, Executive Director, Puget
Sound Partnership
Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today. On
behalf of the Puget Sound Partnership and our hundreds of partners, I
want to thank you for convening this important hearing today.
Puget Sound--an Economic Engine, a Scenic Treasure, a National Draw
Puget Sound is a deep fjord estuary that lies within the broader
Salish Sea. Considered the largest estuary by volume in the United
States, Puget Sound is a complex ecosystem encompassing mountains,
farmlands, cities, rivers, forests, and wetlands. Sixteen major rivers
flow to Puget Sound and 20 treaty tribes call the region home.
Four and a half million people live in the Puget Sound area with
another 1.3 million expected to live there by 2040. Last month the
Seattle Times reported \i\ that Seattle was the second fastest growing
city in the nation in 2018, and the fastest in 2017. We are a region of
innovators and entrepreneurs: eleven Fortune 500 companies are
headquartered in the Puget Sound area, many of which have shaped 21st
century life. Our economy is roaring and our natural beauty and
recreation opportunities help businesses and companies attract top
talent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/big-city-growth-
slows-across-u-s-but-seattle-still-ranks-no-2-in-2018/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the surface, Puget Sound looks beautiful, but the fact is Puget
Sound is slowly dying. Southern Resident orcas, Chinook salmon, and
steelhead are all listed under the Endangered Species Act. Toxic
chemicals and pharmaceuticals continue to pollute our waterways, and
shellfish beds are routinely closed to commercial and recreational
harvest. Despite a significant investment of energy and resources from
federal, tribal, state, and local governments, habitat degradation
outpaces restoration. While this situation at times seems impossibly
gloomy, the hundreds of passionate people who are devoted to seeing the
return of a healthy and resilient Puget Sound give us hope.
About the Puget Sound Partnership
The Puget Sound Partnership grew out of a groundswell of support
from citizens concerned about the health of Puget Sound, its many
culturally and ecologically significant species, and the well-being of
the humans who also call this region home. Based on the recommendation
of a task force headed by former EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus,
the Washington State Legislature formed the Partnership in 2007. On
behalf of the people of Washington State, the Legislature charged us
with recovering Puget Sound and achieving six goals:
Healthy human population
Vibrant quality of life
Thriving species and food web
Protected and restored habitat
Abundant water quantity
Healthy water quality
Congress designated Puget Sound as an Estuary of National
Significance in 1988. The Puget Sound Partnership participates in the
EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP), created by Congress in 1987. This
highly effective program, which incorporates 28 estuaries from every
coast, charges us with developing and implementing a collaborative,
non-regulatory blueprint for restoring and protecting this iconic water
body.
We fulfill these responsibilities in three primary ways:
Chart the course--Action Agenda and Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan
The 2018-2022 Action Agenda for Puget Sound, which serves as the
Sound's Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan as authorized by
the NEP, charts the course to achieving a resilient Puget Sound. It
outlines regional strategies and specific actions required to make
progress toward recovery. The actions proposed for funding in the
Action Agenda offer the promise of effective investment in Puget Sound
protection and restoration. As required under the NEP, the Partnership
convenes a Management Conference composed of federal, tribal, state and
local government agencies, businesses, the environmental community, the
agricultural and timber industries, academic institutions, fishermen,
shellfish growers, and other partners to develop and manage the
implementation of the Action Agenda.
The Partnership's Leadership Council also oversees the
implementation of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, approved by
NOAA in 2007 as the region's recovery plan for Chinook salmon under the
Endangered Species Act. The Salmon Recovery Plan includes strategies
for recovering Chinook salmon populations in each watershed of Puget
Sound. With federal and state funding, the Partnership supports local
councils that manage each of these watershed-scale strategies.
Promote shared measures--State of the Sound report
The biennial State of the Sound report improves understanding
across the Management Conference and among decision-makers about how
well the recovery effort is going. The State of the Sound answers the
following questions:
How is the ecosystem doing?
What are the outstanding examples of recovery projects?
How is management of recovery going?
Who funds Puget Sound recovery?
What is needed to see more progress in Puget Sound
recovery?
Support partners--mobilize funding, communicate effectively, remove
barriers
The Partnership supports the collective effort of our partners by
advocating for enhanced and diversified funding sources, funding
science and monitoring work to answer pressing questions, evaluating
the effectiveness of recovery actions, convening forums to confront
difficult issues, and ensuring effective communication throughout our
partner network.
Funding Shortfalls Threaten Puget Sound Recovery
Nothing tells the story of Puget Sound more profoundly than last
summer's tragic loss of the newborn calf of Tahlequah, a member of the
endangered Southern Resident orca J pod. She grieved over the body of
her dead calf for 17 days, and her pod accompanied her as she swam
1,000 miles through Canadian and U.S. waters of the Salish Sea with the
body of that calf. The world watched Tahlequah suffer, and now the
world watches us.
This year, Washington State legislators listened to their
constituents and to Governor Inslee, to the pleas of the Governor's
Southern Resident Orca Task Force, and to our Leadership Council and
the multitude of Management Conference members. They passed significant
policy and budget bills aimed at orca recovery. Because of the bold
actions on the part of our state elected officials, we have hope that
we will stave off extinction for the Southern Residents. But state
resources alone are not enough. Federal funding is crucial. Here's why:
Scientists say that we can still recover Puget Sound, but only if
we act boldly now. We know what we need to do. The primary barrier
between us and more food for orcas, clean and sufficient water for
people and fish, sustainable working lands, and harvestable shellfish
is funding. We cannot wait any longer to fully fund the Action Agenda
and the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.
The primary source of funding to implement the Action Agenda is the
Puget Sound Geographic Program. Over the past several fiscal years,
Congress has appropriated $28 million annually into this fund, managed
by the EPA. National Estuary Programs nationwide leverage $19 for every
$1 in federal funding,\ii\ and we are no exception. While this funding
is significant and appreciated, estimates of the actual need to fully
implement the Action Agenda show that the funding received falls far
short of the need: the funding gap for the 2014-2015 Action Agenda was
68 percent, and for the 2016-2018 Action Agenda it was 73 percent
\iii\. The funding gap for salmon recovery is about 84 percent \iv\.
Our monitoring shows that at these funding levels, we are barely
holding our ground against further degradation, if not managing decline
of the ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. National Estuary
Program website, Financing Strategies Used by the National Estuary
Program. Last updated June 4, 2018. Accessed June 20, 2019. https://
www.epa.gov/nep/financing-strategies-used-national-estuary-program
\iii\ Puget Sound Partnership, 2017. 2017 State of the Sound.
Olympia, Washington, November 2017. 84pp. www.psp.wa.gov/sos
\iv\ Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, 2018. State of the Salmon
Report, Executive Summary, page 9. Accessed June 20, 2019. https://
stateofsalmon.wa.gov/exec-summary/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The single greatest step we could take to ensure a durable,
systematic, and science-based effort for Puget Sound recovery is to
fully fund the implementation of the Action Agenda and Salmon Recovery
Plan on an on-going basis.
The Promoting United Government Efforts To Save Our Sound (PUGET
SOS) Act (H.R. 2247), introduced by Congressmen Heck and Kilmer this
year, would authorize up to $50 million in funding for Puget Sound
recovery, a significant and very welcome jump from the $28 million per
year that Congress has appropriated for the last several fiscal years.
Why Passage of the PUGET SOS Act is Critical to Puget Sound Recovery
Puget Sound is a national treasure, as long as it is healthy. A
dying Puget Sound is a national disgrace. Our Governor, state
Legislature, local elected officials, Tribes, and network of
organizations and individuals have proven their commitment to
recovering Puget Sound. We need commensurate investment at the federal
level. Passage of the PUGET SOS Act would demonstrate that federal
commitment. Here's why this bill would be such a boon to Puget Sound:
PUGET SOS aligns federal agency brainpower and resources. These are
tremendous assets. Ensuring they are coordinated, setting goals, and
holding each other accountable will help increase their effectiveness
and provide yet another boost to Puget Sound recovery. Establishing the
Puget Sound Program Office at EPA and requiring a Federal Task Force
promises that these goals will be met.
PUGET SOS protects and sustains a cherished resource and a
cherished way of life. The investment of up to $50 million authorized
in the PUGET SOS bill will enable us and our partners to more
effectivelyplan and implement the projects that will recover Puget
Sound.
PUGET SOS demonstrates to the nation that Puget Sound is vital to
the economic, cultural, and environmental security of the United
States. By investing significantly in the health and well-being of
Puget Sound, on par with other great waters like the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay, federal decisionmakers demonstrate that Puget Sound is
worth saving. They affirm that it is of critical importance to national
well-being, and that they too are concerned for the future of their
children and grandchildren. They demonstrate that recovering an
ecosystem is more than a one-time effort, that our fates are
interlinked with the environment we live in, and that we must stay ever
vigilant and ever active in protecting and restoring our home.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and
I look forward to your questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Blackmore, and thank you
for staying within the limit.
Mr. Baker, you are on.
Mr. Baker. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano,
Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Will Baker. I have been president of the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation for 37 years of the organization's 52-year
history. Our mission is to protect and restore the bay and its
rivers.
The Chesapeake is America's largest estuary. When colonial
settlers arrived more than 400 years ago, the water was
pristine. Forty-four hundred Native Americans had little impact
on the 64,000-square-mile watershed.
Today, there are 19 million of us, and we have had a
significant and, sadly, negative impact.
By 1980, the bay was on life support. In a 1982 banner
headline in the Baltimore Sun, it read in its entirety, ``Bay
Is Dying Scientists Warn.''
A bipartisan groundswell of concern arose, and in 1984 in
his State of the Union Message, Ronald Reagan called for the
Federal Government to help save this national treasure.
Congress did its part. In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program
was created. It includes multiple Federal agencies and EPA is
the lead.
Most basically, it helps to ensure that the six States and
the District of Columbia, all in the watershed, work together.
Also in that year, 1987, the States and Federal agencies
signed an agreement to cut nitrogen and phosphorus pollution by
40 percent by the year 2000. That goal was missed by a lot. So
the deadline was simply extended 10 years to 2010.
And yet by 2008, it was obvious to all involved that it,
too, would be missed. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued EPA in
a last-ditch effort to achieve an enforceable plan.
Fortunately, Administrator Lisa Jackson negotiated a
settlement with us. EPA agreed to develop what is now known as
the landmark Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. It has been a
game changer.
Each jurisdiction has agreed to reduce its share of the
pollution and to do it in 2-year incremental and reportable
increments, ``milestones'' they are called, toward the 2025
deadline. And EPA agreed to be the referee and to impose
penalties if a State failed to meet its milestone targets.
Here is the good news. It is working. Thirty-six years
after that headline I just referenced, the same paper wrote a
new headline, quote, ``Scientists Say They Are Confident
Chesapeake Health Is Significantly Improving in 36 Years.''
The Chesapeake Bay Program is the glue that holds this
multistate restoration effort together. The Federal Government
is the one jurisdiction which can do what science says must be
done to treat the bay and all of its rivers as a single
ecological system.
Experts agree around the world--and believe me, it is
around the world--that this is perhaps our best and last chance
to save the bay. The bay program uses science proactively. It
provides grants to reduce pollution, and it monitors progress.
But we are not done. The recovery is fragile. Last year we
had 80 inches of rain, twice the normal, and it delivered so
much pollution that scientists believe we may see some of the
worst levels of low dissolved oxygen this year in decades.
Let's hope that such intense storm events are not the new
normal under climate change, especially as regulatory rollbacks
threaten progress. While most of the bay States are on track, I
am sorry to report that Pennsylvania is way behind, and it is a
critically important State.
If the bay is to be saved, EPA must hold Pennsylvania
accountable.
I will conclude. The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint is an
international model. The bay program is essential, and it must
be fully funded.
We thank you for the bipartisan support here in the House
to do just that. Now it is on to the Senate.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. Baker's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation
Introduction
Good morning Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and
members of the subcommittee, I am Will Baker, President of the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). Thank you for inviting me, on behalf
of CBF's Board of Trustees, staff, and more than 275,000 members, to
participate in today's hearing.
For more than 50 years, the CBF has been working to protect and
restore the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams. The Chesapeake
Bay is America's largest estuary and a unique and critical ecosystem.
Its 64,000 square mile watershed--from Cooperstown, New York to Cape
Henry, Virginia and westward to the Allegheny Mountains--is a large
part of the Mid-Atlantic states. More than 18 million people live in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a number that is increasing by roughly
150,000 each year.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, a resource of worldwide
significance, and an economic resource for the region. The Chesapeake
Bay produces approximately 500 million pounds of seafood a year.\1\ The
Bay's iconic blue crabs and oysters are immensely important to the
economy and culture of the Bay region. In 2016, Maryland and Virginia
brought in $299.5 million in landings revenue, supported just over
30,000 jobs, and generated approximately $726,391,000 dollars in
sales.\2\ Recreational fishing supported 13,501 jobs, and generated
$1.368 billion dollars in sales.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chesapeake Bay Program, Facts and Figures, https://
www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/facts
\2\ NOAA, Fisheries Economics of the United States, 106, 2017,
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/fisheries-economics-
united-states-report-2016
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, due to decades of pollution, those numbers are only
a fraction of what they once were. Historically every summer, excessive
nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from human activities would plague
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries with dead zones--areas with low
amounts of oxygen in the Bay. With little or no oxygen, fish, crabs,
oysters, and other aquatic animals literally suffocate. The decline of
oysters over the last 30 years, for example, has meant a loss of more
than $4 billion for Maryland and Virginia.\4\ Further, excess nitrogen
and phosphorous fuels deadly algae blooms that block sunlight from
reaching the critical underwater grasses habitat that crabs and fish
rely on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Chesapeake Bay Foundation, On the Brink: Chesapeake's Native
Oysters, July 2010, https://www.cbf.org/document-library/cbf-reports/
Oyster_Report_for_Release02a3.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately, we have a plan to save this critical natural resource:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. And the plan is working.
Underwater grasses are growing, dead zones are getting smaller, and
blue crab populations are rebounding. Studies estimate that a fully
restored Bay is worth $22 billion per year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.cbf.org/document-library/cbf-reports/the-economic-
benefits-of-cleaning-up-the-chesapeake.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Chesapeake Bay Cleanup
The Bay cleanup has a long and storied history, but the road to get
to this point has not been easy. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most
complex ecosystems in the world.
The cleanup effort began in 1976 when Congress directed EPA to
undertake a comprehensive study of the Bay focused on its water quality
and living resources. Six years later, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) report identified nutrient pollution as the
greatest threat to the Bay and recognized that the problem would need
to be addressed by all of the watershed states, not just Maryland and
Virginia. The report provided an innovative intergovernmental and
inter-jurisdictional solution. The ``Chesapeake Bay Program'' was
formed that December--with the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and
Virginia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Administrator of
the EPA and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission signing the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983.
In February 1987, Congress passed the reauthorization of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Clean Water Act), which included a provision,
known as Section 117, that codified the Chesapeake Bay Program and
authorized Congress to continue funding the important restoration
effort at $13 million annually.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In 2000, Congress passed a reauthorization of Section 117 of
the Clean Water Act, which did not substantially alter the approach or
make up of the Chesapeake Bay Program but did increase the
authorization level to $40 million annually. For the last several
years, funding for the Bay Program has been around $73 million
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This led to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which for the first
time included specific quantitative goals and commitments; the
centerpiece of which was to reduce nutrient pollution to the Bay by 40%
by 2000.
When the Chesapeake Bay partners missed their 40% nutrient
reduction goal, the state governors, the mayor of DC, the EPA and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission signed the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, which
included more than a hundred ambitious commitments, including a re-
affirmation of the 40% nutrient reduction goal and a commitment to
reduce sediment and nutrient loads sufficient to remove the Bay and its
tidal rivers from the impaired waters list by a 2010 deadline. Also, in
2000, both Delaware and New York signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with the other Chesapeake Bay Program partners and agreed to adopt the
Water Quality goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. West Virginia
followed suit in 2002.
When the Chesapeake Bay Program failed to meet its water quality
goals again in 2007, CBF along with several signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreements, and local partners sued the EPA for failure
to comply with the Clean Water Act and the terms of the Chesapeake Bay
Agreements. A settlement was finalized in May 2010 that explicitly
incorporated the TMDL process, providing a legally binding, enforceable
commitment that EPA would take specific actions to ensure that
pollution to rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay is reduced
sufficiently to remove the Bay from the federal ``impaired waters''
list.
In December 2010, the EPA and the Bay jurisdictions finalized the
Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL), which sets limits on
nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution necessary to meet water
quality standards.\7\ It also formed jurisdiction-specific plans to
achieve those pollution limits--together known as the Chesapeake Clean
Water Blueprint. EPA and the Bay jurisdictions agreed to implement 60
percent of their Bay cleanup practices by 2017 and 100 percent by 2025.
To develop these plans, Bay jurisdictions worked with local governments
to take advantage of their knowledge about sources so that the
pollution reduction requirements were equitably distributed and one
sector was not burdened at the expense of another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The ``Chesapeake Bay TMDL'' actually applies to 92 impaired
segments, See http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June of 2014, representatives from the entire watershed signed
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.\8\ For the first time,
Delaware, New York, and West Virginia committed to full partnership in
the Bay Program. The agreement includes the Chesapeake Clean Water
Blueprint goals for 2017 and 2025, but also established goals for
habitat restoration and conservation, improving fisheries, increasing
public access public access, and environmental literacy, to name a few.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/what_guides_us/
watershed_agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chesapeake Bay Blueprint is an International Model
The Chesapeake Bay Blueprint is an international model for
environmental improvement. The partnership between state, federal, and
local governments has been central to the Bay's improving health. And
organizations like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have played a key role
in holding all parties to their commitments. But, I cannot understate
the importance of federal leadership.
Even after the Bay Agreement was signed and the Chesapeake Bay
Program formed, the states recognized that they were going to miss
their 2010 cleanup goals, and they requested federal leadership. On
June 19, 2008 at the Chesapeake Bay Program's Principal's Staff
Committee, Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston Bryant
made a motion to develop a TMDL by the end of 2010. The motion to
develop the TMDL was approved without dissent. Simply put, Bay states
recognized that setting the Bay total maximum daily load for nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment was a job that only EPA--with its cross-state
jurisdiction and team of scientists--could do.
This federal leadership, with its heightened level of commitment
and accountability, has proved to be the vital ingredient necessary to
get the cleanup on track and create what Dr. Donald Boesch, President
Emeritus of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science, called ``The Moment in Time'' to save the Bay. When the
Blueprint was established, he wrote, `` . . . this is not just a moment
in time, but the only moment our society will ever have to restore the
Bay. As a scientist, I am trained to rely on empirical evidence rather
than wishful thinking. There is just no evidence for concluding that we
will have another chance after 2025 given the record of performance and
additional mounting pressures that will result from population growth
and climate change.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.capitalgazette.com/cg2-arc-ce7685b2-dfe6-5489-929f-
b81e5cd86754-20120211-story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How We are Doing--the State of the Bay and the Blueprint
For decades, CBF's biennial State of the Bay report has tracked the
Bay's health.\10\ Over the last ten years it has improved, but the slow
improvements to water quality and impact on the living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay system continues to be a concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/state-of-the-bay-report/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Blueprint's beginning in 2010, the Bay has been
improving. But as this year's State of the Bay shows, progress is never
a straight line.
Simply put, the Bay suffered a massive assault in 2018.
Extraordinary weather flushed enormous amounts of nitrogen,
phosphorous, and debris--mostly from Pennsylvania, but also from other
regions--off our lands and into the Bay. As a result, the State of the
Bay score fell one point to a 33.
Still, there are heartening signs that the Bay is building
resiliency. Bay grasses remain intact and recent studies indicate an
improving trend in underwater dead zones over the long term. But the
system remains dangerously out of balance. And new challenges like
climate change and a federal administration attempting to roll back
fundamental environmental protections are threatening success.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
With a little less than seven years to go until the 2025 deadline
set for achieving the commitments of the Blueprint, we can see that
while we have made great strides, we have a long way to go. CBF
recently issued our State of the Blueprint. While no state is
completely on track, Maryland [http://www.cbf.org/how-we-save-the-bay/
chesapeake-clean-water-blueprint/state-watershed-implementation-plans/
maryland/] and Virginia [http://www.cbf.org/how-we-save-the-bay/
chesapeake-clean-water-blueprint/state-watershed-implementation-plans/
virginia/] are close to having the programs and practices in place to
restore water quality and meet the 2025 goal. Pennsylvania is not on
track.
Virginia is on track to achieve its 2025 goals, provided it
accelerates efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural [http://
www.cbf.org/issues/agriculture/] sources and growing urban and suburban
areas, while continuing progress in the wastewater [http://www.cbf.org/
issues/sewage-septic-systems/] sector. Virginia has a strong roadmap
for success; the key is implementation.
Maryland is on-track to meet its overall nutrient reduction targets
by 2025, due in large part to investments to upgrade sewage treatment
plants [http://www.cbf.org/issues/sewage-septic-systems/], which have
exceeded goals, and in farm management practices [http://www.cbf.org/
issues/agriculture/best-management-practices.html]. Pollution from
developed lands and septic systems continues to increase, challenging
the long-term health of Maryland's waterways. While the Blueprint
provides a path to the 2025 goals, it is short on strategies to
maintain them. The plan relies on annual practices that are less cost
effective and don't provide as many benefits for our climate and our
communities as permanent natural filters.
Pennsylvania is significantly behind in implementing the pollution
reducing practices necessary to achieve the 2025 goals, particularly
from the agricultural and the urban/suburban stormwater sectors.
Wastewater treatment plants have met and exceeded goals and targets for
making reductions by 2025. But agriculture and stormwater efforts have
fallen significantly behind. While most farmers embrace conservation, a
lack of financial and technical support has stifled progress. Keeping
soils, nitrogen, and phosphorus on the land instead of in the water is
good for soil health, farm profitability, and life downstream.
Challenges
A healthy Bay is in sight--but the Blueprint to save the Chesapeake
Bay is at a critical juncture. There are four main challenges:
Pennsylvania, regulatory rollbacks, climate change, and federal
funding.
1. Pennsylvania
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and that is also
true for the partnership between the six Bay states, the District of
Columbia, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to restore
water quality across the region. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania's leaders
have failed to uphold their promise to reduce pollution to its surface
and groundwaters since the partnership was launched in 2009.
Pennsylvania has never met its nitrogen reduction targets and its
current plan to achieve the 2025 goal is woefully inadequate, detailing
only two-thirds of actions necessary to achieve its goal. Furthermore,
the resources to implement the plan do not currently exist. There is a
shortfall in funding of nearly $257 million a year.
Continued failure by Pennsylvania legislators to support those
working for cleaner waters with technical and financial assistance
means failure for the entire partnership.
Second, recent deregulatory efforts could be devastating to the
Chesapeake's recovery, in particular weakened Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) and the proposed Clean Power Plan replacement.
2. Proposed Regulatory Rollbacks
Maintaining strong protections for streams and wetlands is
essential to the health and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Wetlands
act as buffers that absorb pollution, reduce storm surges, and help
control flooding, and the Bay receives half of its water from an
intricate network of creeks, streams, and 1.7 million acres of
wetlands. Repealing the 2015 Clean Water rule and changing the
definition of ``Waters of the United States'' rule would limit Clean
Water Act protections for many streams and wetlands.
Air pollution not only poisons our lungs and heats our planet but
eventually ends up in our water. Approximately one-third of the
nitrogen entering the Chesapeake Bay comes from air pollution. Much of
it is in the form of nitrogen oxides from power plants, cars and
trucks, and industrial sources, which can drift hundreds of miles
before falling to the ground and into local waterways. In crafting the
Chesapeake Bay Blueprint, the EPA relied on pollution reductions from
air regulations, but the Trump administration's air rollbacks put the
health of the Bay and its residents at risk. The Safer Affordable Fuel-
Efficient Vehicle Rule will relax fuel efficiency standards for cars
and light-duty trucks that produce greenhouse gas emissions and
nitrogen oxides. And, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) announced
on Wednesday, June 19th falls short of the reductions in nitrogen
oxides that were anticipated under the Clean Power Plan and relied upon
to meet the commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Blueprint. Furthermore,
both will worsen the impacts of climate change--another key challenge
to Bay restoration efforts.
3. Climate Change
Healthy estuaries are the first line of defense for coastal areas
worldwide, providing protection from climate change impacts. Estuarine
systems capture and sequester carbon. Forested buffers along our
streams hold soil in place during heavy storms, cool waters and trap
additional carbon.
Unfortunately, the Bay--and its surrounding states--are also
negatively impacted by the effects of climate change including sea-
level rise, extreme weather, warming temperatures, and ocean
acidification.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Climate Change, https://
www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/climate_change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has noted that average temperatures have risen between 1895 and
2011 by almost two degrees Fahrenheit and projections indicate warming
of 4.5 to 10 degrees by the 2080s.\12\ Average U.S. precipitation has
increased since the 1990s, and the frequency and intensity of heavy
precipitation events is increasing due to climate change.\13\ Within 20
years, nearly 170 U.S. communities will be chronically inundated with
flooding \14\ and more than 70% of these communities will be in
Louisiana and Maryland: the ``canaries in the coal mine'' for sea level
rise.\15\ Sea level rise threatens to inundate small coastal
communities and major cities alike in the Chesapeake Bay region. In
Maryland alone, it threatens to flood over 61,000 homes by 2100, valued
at $19 billion.\16\ Entire inhabited islands are now underwater in the
Chesapeake Bay, with more likely to follow if greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions do not decrease substantially.\17\ In Norfolk, Virginia, sea
level rise poses significant risk to the public and military
infrastructure and operations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
\13\ U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Science Special
Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, 19, 20, 2017.
\14\ Erika Spanger-Siegfried, et. al, When Rising Seas Hit Home:
Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities, Union of
Concerned Scientists 2, 2017.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Catherine Rentz, Rising sea levels threaten $19 billion in
real estate across Maryland, study says, The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 28,
2017, https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/investigations/bs-md-
suninvestigates-sea-level-20171026-story.html.
\17\ Erik Ortiz, How to Save A Sinking Island, NBC NEWS, November
13, 2017, https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/deal-island; David
Fahrenthold, Last house on sinking Chesapeake Bay island collapses,
Washington Post, October 26, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402996.html; Jon Gertner,
Should the United States Save Tangier Island From Oblivion?, New York
Times Magazine, July 6, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/
magazine/should-the-united-states-save-tangier-island-from-
oblivion.html.
\18\ ``Sea level rise at just one site can have a significant
impact on [both military policy and] strategy. Hampton Roads, Virginia,
dubbed `the greatest concentration of military might in the world' for
former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, is by itself an invaluable
operational and strategic hub for both the United States and its
allies. It . . . is the backbone of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. It is also
a low-lying site and very exposed to sea level rise and storm surge. If
significant portions of the Hampton Roads infrastructure we regularly
inundated, as is projected under a number of scenarios for the years
2023-2100, the impediment to force deployments for critical Atlantic,
Mediterranean and Pacific war-fighting and humanitarian operations--
many of which are tied to core strategic goals of the United States--
would be significant.'' The Center for Climate and Security, Military
Expert Panel Report: Sea Level Rise and the U.S. Military's Missions,
23-24, 2016, https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/
center-for-climate-and-security_military-expert-panel-report2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands can help to mitigate some of those effects, but they are
also threatened by sea level rise. As we have noted, these important
filters reduce the level of pollutants entering the Bay,\19\ help
protect against flooding by absorbing stormwater and protect coastal
communities from storm surge and erosion,\20\ but they can also serve
as sites of carbon sequestration.\21\ Wetlands inundated with saltwater
from sea level rise, however, begin to disappear.\22\ They are
typically some of the first areas to be exposed to chronic flooding and
while they can migrate in response to changes in water levels provided
they have the space and time to do so,\23\ the pace of sea level rise
and changes in land use in coastal communities have weakened the
ability of wetlands to migrate.\24\ A decrease in the overall acreage
of wetlands will lead to a decrease in the natural environment's
ability to deal with increased rainfall. Forested buffers along creeks,
tidal rivers, and the Bay are also impacted by sea level rise as
saltwater seeps into the soil, killing trees and creating ``ghost
forests.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Chesapeake Bay Program, Wetlands, https://
www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/wetlands
\20\ Id.
\21\ Kevin D. Kroeger, et al., Scientific Reports, Restoring Tides
to Reduce Methane Emissions in Impounded Wetlands: A New and Potent
Blue Carbon climate Change Intervention, September 20, 2017,
www.nature.com/scientificreports.
\22\ Joseph Kurt and Victor Unnone, Climate Change and the
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load: Policy Priorities and Options,
Virginia Coastal Policy Center, 4, 2016.
\23\ Erika Spanger-Siegfried, et. al, When Rising Seas Hit Home:
Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities, Union of
Concerned Scientists, 10, 2017.
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id. See also John Upton, `Ghost Forests' Appear as Rising Seas
Kill Trees, Climate Central, Sept. 15, 2016, http://
www.climatecentral.org/news/ghost-forests-appear-as-rising-tides-kill-
trees-20701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, warming waters--that have already been recorded in 92
percent of the Bay--deplete the level of available oxygen in the
Bay.\26\ This will have major repercussions as the Bay struggles with
dead zones of hypoxic water from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
(these nutrients fuel algal blooms, creating hypoxic and anoxic areas
in the Bay).\27\ Warming ocean temperatures will only exacerbate the
dead zone in the Bay because warmer water molecules hold less oxygen
than colder water molecules.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Army Corps of Engineers and City of Norfolk Draft
Integrated City of Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility
Study/Environmental Impact Statement, October 2017, http://
www.nao.usace.army.mil/NCSRM/
\27\ EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, The Dead Zone, https://
www.chesapeakebay.net/state/dead_zone
\28\ Chris Mooney, Global warming could deplete the oceans'
oxygen--with severe consequences, Washington Post, April 28, 2016,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/28/
global-warming-could-deplete-the-oceans-oxygen-levels-with-severe-
consequences/?utm_term=.00aa4517aaef.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, GHG emissions cause ocean waters to acidify. Our oceans
are a sink for atmospheric carbon, absorbing about a quarter of the CO2
released into the atmosphere each year.\29\ This absorption is not
without consequence: excess CO2 is changing the saltwater
chemistry.\30\ A chemical reaction occurs between carbon dioxide,
water, and carbonate ions that reduces seawater pH depleting the
concentration of carbonate ions and calcium carbonate minerals.\31\
This negatively affects calcifying species by impairing their shell
making ability. Ocean acidification threatens the growth and
reproduction of oysters, clams, and other creatures with calcium
shells.\32\ The Chesapeake Bay blue crab population may be particularly
susceptible to acidification because larval crabs spend a portion of
their life offshore in the ocean. Blue crabs are a particularly
important commercial species in the region's multi-billion-dollar
seafood industry.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Program,
Ocean Acidification: the Other Carbon Dioxide Problem, https://
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
\30\ NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Program,
What is Ocean Acidification? https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/
What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
\31\ Id.
\32\ Sarah M. Giltz and Caz M. Taylor, Reduced Growth and Survival
in the Larval Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus Under Predicted Ocean
Acidification, 36, J. of Shellfish Research, 481, 2017.
\33\ Chesapeake Bay Foundation, The Economic Importance of the Bay,
http://www.cbf.org/issues/what-we-have-to-lose/economic-importance-of-
the-bay/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, the effects of GHG emissions will impact the
complex ecosystem--including water quality and habitat--needed for
species survival in the Bay region. Indeed, these impacts are
identified and reflected through various sections of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ One of the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of
2000 was to ``expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and
protect the Chesapeake Bay; and to achieve the goals established in the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.'' 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1267. The Chesapeake Bay
Agreement is an interstate compact as Congress developed and authorized
the joint state action. See Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433; 101 S. Ct.
703 (1981); Seattle Master Builders Assoc. v. Pacific Northwest
Electric Power & Conservation Planning Council, 786 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir.
1986).; Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, 2014, https://
www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/
FINAL_Ches_Bay_Watershed_Agreement.withsignatures-HIres.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Federal Funding
As mentioned, funding remains a challenge for implementing the
Blueprint. Full or increased funding is needed in a variety of programs
that support the implementation of the Blueprint including:
u.s. army corps of engineers (usace) programs
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a key partner in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement goal to restore oyster populations
in 10 Bay tributaries in Maryland and Virginia by 2025. It provides
significant technical expertise, logistical coordination, and funding
for the construction and long-term monitoring of oyster restoration
projects. USACE also completed a Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan in
2018 that identified more than 300 restoration projects throughout the
watershed in need of funding.
u.s. department of agriculture (usda) programs
Through several conservation programs, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture works with farmers to plan and install voluntary practices
that protect water quality by reducing the flow of valuable nutrients
and sediments from agricultural lands into rivers and streams. The
programs are funded through the Federal Farm Bill [http://www.cbf.org/
about-cbf/locations/washington-dc/issues/federal-farm-bill.html] and
support every state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. They include:
Environmental Quality and Incentives Program (EQIP)
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
Conservation Reserve/Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) See how CREP and other programs are helping farmers
[http://www.cbf.org/blogs/save-the-bay/farmer-success-stories.html]
reduce the amount of pollution entering local waterways and the Bay.
Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, or 2018
Farm Bill, into law on December 20, 2018. To ensure that these programs
are put to the best use in the Chesapeake Bay region, the maximum
amount of funding contemplated by Congress should be appropriated.
chesapeake bay program
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of funding is the federal
funding that supports the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay
Program (CWA 117) provides targeted support to watershed states to meet
their Blueprint goals. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis,
Maryland coordinates the science, research, modeling, support services,
monitoring, data collection, and other activities essential to
Blueprint implementation. As a single cross-state ecological system,
the Bay watershed requires this sophisticated level of attention. For
example, the Bay Program is coordinating the development of trading and
offset programs that both ensure pollution reduction requirements are
met and create cost-effective options for states to meet their goals.
But the lion's share of program funds go directly to grants and
cooperative agreements that enable nonprofit organizations, state and
local governments, colleges, universities, and interstate agencies to
assist with Blueprint implementation.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Originally created under President Ronald Reagan, this supports
complex cross-state collaboration and excellent stewardship of taxpayer
dollars by providing states access to the watershed-wide science,
research, modeling, monitoring, and data they need to efficiently plan,
track, and adapt their restoration activities. Over 60 percent of
program funds go to states, primarily through matching grant programs
that drive local investment in state restoration priorities. Increasing
federal support for the program is an important step to save the Bay
and repair some of the most damaged waterways in Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland. CBF recommends that additional funds be
used to:
Expand two grant programs--one that improves water
quality and habitat in small, local waterways, and a second that
supports innovative and market-based approaches to reducing pollution.
Assist local governments in reducing pollution.
Increase assistance to priority watersheds that will
provide the most cost-effective pollution reductions.
Simply stated, the Chesapeake Bay Program is the glue that holds
together the Blueprint. It is therefore important to not only increase
funding to the program through the appropriations process, but to
reauthorize the program as well. CBF supports the current proposals
that have been introduced in the House and Senate that do just
that.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ H.R. 1620 (116), Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act,
S. 701 (116), Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to overstate how important robust and consistent
federal funding for grants and loans and funding the Chesapeake Bay
Program is for successful implementation of the Chesapeake Bay
Blueprint.
Conclusion
The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint has infused new life into the
Bay cleanup. We are seeing accelerated implementation of practices that
scientists agree will lead to improved water quality and ultimately a
healing of the Bay. However, what is undone far exceeds what has been
done to date. Now is not the time to rest, now is ``The Moment in
Time'' that must be seized to accelerate Bay restoration to gain
sufficient ground to overcome the continuing crush of population
growth. The Bay has suffered centuries of degradation. But we do not
have the luxury of time to save it. Now, in the final and most
important phase of the clean-up effort, the Bay partnership must finish
the job.
The science is clear about what needs to be done, and the Blueprint
is working. Underwater grasses are recovering. Blue crab populations
are rebounding. The Bay's dead zone is shrinking. Communities are
seeing cleaner streams, greener urban landscapes, and increased
resilience. But the recovery is fragile. We are facing a variety of
ongoing--as well as some emerging--challenges. Pennsylvania's leaders
must live up to their commitments.
Climate change is an imminent threat. Regulatory rollbacks threaten
progress toward clean water and air. And funding is at risk for
programs key to the Bay's health.
As President Reagan said in his 1984 State of the Union, ``Let us
remember our responsibility to preserve our older resources here on
Earth. Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
challenge, it's common sense.''
Clean water is our responsibility, our legacy to leave our children
and grandchildren. We must succeed.
__________
From Rock Bottom to Real Hope in 36 Years
a positive trajectory for the chesapeake bay
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Baker.
I do not know if you are aware, but yesterday there was an
article in the Washington Times that stated scientists predict
a record dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay. Some ecologists at
the University of Maryland are worried that a large spot of low
oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay could harm the State's seafood
industry. Scientists from Maryland and the University of
Michigan said they are predicting a 2-mile swath of low to no
oxygen in the bay, making it one of the largest dead zones in
nearly 20 years. That was yesterday.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. So I think you were right.
Mr. Baker. And this is after 5 or 6 years of that dead zone
going down to almost zero.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Baker. Fragile.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Kristi Trail, please proceed.
Ms. Trail. Thank you.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony to you today as well.
This testimony describes some history on our environmental
organization and why funding for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Restoration Program, or PRP for short, is vital to maintaining
the successes we have had.
It is worth noting that the results achieved and long-term
impact of our work have been largely based on the continuity of
effort, which is why programmatic funding is so important.
For those of you not familiar with Lake Pontchartrain, here
are a few details. The lake forms the northern boundary of the
Greater New Orleans area and is crossed by the longest
continuous bridge over open water in the world, more than 24
miles in length.
Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding lands and waters
encompass 10,000 square miles. It is part of one of the largest
estuaries in the country, and it interacts directly with the
Gulf of Mexico.
When the Mississippi River approaches flood stage, as it
has been this year for several months, part of its flow is
diverted across a flood-controlled structure operated by the
Army Corps of Engineers called the Bonnet Carre spillway. Thus,
fresh river water flows into Lake Pontchartrain when it is
opened.
In 2019, for the first time ever, the spillway has been
opened twice, with the second opening continuing now.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation was established 30
years ago in 1989 in response to environmental concerns voiced
across southeast Louisiana. In 2000, Congress established the
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program to restore the
ecological health of the basin by developing and funding
restoration projects and related scientific and public
education programs.
Shortly after PRP was authorized, LPBF established our
indepth water quality monitoring program. Within just a few
years of the PRP funding, LPBF worked with the State of
Louisiana and the U.S. EPA to have the lake removed from the
impaired water bodies list under the Clean Water Act 303(d).
Southeast Louisiana's natural resources and built
infrastructure are of national importance. We know from past
hurricanes and major oil spills that interruptions to our
State's workforce altered the Nation's economy.
Conditions in southeast Louisiana affect our State's
pivotal roles in energy supply for the New England States; for
tourism, $47 million in 2017; the estuary that supports the
seafood industry and ``Sportsmen's Paradise,'' and waterborne
commerce through the Port of New Orleans.
All of these systems hinge on continued and increased
preservation, restoration, and protection efforts benefitting
Lake Pontchartrain, its estuary, and the coastal ecosystem in
southeast Louisiana.
With our funding in 2013, LPBF established a small museum
inside the restored New Basin Canal Lighthouse in New Orleans.
Tourists, school children, lighthouse aficionados, and others
can visit to learn about the region's history and ecology and
LPBF's successes.
Since the lighthouse opened, more than 50,000 youth and
adults have toured its exhibits.
Our water quality monitoring program has provided timely
scientific analysis and broad dissemination of results to allow
citizens to make informed decisions about enjoying the lake for
fishing, swimming, and other recreational activities.
The most important component of this effort is maintaining
a continuous data set. We have been sampling the basin
continuously every week for 18 years, and we do not want to
interrupt that data set due to a lag in funding.
Additionally, to address the need posed by episodic
problems concerning water quality and public health, we conduct
needed analyses and provide information for situations such as
the Mississippi River flows into the lake from the Bonnet Carre
spillway; potentially toxic algal blooms; oil rig explosions;
sewage spills; or tropical storms or hurricanes.
In 2006, LPBR created the multiple lines of defense
strategy. The lines of defense are both manmade and natural and
include barrier islands, sounds, marshes, natural ridges,
manmade ridges, floodgates, levees, pump stations, elevated
homes and businesses, and evacuation routes.
Restoring targeted habitat sites, such as swamps and
marshes, is integral to recreating a self-sustaining coast and
permanent storm protection for coastal communities.
PRP funding comprises a critical portion of our total
budget, though it has decreased significantly over the years,
and reauthorization allows us to continue our many restoration
efforts.
Although the lake and its resources have made a tremendous
comeback, Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding area continue
to face environmental challenges. All across the United States
the protection of rivers, streams, lakes, bays, and adjacent
lands can create jobs, protect fisheries relied upon by the
fishing industry, protect food sources, enhance property
values, decrease local government expenditures, and provide
recreational opportunities.
With congressional support, we can continue this great work
for years to come, leaving behind a legacy of clean water, a
strong economy, and a prosperous region. It is for this reason
we ask for reauthorization of the program.
Thank you.
[Ms. Trail's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristi Trail, Executive Director, Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. This testimony
describes some history on our environmental organization, and why
funding for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program (PRP) is
vital maintaining the successes we've had. The work that has been
supported by PRP awards to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation over
the years is of a uniquely continuous nature. The results achieved and
long term impact of that work have been largely based on the continuity
of effort. We also leverage matching funds and in-kind services of up
to 25% from a wide array of partners.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (LPBF) was established in
response to environmental concerns voiced across SE Louisiana. The lake
forms the northern boundary of New Orleans and the lake is crossed by
the longest continuous bridge over open water in the world: more than
24 miles in length. It is a shallow lake, yet larger than Lake Mead,
Lake Powell, and Lake Tahoe, in terms of surface area.
Although Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding area continue to
face environmental challenges, the Lake and its resources have made a
tremendous comeback. Much of this success is due to interested and
concerned citizens who want a clean, healthy Lake and Basin for this
and future generations, all of which would not be possible with your
support of this funding.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity.
__________
Geography & Habitat
Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding lands and waters encompass
16 parishes (counties): 25% are highly urbanized and 75% are rural.
Lake Pontchartrain is part of one of the largest estuaries in the
country, interacting with the Gulf of Mexico through the Rigolets
Strait, Chef Menteur Pass, Lake Catherine and Lake Borgne. The lake
experiences tidal changes and varying mixes of salt and freshwater,
with complex mixtures of herbaceous wetlands, including fresh,
intermediate and brackish marsh. Five rivers, 20 to 65 miles in length,
and two bayous flow into the lake and, when the Mississippi River
approaches flood stage, part of its flow is diverted across the Bonnet
Carre spillway and into Lake Pontchartrain. In 2019, for the first time
ever, the spillway has been opened twice, with the second opening
continuing now.
Louisiana swamps are an integral part of the wetland ecosystem of
the Gulf coast. Swamps provide habitat, spawning and nursery grounds,
and food sources essential to millions of migratory songbirds and
waterfowl, wildlife such as deer, otter, osprey, swamp rabbits, wood
ducks, squirrel, muskrat, snakes and turtles, and 18 species of
concern, including bald eagle, prothonotary warbler, mottled duck,
swallow-tailed kite, Louisiana black bear, American alligator,
alligator snapping turtle, and southern dusky salamander. Swamps also
provide flood water storage and storm surge protection during
hurricanes. Due mostly to extensive logging around the turn of the 20th
century, subsidence, nutria, saltwater intrusion, and levee
construction, there is only an estimated 464,000 acres of swamp
remaining.
History of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (LPBF)
Most of the environmental problems that challenge the Basin were
well recognized by the mid-1970s, yet there was no common effort
towards restoration. In the spring of 1989, the Greater New Orleans
Expressway Commission (aka, ``Causeway Commission'') authorized a
$30,000 study that culminated in a 300-page report, a blueprint for
cleaning and restoring the ecological balance of the lake. It
recommended formation of a state agency to lead the effort. Later that
year, the Louisiana Legislature created the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation (LPBF) to carry out that mandate.
In 2000, Congress stepped in and passed Senate Bill 835, adding
Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi, to the list of
estuaries to be given priority consideration for inclusion in the
National Estuary Program. Included in this legislation is the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 2000, which requires the
Administrator to establish the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration
Program to restore the ecological health of the Basin by developing and
funding restoration projects and related scientific and public
education projects. The bill authorized the Administrator to make
grants for such purposes, and authorized appropriations for FY 2001
through 2005. The Program received $6 million in Fiscal year 2002.
The purpose of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program
(PRP) is to restore the ecological health of the Basin by developing
and funding restoration projects and related scientific and public
education projects. Since 2001, the University of New Orleans Research
and Technology Foundation, Inc. (UNO RTF) has managed the multiple
grants for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program.
Historically, eligible applicants have included the Parishes and Cities
within the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Watershed and LPBF. Shortly after
PRP was authorized, LPBF established the in-depth water quality
monitoring program.
Within a decade of the PRP program's funding, LPBF was able to
construct nine artificial reefs for fish habitat, work with the State
of Louisiana and the USEPA to have the Lake removed from the impaired
water bodies list (under Clean Water Act Section 303(d)), & restore a
former US Coast Guard Rescue Station post-Katrina for educational use.
While not an active Coast Guard station any longer, the Coast Guard
regularly uses the facility for promotion and retirement ceremonies.
The reauthorization of the PRP Program in 2012 allowed LPBF to grow
many programs throughout the community and expand our educational
capacity greatly. In 2013, we rebuilt and repurposed a lighthouse that
has seen more than 50,000 youth and adults tour its exhibits. In
addition, the reauthorization allowed us to focus state funds and
private donations funds into other initiatives, including the planting
of 56,000 cypress trees to the west & south of the lake. In 2014, we
finished construction of the Bayou St. John Urban Marsh--an urban
wetland habitat. The Bayou St. John Urban Marsh is a success, with
vegetation flourishing and animals rapidly moving in. Anglers have
noted increased fish numbers and diversity, and shorebirds, waders and
ducks are feeding in the new habitat. It is a living classroom and a
laboratory for restoration, and puts regional problems in a local
perspective: the half-acre marsh is the area lost every half hour in
south Louisiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Awarded
FY Total PRP to UNO RTF Amount Awarded % of Total
Amount (15%) to LPBF awarded to LPBF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10............................... $1,343,760 $201,564 $568,000 42%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11............................... $1,835,520 $275,328 $590,000 32%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12............................... $1,700,000 $255,000 $780,000 46%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13............................... $948,000 $142,200 $335,080 35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14............................... $910,000 $136,500 $246,080 27%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15............................... $961,074 $144,161 $327,680 34%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16............................... $961,075 $144,161 $327,680 34%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17............................... $948,000 $135,973 $300,000 31%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18............................... $948,000 $135,973 $346,323.75 36%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LPBF's Outreach Program
LPBF's Outreach Program benefits the communities of southeast
Louisiana, the State of Louisiana, and ultimately the U.S. economy. The
economic emphasis is due to the national importance of SE Louisiana's
natural resources and built infrastructure. We know from past
hurricanes and the major oil spills that interruptions to our state's
workforce alter the nation's economy. Conditions in southeast Louisiana
affect our state's pivotal roles in energy supply for New England
states, tourism ($47 million in 2017), the estuary that supports the
seafood industry and ``Sportsmen's Paradise,'' and waterborne commerce
through the Port of New Orleans. All of these systems hinge on
continued and increased preservation, restoration, and protection
efforts benefiting Lake Pontchartrain, its estuary, and the coastal
ecosystem in southeast Louisiana. Consequently, increasing the public's
understanding at the local, state, and national levels of our
scientific research findings and strategies to benefit our fragile
natural resources--to then catalyze their stewardship actions--is the
top priority in our communications and outreach efforts. The basin's
needs are being addressed through multiple activities working at
different scales.
LPBF's Education Program
LPBF established a small museum and its headquarter inside the
restored New Basin Canal Lighthouse in New Orleans. Tourists,
schoolchildren, lighthouse aficionados and others can visit to learn
about the region's history and ecology, and LPBF's successes. LPBF
continues to provide many programs throughout the community, and since
the reauthorization in 2012, the funding has allowed the organization
to expand our educational capacity greatly. Since the lighthouse opened
in April 2013, more than 50,000 youth and adults have toured its
exhibits. Often, schools send more than 100 students at one time, who
can rotate through several learning stations, in groups of 20, across
the lighthouse grounds.
Water Quality
LPBF's Water Quality Program benefits the waters of the
Pontchartrain Basin, the public, and the local economy through
maintaining favorable conditions in the lake and improving the
condition of tributaries. Overall, the goals and objectives in this
program are to understand the current and always changing water quality
conditions, identify remedies and reduce impairments as needed, and
keep the public informed about all activities. Both local, state and
federal entities use our semi-annual results, trends, and other
statistical evaluation of the data collected within the basin. The
results of this work are transferable to many estuaries throughout the
United States, and we have been recognized for our work with EPA and
other federal entities to share with communities with impaired water
bodies. Here is one recent fact sheet: https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2018-01/documents/la_natalbanyriver_1622_508.pdf
LPBF has a weekly Recreational Water Quality Monitoring (Basin Wide
Monitoring Program) that has provided timely, scientific analysis and
broad dissemination of results to allow citizens to make informed
decisions about enjoying the lake for fishing, swimming, and other
recreational activities. Initially, this program provided a background
database for the removal of Lake Pontchartrain from the 303(d)/305(b)
Impaired Waters list (as described on page 36). This Basin Wide
Monitoring Program will continue monitoring efforts in the basin at its
ten current sites sampled for in situ parameters and microbial
indicators, though with additional funding we will be able to add two
monitoring sites and new water quality parameters.
In water bodies (e.g., lakes, rivers and beaches), EPA develops
criteria for exposure to bacteria that may indicate viruses that cause
illness in humans. LPBF monitors water in southeast Louisiana in terms
of criteria set by EPA for fecal coliform and enterococci as indicators
of fecal contamination. EPA is also considering criteria for
coliphages, which are viral particles associated with E. coli and are
better indicators of viruses in treated wastewater than bacteria. This
continued funding will allow LPBF to gather data about coliphages and
their usefulness as a viral indicator for the protection of public
health in recreational waters. This funding also allows LPBF to
advocate for changes to water management practices or issues within the
basin by sharing our many successes throughout our basin and the entire
state.
Primary and secondary benefits include LPBF's education, advocacy,
and training to owners of homes and businesses has improved water
quality so that eight water bodies (Lake Pontchartrain and other
tributaries) have been removed from the Clean Water Act's Section
303(d) list of ``impaired waterbodies,'' confirming the improved
environmental conditions.
Additionally, to address the need posed by episodic problems
concerning water quality and public health, LPBF aims to conduct needed
analyses and provide information for situations such as Mississippi
River flows into the lake from the Bonnet Carre Spillway, potentially
toxic algal blooms, oil rig explosions, sewage spills, or tropical
storms and hurricanes. Over the course of 2017, LPBF received 24 calls
related to illicit discharges (either fuel or sewage in composition)
into waterways that drained to Lake Pontchartrain. Being responsive to
the public's concern is an imperative, yet it is very challenging to
have such unbudgeted and time-consuming events occur. LPBF then seeks
to document, capture and report to the EPA spills or discharges that
concern citizens. Because of LPBF's active engagement as a resource to
the public, LPBF was invited to participate in the State of Louisiana
Sanitary Sewer Systems Overflows Commission, study and make
recommendations on actions necessary to timely report, reduce, and
eliminate sewage overflows.
Algal blooms have been a prominent concern this spring, due to the
possible presence of toxin-generating bacteria associated with the
certain species of algae, and appearance of a bloom both before and
after the 2018 opening of the Bonnet Carre Spillway, which has opened
as a result of unprecedented flooding throughout the United States. The
Mississippi River drains 41% of the United States, and this is now
flowing though the Pontchartrain estuary with the opening of the
spillway flood control structure. Phytoplankton and cyanobacterial
blooms are increasing worldwide due to eutrophication of aquatic
environments, much of the occurrence a result of anthropogenic nutrient
enrichment of freshwater rivers and lakes. The influx of nitrogen and
phosphorus can have a direct impact on algal species composition and
the formation of noxious and toxic blooms as well as surface scums.
LPBF has become a partner in EPA's CyAN program, a multi-agency project
among the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and led by EPA to develop an early warning indicator
system using historical and current satellite data to detect algal
blooms in U.S. freshwater systems. EPA enabled LPBF to collect and ship
water/algae samples to Golden, Colorado for analyses to identify
microcystins that generate the toxins. LPBF's expertise has been in
high demand at this time, responding to inquiries from government
officials, news media, area residents, as well as film crew managers
for NCIS New Orleans, who chose to abort a water-based scene planned
for the actors, after contracting with LPBF to collect and analyze
water samples.
LPBF also engages municipal, parish, and state officials in water
quality task forces aimed at coordinating activities to reduce
pollution in target areas. The water quality issues of these areas are
dependent on the development and environmental conditions. These
learnings have been transferred to municipalities throughout the
region, state and country.
Coastal Sustainability:
LPBF's Coastal Sustainability Program activities benefit the
communities of southeast Louisiana and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
in the Pontchartrain Basin estuary. The program needs are being
addressed through multiple types of science and restoration activities,
providing extensive research for all parishes in the entire
Pontchartrain Basin estuary.
LPBF's comprehensive scientific monitoring is released in real-time
through Hydrocoast maps produced by GIS specialists and released bi-
weekly since 2013. These maps are a snapshot of the basin's ecologic
condition and water quality. Every two weeks five maps are released,
including salinity, habitat, biology, precipitation and water quality.
The maps are used extensively by professional scientists, regulators,
commercial and recreational fishers. Fishers use them to guide fishing
activity. State officials use them for guidance on diversion
operations. On LPBF's website, more than 500 Hydrocoast Maps are
archived online providing a continuous inventory of basin conditions
since 2012. In 2018, LPBF released its first an annual atlas of the
Pontchartrain Basin Estuary. This will represent an annual synthesis of
the prior year of data collection on hydrocoast maps. The Hydrocoast
maps have drawn particular interest by the Corps of Engineers, and LPBF
has a joint project underway as a technology transfer.
LPBF has a goal to restore Natural Habitats along Lake
Pontchartrain's armored Southshore. Armored shorelines of concrete
provide poor habitat for lake organisms, especially juveniles which
would otherwise use natural marsh edge to hide from larger predators.
Creating little pockets of marsh will provide small oases for important
estuarine animals. To restore natural habitats along the otherwise
armored south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, LPBF has undertaken two
projects: LPBF created the Bayou St. John Urban Marsh (mentioned on
page 36) and a new area known as ``Lake Vista'' in Jefferson Parish.
LPBF led the creation of half an acre of marsh where Bayou St. John
meets the lake with this funding. Included in this project was a flood
gate operation plan with the Orleans Levee Board that benefits aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife and improves water quality along the entire
Bayou. A short pier over the marsh is planned to accommodate multiple
user groups: fishers, educators, birders, and neighborhood residents.
Saving our Coast
Most recently, LPBF created the Multiple Lines of Defense Program.
The ``lines of defense'' are both man-made and natural and include
barrier islands, sounds, marshes, natural ridges, man-made ridges,
floodgates, levees, pump stations, elevated homes and businesses, and
evacuation routes. Restoring targeted habitat sites, such as swamps and
marshes, is integral to recreating a self-sustaining coast and
permanent storm protection for coastal communities. The Army Corps of
Engineers has incorporated the strategy in upgrading its hurricane
protection system for the region. The Multiple Lines of Defense
Strategy was developed in 2006 by LPBF. It describes the various
features on the landscape that reduce the risk of damage from storm
surge to local communities, infrastructure, and economy.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Conclusion
Reauthorization of the PRP Program is comprises a critical portion
of our total budget--though it has decreased significantly over the
years--and allows us to continue our many restoration efforts
including:
Weekly lake/river testing for quality assurance, all made
publicly available
Science-based advocacy to improve quality of life in
Louisiana's urban center
Leadership role in restoring Louisiana's nationally
significant coastal ecosystem
More than 100,000 citizens educated each year about
stewardship for current and future generations
More public access to waterfront recreation in
underserved areas
Data sharing with municipal, parish, state & federal
government agencies
Although the Lake and its resources have made a tremendous
comeback, Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding area continue to face
environmental challenges. All across the United States, the protection
of rivers, streams, lakes, bays, and adjacent lands can create jobs,
protect fisheries relied upon by the fishing industry, protect food and
drinking water sources, protect and create tourism opportunities,
enhance property values, decrease local government expenditures and
provide recreational opportunities, including those associated with the
multi-billion dollar fishing industry. Because so many rely on the
services provided by waterways, when they are not protected,
governments must undertake costly projects to restore them or to
replace the services they provide.
With Congressional support we can continue this great work for
years to come, leaving behind a legacy of clean water, a strong
economy, and a prosperous region. It is for this reason we ask for the
reauthorization of the Program for another 5 years with increased
funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Trail.
We move on to Mr. Ford.
Mr. Ford. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is your mic on?
Mr. Ford. Sorry. Try that again.
Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to be here this
morning.
Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman,
Representative DeFazio, and, Mr. Rouda, thank you for the
invitation to be here today.
I want to thank you all in addition for so capably
contextualizing exactly what we are looking at here today, the
livelihood of many of coastal America's regions, the importance
of the health and rights of clean water and clean air with
which I do not know how we can proceed forward.
I think when I reflect on this because we have heard many
stats and numbers that what this comes down to is that decades
ago leadership within the United States House of
Representatives said we needed to take on these issues. They
are of national importance. It is our responsibility.
And I can tell you and I think that the five folks that
spoke right here before me today understand that without the
Federal Government's involvement, we cannot effectively make
this work on the local or State level, and that we do this not
with regulations and that top-down approach that Mr. Westerman
spoke to, but we do that with cooperation, sitting around a
table.
I like to say that our interaction with our folks starts
with, ``Hello. How are you? My name is Tom Ford, and I am here
to help.''
And because we are locally based and we work with these
people, we are trusted. We have those relationships, and we
will also be there for the long run. So they turn to us for
leadership. They turn to us for a steady hand and support at a
time when things seem quite unsteady for many of us.
So it is time again for you to display that leadership, and
although I am very proud of all of the accomplishments that
come around this table, I am very thankful that Will Baker is
here today to speak about the Chesapeake Bay Program, which I
think became the model for how we should move forward as an NEP
program.
And albeit he has had his successes, he recognizes that
there is no end day where you ring the bell and you walk home.
The planet is dynamic. Our needs of it are dynamic. The
challenges that we face are ongoing.
So thank you for the support that we have received over
these many decades. That said, the challenges we face are a bit
daunting at times, and the funding that we receive right now,
albeit very helpful, it is insufficient, I think, for us to
face the challenges of our growing population, to protect our
shorelines, to protect our coasts, to protect our economies, to
protect all of those iconic animals and ecosystems that we all
cherish and that provide tourism opportunities, recreational
opportunities, and a quality of life that I think we recognize
attracts roughly 40 percent of the population of this United
States to those shores.
So what do we face? We face erosion, sea level rise,
increased storminess. We have an opportunity to preserve our
fisheries, our tourism, our public and our private
infrastructure, and all along the way what we do is create a
more resilient and robust economy and ecosystem that serves us
all in the future.
So to quote Ronald Reagan's 1984 State of the Union
Address: ``preservation of our environment is not a liberal or
conservative challenge, it's common sense.'' So I will take his
lead on that one.
I think I could sit here and tell you in detail about all
of the challenges, and I would love to brag about all of the
progress we have made in southern California, but to summarize
this, I am on the Atlantic seaboard. I am in the Gulf of
Mexico. I am on the west coast or I am in Puerto Rico and every
single one of the 28 National Estuary Programs could come in
here and fill a day's worth of your time, explaining to you the
successes and the challenges that we have had and that we
continue to face.
The wonderful thing that I think we find is that we have
leveraged the financial contributions from the Federal
Government 19 to 1, on average. When my program has had an
especially banner year, we were up at 58 to 1. So we know how
to put that money to effective use.
The efficiencies that we find therein are because of this,
again, local program, locally based from the community up so
that when the money finally arrives and the project and the
shovels are ready to go, everybody is engaged. They have
informed it. Our leadership are informed, and our programs move
forward with very little resistance.
I think that that right there is perhaps one of the
greatest assets that we can provide to you today.
I thank you for your time, once again, and I am here to
answer any questions that I may be able to.
[Mr. Ford's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Ford, Director, Santa Monica Bay National
Estuary Program and Executive Director, The Bay Foundation, also on
behalf of the Association of National Estuary Programs
Dear Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman:
Thank you for holding this important and timely hearing. The
Committee's attention to sustaining inter-governmental efforts to
preserve and improve the health of our iconic coastal waters is of
great value to the nation.
My name is Tom Ford, and I am the Executive Director of the Santa
Monica Bay National Estuary Program and The Bay Foundation (TBF), part
of the SMBNEP. TBF is the non-profit partner of the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Authority, and is focused on research, planning, cleanup
efforts, and other priorities identified in the SMBNEP's Bay
Restoration Plan, a publicly adopted, federally approved comprehensive
plan of action for protecting and restoring Santa Monica Bay. Each NEP
has adopted a similar plan specific to their estuary.
I am also representing the Association of National Estuary Programs
(ANEP). We are comprised of the Directors of the 28 NEPs and dedicated
to promoting responsible stewardship of our nation's bays, lagoons, and
harbors. We share lessons learned by NEPs with others who might benefit
from a similar consensus-based, stakeholder-driven process in resource
management.
Before describing the National Estuary Program's role in this work,
I would like to especially thank one of the Committee's newest members,
Representative Harley Rouda from my home state, for inviting me today.
Congressman Rouda has already established a record in providing much-
needed assistance to California coastal communities struggling with the
very real impacts of a changing climate, including extreme weather
events.
Our estuaries and bays represent immense value to our nation's
economy. Fishing and shipping, tourism and recreation, minerals and
energy are important contributions. These places--where more than 40%
of the U.S. population lives and works--are treasured by all of the
American people because of the opportunities for recreation and
connection to nature they offer.
While we as a nation treasure these water resources, however, we
also change their chemistry with pollution, drive salmon and whales to
the edge of extinction, and reduce the ability of coastal habitat to
protect us from storms and flooding.
The Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program is one of 28 National
Estuary Programs created by Congress in 1987 as Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act to restore and protect some of our most threatened
bays, rivers and watersheds. These include places like San Francisco
Bay, Tampa Bay, New York/New Jersey Harbor, my own Santa Monica Bay,
and as you have just heard from Laura Blackmore, the iconic Puget
Sound. Our job, as set out by statute, is to assess and reduce human
impacts on coastal habitats.
In the 32 years since its establishment, the community-based, non-
regulatory National Estuary Program has gained a reputation for
effective engagement of all manner of stakeholders for decisionmaking.
Each site-based National Estuary Program convenes multi-sector advisory
committees to develop their yearly workplans, building consensus to
direct local, state, and federal actions to improve the health of our
estuaries.
As a non-regulatory program, the National Estuary Program can build
the trust necessary to drive toward a consensus on actions to restore
estuaries. We provide consistent assistance to all types of partners,
with a friendly ``hello, how are you'' that is truly a case of ``we're
here to help.''
The National Estuary Programs have continued to meet Congress'
challenge to document the State of the Bays as well. As part of those
efforts we conduct research, compile and analyze data, and provide
technical advice to state and local agencies.
The National Estuary Program is also expert at marshalling
resources from all levels of government, foundations, and the corporate
sector for on-the-ground actions. Collectively, and on average over the
last 14 years, the Program has tallied up leveraged resources of $19
for every $1 invested by Congress. The Santa Monica Bay NEP that I
direct leveraged $29 for every $1 over the past 5 years.
Congress' vision of a community- and incentive-driven program,
supported by scientific data and significant investment from partners,
has proven to be an ideal way to prompt local action through local buy-
in. Because our consensus-based planning processes are supported by the
community, informed by local data, and broadly funded, when we're ready
to put the shovels into the ground our communities are engaged, our
leaders involved, and our programs and projects successful.
This level of success is the same whether I am at a National
Estuary Program in the Gulf of Mexico, in Puerto Rico, or on the West
Coast or the Atlantic seaboard. And I should add that we share our good
ideas and best practices with our colleagues who are not designated
Estuaries of National Significance. You can see our fingerprints on
every coast.
If Congress sees fit to reauthorize the NEP, the National Estuary
Programs are ready to continue the work you set in motion 32 years ago.
With additional funding, each program would be able to increase its
ability to have a significant local impact; with the competitive grant
in place we can direct resources to address particularly vexing
problems afflicting our coastal waters, including algal bloom, ocean
acidification, and lack of preparedness for major storm events. These
approaches can serve as modeal for the country.
Thank you for your attention to the challenges we are confronting
in protecting our iconic waters. I am glad to provide any additional
information or answer any questions you may have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much for your testimony.
And we welcome all of your testimony. We will move on to
questions that Members may have for the witnesses, and we will
use the timer to allow 5 minutes of questions for each Member.
If there are additional questions, we might have a second
round, if necessary. And I will start with the questioning.
And to all witnesses, it sounds like most of you have your
partnerships working very well. And that is admirable. I wish
we could do that here.
But some contend that a bureaucracy leads to inefficiency
in managing and implementing restoration, and it creates
duplicative effort across the watershed.
Do you find this as a challenge having multiple
jurisdictions to the different priorities?
And how do you create and implement a comprehensive
ecosystem restoration plan for the entire watershed?
Anybody?
Mr. Cole. Well, I will jump in, and thank you for the
question.
You had mentioned the notion that--the ``Wisconsin way.''
We get past this notion of the right, the left, the middle. It
is recognition that there is a problem. Once that recognition
has been realized, it is rolling up your sleeves and those
partnerships become vital.
We have learned through a series of ups and downs and wrong
paths as to how to go about leveraging the money from local
jurisdictions, county jurisdictions, State jurisdictions, as
well as Federal monies as well.
And the emphasis certainly is environment, but I would be
remiss not to tell you that the economic impact of all of this
is very important for the folks who live there.
Mr. Pine. As I mentioned briefly in my testimony, we have
put in place a new approach to deal with what can be extremely
time-consuming and expensive and often onerous regulatory
processes to allow restoration work to go forward. It is not
uncommon for the permitting process to take over 3 years, and
that drives up cost and hampers our ability to do restoration.
So we have found funding of about $1.2 million a year to
actually employ staff from six agencies that are committed to
working together and actually sitting in the same room a couple
of days a week so that permits can be looked at in a more
coordinated way and expedite that process.
They are also charged with looking at the regulatory
landscape and looking for areas that can be updated because
many of our processes and regulations were put in place, of
course, long before climate change and need to reflect the new
reality.
Mr. Ford. Perhaps I could respond to that as well.
I do not find duplicative efforts, and the benefit of our
Federal link through the U.S. EPA helps us interact with those
sister agencies, all of which provide very discernable services
to us in southern California, from the U.S. Geological Survey
to National Parks, to NOAA, to National Marine Fisheries
Service, Army Corps of Engineers.
There are talents and charges resident in all of that, and
we need the information from them in order to actually enable
and inform our plans, and then to actually monitor and evaluate
our success from all of them.
I would think that for many of these programs also, and we
heard it from Will; we heard from Laura. These folks are
working in multiple States. I do not think that anybody wants a
different endpoint, but without that Federal lens on this,
there is very little way a State, I think, or a local
government could even try to approach it. So it is intrinsic
that we need it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
To all the witnesses. I have a concern with invasive
species. You have mentioned that is part of the problem and how
is your region addressing it?
I know there was a big push to eradicate the quagga
mussels, and of course the carp, but I was wondering if any of
you have found a way to deal with it.
Mr. Cole. Certainly, Madam Chair. Again, on the heels of
the Great Lakes Governors and the Canadian Premiers, this was
item number one on the list, the associated problems with the
electronic fence to allow and stop the--I am on? Hello?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Cole [continuing]. To stop the Asian carp, again, it
was sheer recognition that we all had skin in the game, and the
States of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin will all be teeing up
dollars and funding to ensure that the Asian carp stays in its
place.
Again, the sheer recognition that that is a problem and you
have the Governors, the leaders of each State, recognizing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Working together.
Mr. Cole. Working together.
Ms. Blackmore. And I would say in Puget Sound, we have
discovered an invasion of European green crabs, but we are just
at the very beginning of that. So the State of Washington is
working with the local Tribes and the local governments and
citizen volunteers to go out and actually find all the baby
crabs and get rid of them before they can breed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Very fine. Thank you very much to you all.
And I recognize Mr. Westerman for his questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And, again, thank you to the witnesses.
I have visited many of the estuaries that are represented
at the table today, truly remarkable places. Ms. Trail, my
friend from Louisiana introduced you. I believe he said you
were an engineer, and he had to make sure that he put in a
graduate of LSU.
But I am an engineer as well. And I know that throughout
history we have tried to tame the outdoors, if you will, using
concrete and levees and floodgates, and all of those things.
And I am often reminded of a quote by Mark Twain who said,
``One who knows the Mississippi will promptly aver--not aloud,
but to himself--that 10,000 river commissions, with the mines
of the world at their back, cannot tame that lawless stream,
cannot curb it or confine it, cannot say to it, `Go here,' or,
`Go there,' and make it obey; cannot save a shore which it has
sentenced; cannot bar its path with an obstruction which it
will not tear down, dance over, and laugh at.''
So I find it interesting that you are an engineer doing the
work that you are doing, and I know what I read, you know, and
instead of trying to just brute force contain nature, we are
starting to use more natural designs to help work with nature.
And could you talk a little bit about what is happening in
Lake Pontchartrain with natural designs?
And I would really like to open that up to the rest of the
panel, too.
I know with the record flooding we are having now from my
State in Arkansas and all areas of the Mississippi River, there
is a lot of Mississippi River water being diverted into Lake
Pontchartrain that could upset the ecosystem there for quite a
whole.
But can you elaborate on natural designs a little bit more?
Ms. Trail. Absolutely. Thank you.
And I am a proud LSU graduate of civil engineering. So
thank you for reaffirming that.
As I talked about in my testimony, we created the multiple
lines of defense strategy shortly after Hurricane Katrina, and
what we like to do is communicate storm surge protection for
communities as a system; that we need both the natural barriers
and the manmade barriers to work together.
So in south Louisiana, we talk a lot about levees, but it
is important to remind folks that we are not just going to
build a bigger levee our way out of the situation with some
signs in sea level rise, that we absolutely have to have those
natural barriers ahead of the manmade barriers to make the
system all work together, all components together.
And a big component of that is not just barrier islands,
but also having marshes and swamps with those trees that buffer
wave action and wind action to protect those manmade barriers.
Mr. Westerman. There has been a lot of work with cypress
swamps, reestablishing cypress swamps. Are there things that
could be done upstream in the watershed that would possibly
help you out from having to take all of that excess flow from
the Mississippi River in the future?
Are there projects we could do maybe out of the estuary
that would benefit the estuary?
Ms. Trail. Oh, and thank you for asking that.
You know, we were successful in 2009 in closing a manmade
structure that entered into Lake Pontchartrain. It was called
the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. It was constructed for
navigation purposes, but what it did at the time was allow
extra saltwater to enter our estuary, which prevented trees
from growing all around the perimeter of the lake.
With the closure of that in 2009, we have seen great
success in the growth of trees all around Lake Pontchartrain.
So we have planted trees all around the area to restore a lot
of the land bridges surrounding south Louisiana.
We have planted about 60,000 trees in the past 5 years, and
with our work, we do not just go plant the trees. We monitor
them every year, and we have had a great success rate of those
trees staying in place.
This is an unprecedented situation though with the
Mississippi River flowing into Lake Pontchartrain for such a
long period of time this year, but we will be out there
monitoring to see what effects it does have on the trees.
We do not yet know if it will have a negative effect. It is
short term. The lake tends to be pretty resilient, and it will
bounce back. So we will be monitoring to see the effects of
those trees.
Another program that we are looking to do to increase the
number of trees that we can plant each year is that we
recognize manually planting trees is labor intensive. We get a
lot of great volunteers out there to do it. We work with the
community to do it, but it takes us a long time to get those
trees in the ground.
So if we keep doing it at the pace that we are doing it, it
is going to take us 1,000 years to plant the trees we need to
plant. So we are looking at innovative technologies to get more
trees in the ground with things like aerial seeding.
Mr. Westerman. Would anybody else like to?
Mr. Baker. Mr. Westerman, I just want to thank you so much
for that question and acknowledging the value of looking at
what is called green infrastructure as a way to supplement hard
infrastructure.
It is happening I think I can confidently say across all of
our various systems. It really is important because it is less
expensive, more effective, and it is putting back what we have
taken away over the centuries.
So thank you very much. You hit the nail on the head.
Mr. Cole. Ditto.
Mr. Ford. And I would be happy to speak to that as well
because I think this is an interesting and new transformation
in the Los Angeles region where I work, and that is that our
beaches, which we love, and I think that is like imagining New
York without pizza. You cannot have L.A. without a beach.
And what we have now said is, ``You know what? The beach
that we have had there is not the beach that used to be
there.''
We are putting that beach back. It is affordable. We are
engaging the community and the stakeholders.
A woman that showed up at a public meeting said, ``I do not
like this. I do not want you messing around in front of my
house.'' By the time we were done talking, she was like, ``I
want you to put that ribbon of life in front of my home so that
I can sleep here knowing that I am not going to face a storm
that is going to come up and flood my property.''
So the opportunities are many, but again, to reinforce, I
think, where we have been earlier today, you know, we are
receiving $26.5 million right now for the National Estuary
Program. You guys and your predecessors reauthorized us not too
many years ago to get us up to around $35 million. We would
love to see that hit the support and those dollar values come
out of the proceedings this year.
Mr. Pine. And if I might just add, in San Francisco Bay
just a few weeks ago, the San Francisco Estuary Institute in a
planning group called SPUR released a San Francisco Bay
EcoAtlas, and it looked at all of the shorelines around San
Francisco Bay and examined nature-based solutions, tidal
wetlands, of course, being a major one, but also things like
oyster reefs and planting of eelgrass.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Is that my time?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, your time was expired. They did not
run the clock until about 1 minute after you started. No
problem.
Yes, Mr. Carbajal, you are next.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today,
and especially to you, Mr. Ford, for your leadership and work
on behalf of our National Estuary Program.
I am lucky to be able to represent the central coast of
California, probably one of the most beautiful districts in
California, if not the Nation, which includes the Morro Bay
Estuary.
I say that lightly to not insult the rest of my colleagues,
but I think it is the best district in the Nation.
The National Estuary Program has been immensely helpful to
providing environmental restoration and protections to our
tributaries and watersheds.
Estuaries are also a huge economic driver for tourism
dollars and commercial fishing. The Morro Bay Estuary Program
alone off of San Luis Obispo County had an estimated economic
impact of nearly $50 million in the region.
Between 2014 and 2015, there were almost 1.5 million
visitors to the area, with an average of 4,000 visitors a day.
As the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
continues to look at the National Estuary Program, what are
some of the recommendations that you would propose to maintain
or increase the success of this program?
And, two, why is it critical that we continue to fund and
support this very important program?
Mr. Ford. Thank you for the opportunity and the question,
sir.
I think we have well explored the value of these systems
and the importance that they have in the lives of millions of
Americans. That situation is not going to change. If anything,
there will just be millions of more Americans relying on these
systems.
We have illustrated, I think, through the dialogue today
that there are these historical impairments to today's systems.
They are not what they once were. What I recognize is that, and
more and more folks that I work with, is that we need to
increase the production of these areas. We need to increase the
resilience of these areas for them to be able to manage the
challenges that they face in the future.
There are opportunities to do that. The cost effectiveness
of doing that today rather than waiting 10 years or 20 years
down the line are real opportunities that really make those
dollars that we have to spend on these practices effective.
And some of the urgency associated with making sure that we
do not delay and that we make that move.
I think on behalf of the 28 National Estuary Programs, we
value the leadership that this body has demonstrated in the
past, and we are just looking for that opportunity to have the
current reauthorization package move through at its full
reauthorization.
That was a well thought out, good, deliberative process. So
those additional millions make a lot of difference for the
millions of people that are out there and would make a
difference up and down this coast and up and down this table.
So in summary I would say that is about where I see it.
Mr. Carbajal. Are there opportunities to expand the
program?
Mr. Ford. Well, certainly there are many estuaries in the
United States of America that are not part of the estuary
program.
The estuaries of national significance are what was the
determination and the process that was put into place.
The lessons that we have learned are being applied
elsewhere. There are lessons that we have learned from other
folks here and model programs that are not part of the NEP, but
again, I think that that interest that we have and the ability
to draw from multiple levels of Government and from the private
sector and from academia to inform all of this help.
No doubt, I think that there is plenty of opportunity for
the National Estuary Program to become much bigger. I would
like to start where it currently exists, and then I would like
to see how we could make those expansions happen smartly, all
of that with concordant funding.
And I think the Gulf of Mexico might prove to be the latest
testing ground for that in response to the issues and the
mitigations associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this.
First of all, I have some testimony by Dr. Jim Murdaugh,
who is the president of Tallahassee Community College in
Tallahassee, Florida, that I would like to enter into the
record.
Mrs. Napolitano. No objection.
[The information is on pages 82-86.]
Mr. Webster. They have done some great things in the area
of oyster farming, and they have done some awesome things
covered in this document.
I do not have anyone in particular. Mr. Ford, what do you
think the importance of local government involvement in the
cleaning up of estuaries is?
Mr. Ford. The importance of having the local government
involved, I think, is it reinforces that buy-in and the
inclusiveness of our local communities and trying to make these
things happen.
I think the top-down perspective or the top-down regulatory
approach then dilutes what the local community wants to see
happen. So when you are standing there with your boots on,
standing next to the folks that you live with and you are
looking at a body of water that has these iconic
characteristics and you say, ``OK. So what should we do here?
What do we want to see?'' you run that back through the mill to
make sure that the science that is available to us is informing
those determinations.
And you end up with everybody sitting around the table at
the end of the day going, ``All right. That sounds like a great
path forward,'' rather than something prescriptive and remote
coming down from somewhere else.
And I think that for us that has been the added value of
having the local government, the State government, and the
local communities involved.
Mr. Webster. Do you think they have pulled their weight?
Mr. Ford. I am sorry. One more time, sir.
Mr. Webster. Do you think they have pulled their weight?
Mr. Ford. Do they pull their weight? They certainly do pull
their weight in my area, and I can think of numerous examples
from stories and communications amongst the other programs that
I work with.
Certainly some regions are able to lead more capably than
others, but I have not found anybody that has got a local
government that is disinterested in having these types of
benefits manifest.
Mr. Webster. Anyone else on that issue?
Ms. Blackmore. Yes, if I could add, in Puget Sound, there
are a couple of watersheds in King County near Seattle where
the local governments have banded together and signed an MOA,
memorandum of agreement, where they are all contributing funds
to fund six staff to create a local plan, and then each of
those local governments implement it through their land use
decisions, through their wastewater treatment decisions.
Local government is where the rubber hits the road. So we
cannot do this without them.
Mr. Webster. Do you think they should do more?
Ms. Blackmore. Can they do more? You know, I have
tremendous respect for my local government partners. They are
sitting in front of folks, their constituents, listening,
trying to balance mental health issues, homelessness, public
safety with the environment.
I think they are doing a tremendous job. Can we all do
more? Yes, and I hope we will.
Mr. Pine. And in San Francisco Bay, we are very proud of
our Measure AA, nine-county parcel tax. It was really a
historic measure, first time in the history of the bay area
where all nine counties came together around one funding
measure to raise the $25 million a year, really the first
climate adaptation measure locally passed, I think, in the
country.
Mr. Webster. So you think they can do more or they have
done enough?
Mr. Pine. The State of California has been investing
significantly in our work, and again complemented with local
money, a lot is being invested at that level.
Mr. Webster. So do you just think we could just block grant
our money and send it to you or the others?
Mr. Pine. I am sorry. I did not hear your question.
Mr. Webster. Do you think we should block grant our money
and just send it to you or to the locals or through the State?
Mr. Pine. I think the benefit of the Federal program, of
course, is having a guaranteed stream of funding, which allows
the longer term planning process.
You know, we compete for funding through the Army Corps,
but again, our only guaranteed funding today is the $5 million
from the EPA. So compared to the other watersheds, it is very
modestly funded, and that ongoing Federal funding can, again,
really help the planning effort.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
Mrs. Craig, your turn.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I am proud to hail from Minnesota where we take our more
than 10,000 lakes very, very seriously. In fact, we have got
11,842 lakes that are more than 10 acres in size.
And, Mr. Cole, you know why I am bringing this up here
today. We recently got a little controversy in Minnesota where
Wisconsin claimed to have more lakes than Minnesota. So I enjoy
your cute, little ponds in Wisconsin.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Craig. So thank you.
Although my district is quite a way from Lake Superior, I
am proud of the work that has been done to restore Minnesota's
ecosystems and grow economies along its waterfronts.
In your testimony, Mr. Cole, you mentioned the very
positive results of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in
both your written and oral testimony.
You also voiced successes across the larger region. The
GLRI represents substantial American investment and elbow
grease to get our iconic Great Lakes back to pristine
condition.
Can you share some key lessons or take-aways about this
important initiative that is brought to light?
Mr. Cole. Thank you for that question.
Fifteen thousand two hundred seventy-one cute, little lakes
in the State of Wisconsin. Thank you for that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. Key take-aways is as the regulator in the State
of Wisconsin, we began to use, first of all, commonsense
regulatory frameworks to address some of the substantive issues
that impact local government, regional government, and
certainly the States.
Some of those key take-aways are to leverage that money
that you have. In recognition that most often that money
trickles down to the engineering company, the folks who dredge,
but also that the economic impact that they have in towns like
Sheboygan, who has cleaned up their estuary, certainly in
Milwaukee where they have cleaned up their estuary. It is a
robust economy now that you can walk along the boardwalk in
Milwaukee, and we no longer turn our backs on these estuaries.
The local governments have skin in the game from the
standpoint they want to be just like the Chesapeake Bay and
some of these other places that we have talked about because
they have been successful. They want their piece of the
American dream through cleaning up properties and toxic hot
spots that still reside in many of these towns.
They are driven by environmental protection, but they know
they have to put their people to work. So the jobs associated
with this kind of thing and what we are doing, what the GLRI
does is certainly recognized, and the continuation of talking
about local level jobs, and that question has been talked about
today, jobs, jobs, jobs, and the economy around doing this
work.
Once we reconcile a commonsense regulatory framework, we
roll our sleeves up, and then we just get to work. We do not
overthink it. We get to work.
My responsibility is to remove some of the barriers out of
their way and make sure that we can have a collaborative
effort.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Cole. I like to hear a
little Midwest common sense. Roll up your sleeves and get to
work.
The financial benefits of the restoration and where you
think we can expand those benefits even further if the program
is expanded, anything beyond the jobs?
Mr. Cole. Many of us at this table are not done. We have a
lot more work to do. It is, as you heard in my testimony, a
significant downpayment on reconciling, you know, where we
still have toxic hot spots. There are still folks in the State
of Wisconsin that still have to worry about turning on their
water and getting fresh drinking water.
We have talked about this being the year of clean, fresh
drinking water. You cannot overthink the health implications.
Our Governor recognizes the health implications of clean, fresh
drinking water.
And so we have to go that fresh--we have to take our fresh
coasts and make sure that they continue to provide the safe,
fresh drinking water that we all deserve.
And that, again, we are able to leverage what we do in
these toxic hot spots that flow through the rivers into the
Great Lakes that we're all subject to human harm if we do not
get ahead of it.
So we are not done. We still have a lot more work to do,
and that is where that additional funding, that continued
funding will help us. We are just not done.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much.
Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mrs. Craig.
And now we recognize Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. I wanted to focus on the east coast a little
bit. So, Mr. Baker, that focuses on you.
I was watching your poker face as the chairman was giving
his opening remarks. Here you are with 37 years of leadership
with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and I believe the
chairman's comment was that Chesapeake has made scant progress
here.
I prefer Mr. Ford's comment that the Chesapeake Bay Program
is a model program that we can learn from, and I appreciated
the inclusion in your handout about where we have been from
1982 to 2018.
That is my frustration as a Southeastern Republican. I do
not think anybody plays outside more than I do. I do not think
anybody wants natural resources preserved more than I do, but
there is this constant drum beat of you are never doing enough.
And, yes, we can always do more, to Mr. Webster's point,
but we need to celebrate our successes when we have them
because I know if I am living in a community that is just
failure after failure after failure, I am thinking, ``What is
the point? What is the point of doing more?''
Tell me about that from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
perspective. You led in your comments talking about the
importance. You led with the seafood industry.
Now, I have a lot of constituents back home in Metro
Atlanta who do not know anything about the seafood industry,
except how good it is to eat, who might assume that because you
are leading in the environmental preservation and improvement
side, that you might be at odds with the watermen and the
seafood industry.
Can you talk to me about that, that partnership, how we
really are all in this together?
Mr. Baker. You put a lot on the table, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall. You have 3\1/2\ minutes, Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. First of all, I could not agree with you more
that people cannot take bad news after bad news after bad news,
and when you see progress, you have got to identify it.
We in the Chesapeake Bay have had progress. That does not
mean we are done, obviously. But you know, when you go back 42
years, what I saw in the bay when I started as an intern at the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation was a system that was, in fact,
dying. It is no longer dying.
The resilience which has built up in the system makes the
scientists believe that even with the hit we took last year
with all of that rainfall, it may not be anywhere nearly as bad
as it could have been.
I will give you one example. There is an enormous area of
underwater grasses up near the mouth of the Susquehanna River
at the top of the Chesapeake tidal bay. That underwater grass
bed, even with last year's amount of rain and sediment coming
down the Susquehanna River, still had almost crystal clear
water in the middle of the grass bed. Around the edges it was
terribly murky, opaque, but in the grass bed which survived, it
still was very clear.
The blue crab population, Chesapeake Bay has been called a
crab factory by H.L. Mencken, an immense protein factory;
starting to come back to levels that could be seen as
sustainable.
Oysters, which are called the coral reefs of an estuary,
are being restored, and they are being restored using science
as the basis for where it goes, where they should be rebuilt.
Now, to the commercial fisherman and those who are working
on restoration, of course, there is some tension. One example
is putting oyster reefs into sanctuary status to let them build
back up. The watermen, the commercial fishermen would like to
get in there and harvest them.
We understand that, but in the long run, we both see eye to
eye. It is sustainability of fisheries. It is good for the
economy, good for the community, and good for the environment.
Mr. Woodall. Let's talk about that oysterman issue. Yes, if
I am counting on the water to feed my family, I would like to
be in there every day. I know seasons are going to get longer
and shorter, but as a nonbiologist, I would have said
rotational harvesting has ecological value.
And so now we start to get on the same page, a waterman
family and a sanctuary family. Is that the experience the bay
is finding?
Mr. Baker. Yes, it is. It is being practiced on the
Chesapeake Bay just like rotational grazing for cattle.
Mr. Woodall. And when we look at those supporters of the
bay, because folks talked about funding streams, and I
appreciated the comment, Mr. Pine, that you thought Federal
funding streams were reliable. That encouraged me because I do
not hear that all the time back home.
Who is supporting the Chesapeake Bay Foundation?
Am I a property owner with marsh grass in my front yard?
Do I live in the West Virginia mountains and I just want to
find a place to vacation?
Am I a waterman family who is depending on the next six
generations of crab harvests to keep the family alive?
Mr. Baker. All of the above. Ninety percent of our funding,
and we are at about a $25 million organization, is from private
citizens and foundations.
We have members in every State in the Union. We have
275,000 members across the country, most in the mid-Atlantic
region. So it is from young people to older people and
everything in between, all walks of life.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much for coming this morning.
I think that the most important issue we have facing our
Nation is clean water, and I happen to disagree with
Congressman Carbajal who left already, but I think I represent
the most beautiful district in the country. I have the
beautiful Everglades National Park as part of my district.
And as you know, the Everglades provides clean drinking
water for about one-third of Floridians, and we depend on a
healthy Everglades. It is necessary for tourism, for our
economy, for the fishing industry, for the livelihood of the
families that live in that southern area.
And the water that we receive to the Everglades flows east,
west and south, from Lake Okeechobee, and as you can imagine,
the quality of the lake, and I am sure you have all heard, is
in such terrible shape that it is filled with phosphorus,
nitrogen, other toxins from runoff.
Then add those hotter summers that we are seeing, and it is
the perfect recipe for cyanobacteria, which leads to disgusting
and dangerous algal blooms.
And I just want to remind what we went through to everyone.
Last summer, this is what we saw in the coast of Florida, and
as a result, we saw thousands of tons of dead fish wash ashore.
We have lost dolphins. We have lost manatees.
It is a situation that we cannot continue to live through,
and we must find a solution as quickly as possible.
So my first question, Mr. Baker, I wanted to see and ask
you if reducing the pollution in the water that is already in
the bay, if you have found any solutions on dealing with the
water that is polluted right now in the bay and if you can
elaborate on that a little bit.
Mr. Baker. Nature is remarkably resilient. If you meet her
halfway, she will be resilient. So our emphasis and that of the
scientists working in the Chesapeake Bay region is to slow the
amount of pollution coming in.
And for just about every aspect of society, that is saving
money because polluting is very expensive. The major vector for
pollution from agricultural areas, for instance, is topsoil.
And if you keep topsoil on the farm, you are doing better
agronomically.
So while there is some emphasis in certain hot spots for
dredging and things like that, the cost of that would be so
vast that really the emphasis has been on reducing future
pollution, more pollution. And what we are seeing is that
nature is bouncing back.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And what lessons have you learned from
balancing local and Federal authorities on dealing with the
pollution in the bay?
Mr. Baker. Well, you know, it takes a family. So it really
requires local, State, and Federal Governments to work together
with the scientific community. Without that, you are going to
miss an important ingredient.
So it is critical you have all three.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And do you think it is appropriate
then to give the EPA full regulatory authority?
Mr. Baker. Well, the States have a lot of regulatory
authority, and EPA is the umbrella over them.
What I mentioned in my oral testimony is that science says
the Chesapeake Bay and other bodies like we are seeing must be
treated as a single system. The State of Maryland cannot do
anything in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania cannot do anything in
New York.
The Federal Government is the one jurisdiction which can
view and manage the Chesapeake Bay system the way science tells
us we must.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Secretary Cole, can you describe in more detail what
actions you have taken?
What agreements have you reached with regulators and
farmers to achieve the significant reduction in the Great
Lakes, which have caused the harmful algal blooms?
Mr. Cole. Farmer-led initiatives is the key framework
whether we are in the Green Bay area, where NEW Water, the
sewage treatment plant, works with local farmers to create
these grassy waste ways, takes some of that property out of
tillage, and then harvests the phosphorus on the backend and
resell the phosphorus pellets.
So farmers, as an FFA kid, farmers are often to blame for
algal bloom, and a lot of it is whether it is nitrogen that
they are putting on for cornfields or a complex mixture of, you
know, chemicals and ingredients. It is the timing of all of
this where they are in the soil protection business. Without
the soil, without good quality soil, farmers will not be able
to bring their products to market.
These generations of farmers that we have entrusted this
with in the State of Wisconsin recognize the sheer fact that
they cannot do what they used to do; that these cover crops in
the winter to reduce the soil erosion and the perfect
application of the right types of nutrients at the right time
is critical to the watershed.
So they have become champions in terms of, at least in my
eyes, in the sheer recognition that they have skin in the game
if they want to stay in that business.
We celebrated earlier this week the Cuyahoga River being
caught on fire 50 years ago. We have come a long way, baby. Was
that not an ad back in the day? We have come a long way, and we
have.
But the sheer recognition with the farming community in the
State of Wisconsin is awesome, and that is what we have learned
over time.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much.
Mr. Huffman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Babin for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate all of the witnesses being here. Thank you for
your expertise.
This will be to the whole panel, and if you could keep your
answers short, I would appreciate it.
I have the distinct pleasure of representing southeast
Texas, from Houston to Louisiana, including the estuarine
waters of Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake. This is where I have
lived my entire life, born and raised down there.
I remember well when excessive pollutants were deterrents
from enjoying many of the great outdoor advantages that are
home to southeast Texas, but over the years we have made great
strides in restoring our land and water in the area and
allowing so many, including my own children and grandchildren,
to enjoy the fishing and hunting and hiking and boating
available to us there.
Making these sorts of outdoor activities possible are the
National Estuary Programs, such as the Galveston Bay Estuary
Program. As a matter of fact, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program
is headquartered in my district in Clear Lake.
But some of the many other projects that I am proud to have
in my district include Armand Bayou, Marsh Mania, Garden Marsh
Conservation Project, Turtle Bayou, Shipe Woods Habitat
Protection, and Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge.
These projects have been collaborative and
nonoverregulative successes. They have continued to showcase
the environmental beauty of southeast Texas. With that being
said, no Government-run program is perfect. At least I have not
found one yet.
How can we improve upon the National Estuary Program?
We will start down here. Mr. Cole?
Mr. Cole. Well, again, the short answer is collaborate,
collaborate, collaborate. Leverage the money at the local,
State and Federal levels. Partners in the room; shared
recognition of, continued recognition of that we are not done.
There is a lot more work to do.
Again, the leveraging part of using Federal dollars and key
partners in this, that shared vision moving forward has worked
in Wisconsin for a long time.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pine?
Mr. Pine. I would agree that the collaboration is critical,
and the investment of those Federal dollars will be leveraged
tremendously. So particularly in the bay area those dollars are
very much in need.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
Ms. Blackmore.
Ms. Blackmore. I agree with my colleagues, and also I would
add I believe the current House appropriations bill includes an
increase in funding for each of the National Estuary Programs,
which would be very, very welcome, as well as the creation of a
competitive grant program.
So those of us with projects that we are really excited
about can apply for that, and you can direct funding to the
places that it is most needed.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Baker. All of my mother's side of the family are from
Houston, and I helped get the Galveston Bay Foundation started.
They are doing great work.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. Thanks to her.
Mr. Baker. Thank you for your support.
My simple answer is science. Make sure science is at the
table. Sometimes scientists will disagree. Bring them together.
Tell them to hash it out and give the best recommendation they
can come up with.
Dr. Babin. That is good.
I would like to also add that I used to work for the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department between college years. I was a
wildlife technician and worked in inland and marine fisheries,
both.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Trail. The Lake Pontchartrain region is actually not
part of the National Estuary Program, although we do function
very similarly to one.
So we partner with not only the State government, but also
local government, and it is just important that we collaborate,
as my colleagues have mentioned.
And I would also like to reiterate what Mr. Baker mentioned
about science. Our organization is grounded in science, and
integrity in science is everything we do.
Dr. Babin. Great. Thank you.
Yes, sir, Mr. Ford.
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir. I think the additional aspect that
really comes to my mind is the effectiveness of communication,
and I think Mr. Woodall brought that up, that, you know, hey,
yeah, sounds like things are great. Well, they are not that
great.
Well, how do I evaluate that? I work with people where some
algae is good and other algae is bad or too much algae or the
algae in the wrong place.
So our ability to effectively communicate and manage these
partnerships collaboratively, make sure that science is nested
in that communication is a key element in our success, and it
is one of those places where I think we could all do some more
work.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
And I do not have much time left, but just talking about
the money, the science, the partnerships, moving forward, do
you believe that we can create and incentivize more public-
private partnerships that will allow us to be responsible
stewards of this land and the taxpayers' dollar?
And why should someone, say, from Iowa be footing the bill
for land and water conservation in Texas?
Would somebody like to take a stab at that before our time
runs out, which it already has, but does somebody want to take
a stab at that?
Mr. Baker. Sure.
Dr. Babin. Go ahead, Mr. Baker.
Mr. Huffman. A quick stab.
Mr. Baker. The answer is yes. But ask the folks in Iowa did
they like the seafood that comes out of the Galveston Bay.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. All right. The chair, I now recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
And I want to thank this excellent panel. It is great to
hear witnesses from some of the great estuaries around our
country and the communities that depend on them.
We know and we are being reminded today that estuaries
provide a wide range of ecosystems services. Those of us in the
San Francisco Bay area--welcome, Supervisor--we get that. We
take great pride in our outdoor recreation, our commercial and
recreational fishing, as well as the benefits of coastal
resiliency that our wetlands provide buffers against rising sea
levels.
And let's not forget also the role of blue carbon, the
potential for healthy wetlands to help sequester the carbon
emissions that are imperiling our planet. So lots to consider
here.
Supervisor Pine, thanks especially to you for coming out
and helping talk about the importance of San Francisco Bay as
an estuary that is truly of national importance. In your
testimony you discussed the important role that our bay
provides to waterfowl in the Pacific flyway; of course, our
iconic California salmonid species, and Dungeness crab.
Species like salmon are not just iconic for California
though, and we need to remind people that. They are truly west
coast-wide, and I appreciate the testimony of Ms. Blackmore
reminding us about the importance that salmon provide to the
declining orca population. And so there are many reasons to
work together to protect these resources.
Californians, I think, definitely recognize the importance
of San Francisco Bay, and that is why in 2016, the nine bay
area counties came together, actually taxed themselves, passed
Measure AA, to support climate adaptation and restoration
funding.
And Supervisor Pine, I wanted to ask you to just speak a
little more about that. I think it is important that Members of
Congress know that the Federal support that this estuary
provides a place like San Francisco Bay is matched many times
over with really unique and important local support. Could you
speak to that, please?
Mr. Pine. I would be happy to. The Measure AA process
really started with the creation of what is called the San
Francisco Bay Restoration Authority in 2008, and this is a
special district encompassing all the bay. And we were
chartered with the task of finding a local funding mechanism to
accelerate the bay restoration.
So between 2008 and 2016, we looked at a variety of
approaches and waited for the economy to improve, and then went
forward across all nine counties with a $12 parcel tax for
every parcel in the bay area.
And the effort had a remarkable coalition behind it, with
strong backing from the business community, who of course
recognized the flood protection elements of restoration; strong
backing from labor; strong backing from the environmental
community.
And when we polled, we found that our residents care deeply
about the bay and its ecosystem and want to be sure it is
passed on to the next generation in a better place than it is
today. So a 70-percent positive vote was the remarkable
outcome, and we have had two rounds of grant funding through
Measure AA that have kicked off or helped supplement 13
different projects, and is really a linchpin of our restoration
efforts now.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. Seventy percent support is remarkable. I
mean, just the fact that these counties all did come together
to tax themselves is impressive, but that level of support
really speaks to the imperative that the people of the bay area
see to protect the bay.
Now, obviously we have done some harmful things to the San
Francisco Bay Estuary over the years, going all the way back to
the Gold Rush but certainly including the dam-building period
of the previous century, and the loss of sediments. I know one
of the imperatives that weigh on the mind of voters was the
fact--projections--that we may be only a decade away from
losing many of the salt marshes and mudflats that make up the
bay.
Can you speak to that and how that played into the minds of
voters?
Mr. Pine. Yes. That is a big concern because with sea level
rise accelerating, we do run the risk of losing the
opportunities to do this restoration. The last thing we want, I
want, for the San Francisco Bay is just to surround it by
infrastructure and flood walls. Former saltponds, which of
course were a very industrial use, were really kind of a
blessing in disguise because the land is at least there to be
restored. But if we don't act, those lands will be flooded.
Mr. Huffman. Thanks, Supervisor. In my final few seconds, I
want to just say how proud I am to be a cosponsor of
Congresswoman Jackie Speier's bill. You mentioned it earlier,
H.R. 1132, establishing authorization of $25 million a year
annually for EPA grants to bay conservation and restoration. I
hope that is something that we can work on together in this
Congress.
And with that, I will yield. And Mr. Garamendi for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Acting Chair.
I want to just really commend all of you for the work you
do. It is extremely important. Back in the 1990s, when I was at
the Department of the Interior, where we started working on the
Everglades program--not there yet; working on the Chesapeake
program--not there yet; San Francisco Bay, and on and on. The
NEP is extremely important.
The support of the Federal Government is critical here.
Much of this started with the Clean Water Act, foundational.
And some States were ahead of it; other States followed along
after the Clean Water Act went in place, providing the
foundational law for cleaning up our estuaries and our rivers.
And we have got more to do.
I notice that this particular NEP expires in 2021. I would
hope that we have a reauthorization effort this year so that by
the end of 2020, we are ready to go. And I suspect all of you
support that; you can nod your heads yes. I noticed you all
nodding. There is more to do.
The role of the Federal Government here is critically
important. It provides the foundation. It also provides support
in many, many different ways--not just with the small amount of
funding in the estuary program, but with all of the other
programs.
I think it was--I forget which one of you--were talking
about the length of time that it takes. Mr. Ford, I believe you
were the one. You talked about the length of time it takes to
get a project underway. And you want to claim credit for that
comment, Mr. Pine; that is fine.
But it does take forever. And the coordination between the
various agencies is really something we need to work on here
and to pull that together. I would really appreciate your
specific suggestions on how that might be done.
So let's run quickly through, right to left, my right to
your left. That would be you, Mr. Ford, first. Thank you for
the work you have done on Santa Monica Bay.
Mr. Ford. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. I have been involved in that for more than
40 years myself, so let's go.
Mr. Ford. Right.
Mr. Garamendi. How do we coordinate? What do we need to do?
Mr. Ford. Yes. I think what we are able to provide now, and
arguably with continued support we would be able to continue to
provide it and increase it, which is simply that we get folks
working to get on the ground early so that when these projects
manifest, sir, they are not a surprise.
I have certainly heard from various leadership in the State
of California or here in the District of trying to figure out
how to help streamline and fast-track some of these programs
that have these environmental benefits because we need them and
we need them now. So I think there is plenty of opportunity to
explore it.
Mr. Garamendi. Early on. Get together early.
Ms. Trail. Thank you for this great question. I think we
have a lot of great work that goes on, and it is continuous. As
I have mentioned, we have been around for 30 years. And a lot
of the decisions that we make are driven by the data that we
have collected continuously for 30 years. And so it is really
important for us to maintain that continuous data set to drive
smart decisions.
So to keep this program going and to ensure that that
funding continues on a regular basis would really help us to
continue that science-driven work.
Mr. Baker. On the Chesapeake, there is something called the
Executive Council, which meets annually--the Governors of all
six States, the mayor of the District of Columbia, and the
Federal lead agency, EPA, bringing the leadership together to
discuss and decide and plan how to move forward new projects. I
think it has been critical for us, and I would suggest it is a
good model.
Ms. Blackmore. The National Estuary Program requires us to
pull together the Federal Government, the State government,
local government, Tribes, the agricultural community, the
environmental community, business community. We do that now in
all 28----
Mr. Garamendi. You are doing--excuse me. I am going to
interrupt. We are almost out of time here.
Ms. Blackmore. Oh, sorry.
Mr. Garamendi. You are doing it. Do we need to go into the
various Federal agencies that are involved--Corps of Engineers,
EPA, so forth--and require them to coordinate with the local
agencies?
Ms. Blackmore. It is a great question, and actually, in
Puget Sound, so Congressmen Heck and Kilmer, have introduced
H.R. 2247, the PUGET SOS Act, which would require the creation
of a Federal task force in the program office at EPA. And that
would help coordinate, bring them together, hold them
accountable, require all the Federal agencies to work together
to create their own action plan, working with us.
Mr. Pine. Congressman Garamendi, in the bay area, we have
taken this challenge on in earnest in creating what we've
called the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team, where
we are requiring and helping to fund, the regulators to look at
our applications in a more comprehensive and collaborative way.
And we have put in place timelines----
Mr. Garamendi. I am going to have to interrupt. I am out of
time. Excuse me for interrupting. The question is really one
directed to the Federal Government and to a Federal law or
requirement that the Federal agencies must coordinate and come
together early on in an issue, whatever that issue might be.
And I would like to hear from all of you with a little memo
following up on that. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
I believe we will go into a brief second round of
questions, if you do not mind. And I guess I will start off
with all of you.
If Congress does not reauthorize the NEP and increase
funding for the programs, will our coasts suffer, and will you
enjoy economic growth? Will you be able to restore those areas?
From any of you.
Mr. Baker. The Chesapeake Bay is not part of the National
Estuary Program. It was really the model that the NEP was
formed, based on. But I would like to take the opportunity to
thank Congresswoman Elaine Luria for introducing legislation to
restore the authorization for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
And I might also just mention one notion. Estuaries are the
first line of defense for the impacts of climate change on
coastal areas.
Mrs. Napolitano. But they do not believe in climate change.
Mr. Baker. Just if you are concerned about increased
storms, sea level rise, warmer water, estuaries are the first
line of defense, call it whatever. Estuaries are too important
not to protect for the benefit of people living in coastal
areas. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Ford?
Mr. Ford. If I may, and Will said it earlier, the glue is
much of what a lot of this funding provides. And I have no
doubt that our estuaries of national significance amongst those
28 programs that are out there working day in and day out, if
this funding were to go away, they would be greatly diminished
and the services that they provide would also be greatly
diminished.
Mr. Cole. We think we have a model program in Wisconsin,
and we get to go back and tell the Wisconsinites that we have a
partnership with Federal Government. They care about clean
drinking water. They know that adaptation is important for
climate change, that they recognize that people in Wisconsin
often have challenges turning on their drinking water to get
clean drinking water.
Economic development aside, the human health implications
about what we are doing with this funding is part and parcel to
saving babies' lives, saving communities, and reducing the
harm. So our commercial, where Governor Evers and I said,
``Congress gets it.'' Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
There is a problem sometimes, and I have heard that topsoil
has been part of the contamination problem. Is there a problem
with the farmers or the agricultural industry not participating
or being slow in participating in cleanup?
Mr. Cole. I have certainly gone on record to say that
farmers in the State of Wisconsin are part of the heavy lift in
changing their own practices to preserve the soil that is
already there, beginning to use cover crops and using different
management practices to reduce harm in our estuaries.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good.
Ms. Blackmore. In Puget Sound, we're working on a really
interesting initiative called Flood Plains by Design, where we
work with the farm community, the flood community, and the
salmon habitat community to come up with projects that actually
benefit all three. So we are reducing flood risk, improving
salmon habitat, and maintaining sustainable working lands at
the same time. So farmers have definitely been part of the
solution.
Mr. Pine. In the bay area, farming is not really the issue,
but storm runoff is a significant concern. So we are investing
in considerable green infrastructure to retain and allow waters
to go back into the ground before they reach the bay to reduce
the pollutants.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Ms. Trail. In south Louisiana in the Pontchartrain Basin,
we are the recipient of the waters from 41 percent of the
United States. And a lot of that is America's heartland and the
farming country. And we cannot achieve any successes without
the cooperation of farmers.
We have seen great successes. It has come a long way over
the past several years, and especially in south Louisiana. We
have a great working relationship with the farmers in south
Louisiana. We have a lot of dairy farms in our basin, and we
have not been able to achieve those successes without their
cooperation. So we really appreciate their support.
Mrs. Napolitano. Great. Anybody else?
Mr. Baker. Farmers put a lot of their own money into
conservation. But they need technical assistance and they need
cost-share dollars----
Mrs. Napolitano. Are they getting it?
Mr. Baker [continuing]. And they are getting much of it
through the Federal farm bill, the conservation article.
Critically important for Congress to continue that conservation
funding in the farm bill. So farmers want to do the right
thing. They, like municipalities and even corporations, need
some help in getting the job done.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to be
brief here.
I talked in the last set of questions about how I am an
engineer, but I am also a forester, maybe the more gentle side
of me. But I think we face a lot of similar issues across the
spectrum in managing our natural resources. It has often been
said that forests are the lungs of the Earth, but a lot of
people do not realize they are also kind of the kidneys of the
Earth. They do a lot to clean water and protect estuaries and
waterways.
Most of our drinking water in this country comes from a
forest. And I get frustrated sometimes working on the forestry
side of it, on how do we streamline the management of our
forests so that we get cleaner air and cleaner water.
And Mr. Pine, I noticed in your testimony you felt some of
this frustration as well. You talked about: ``The time-
consuming and expensive permitting process is a significant
hurdle to accelerating the pace and scale of wetlands
restoration in San Francisco Bay.''
You talked about forming that Bay Restoration Regulatory
Integration Team to expedite permitting for wetland restoration
projects. It seems like sometimes we trip over our own feet. We
know the right thing to do, and we put obstacles in our way to
keep us from doing the right thing.
Would you like to comment on that more, about what we can
do to streamline the process? And does anybody else have issues
in their area where the permitting process sometimes gets in
the way of doing the good work that you are all trying to do?
Mr. Pine. Yes. We are just kicking off this new regulatory
integration effort and have high hopes for it. It has been
discouraging because when we are working on this restoration
work and we are doing projects for the benefit of the
environment, and then to see the process sometimes takes 3
years, is definitely concerning.
And each of the agencies has important missions and
important goals. But the lack of coordination and the lack of
early involvement in some of the applications has led to these
delays. And we are hopeful that this will be a model that other
areas in the country can look to.
Now, we are actually providing funding for this staff so
that they will be dedicated to these projects, and they will
follow certain rules and procedures that have been agreed to.
So it is not without an incremental cost. But we think that
cost is warranted given that the delays that have been caused
are causing us to fall behind and causing our projects to cost
more.
Ms. Blackmore. In Puget Sound, the Federal agencies are
working together to streamline permitting for shoreline
restoration projects, particularly for shoreline property
owners, landowners, who have a seawall or a bulkhead. And we
want them to take those out and replace it with green shoreline
infrastructure.
But the permitting process is incredibly expensive and
time-consuming and discouraging for them. So the EPA, NOAA, and
the Corps are working together on that right now in Puget
Sound.
Mr. Ford. And I would submit that, again, the local, State,
Federal angles on this--and Mr. Garamendi can speak to this
from his leadership when he was in Sacramento--that the State
of California's response to much of this was the formation of
the Ocean Protection Council, bringing together some of the
lead agencies within the State so that they were in harmony on
their priorities to make these processes move through the
systems much faster so that elements like that, in conjunction
with what I just heard from Laura, are heartening. And I think
that they are a very good roadmap forward.
Mr. Cole. Time is money, whether it is regulatory
permitting for wetlands. We have statutory timelines to meet.
It is open and it is clear. We have dual authority with the
U.S. Corps in the permitting process so it is one-stop
shopping. In the State of Wisconsin, when you are trying to get
projects done, it is open. It is clear. And if we do not meet
those timelines, then we are held accountable.
There can be hiccups, but that's when we again all roll up
our sleeves to see whether problems exist. And quite often, it
is just the early stages of not having enough information to
fulfill the permit. So we will not start the clock until they
have everything ready for us.
Mr. Westerman. And I am glad that it is not just the
forestry world that suffers in the regulatory burden sometimes.
I know there are parts of environmental work and restoration
where the well-intended guidelines often become an impediment
to doing good work.
I hope we can learn lessons from that as we work on policy
to come up with policy that actually allows good things to
happen on the ground and does not delay it, costing time, does
not become a hurdle within itself.
You have to be quick.
Mr. Cole. As a Missouri-trained forester, the State of
Wisconsin performs the timber sales on behalf of the
Chequamegon and the Nicolet to get past the burdensome
bureaucracy associated with timber sales in the State of
Wisconsin. So the mills are humming in the State of Wisconsin.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair, for granting
me a few more moments here since I truly believe this is one of
the most important issues facing our country.
I wanted to ask Mr. Baker, you had mentioned in your
testimony that the health of the Chesapeake Bay saw a setback
in 2018 due to the extraordinary rains and the associated
polluted runoff that contaminated the bay. We saw the same
thing in Lake Okeechobee after Hurricane Irma.
But it seems that 2019 is in many ways following that same
pattern that we saw in 2018 in precipitation. So how can we
continue to make the bay more resilient to the changes in
climate and extreme weather events that seem to be happening
with more regularity, and yet continue to make progress in
improving the overall health of the bay and other areas like
Lake Okeechobee as well?
Mr. Baker. We do not give up, is the simple answer. And I
do not mean to be glib, but that is it. We are nowhere near the
end. We have to keep working.
One interesting thing, in this region about 2018 we had
double the amount of rain, but in significantly less number of
storms. Do the math. That means the storms were far more
intense. Nature abhors extremes. That was adding to the impact
as well.
We are seeing a lot of rain this year, but it is not coming
in quite the same intensity. So I like to keep my fingers
crossed. And I am an optimist by heart.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Good. Me, too. That is why I am here.
If not--and one last question. You mentioned the role of
wetlands in protecting our communities from climate change. But
as you know, wetlands are also threatened by sea level rise,
and we have seen that in south Florida.
What role can the Federal Government play in protecting and
restoring our wetlands through programs like the Chesapeake Bay
Program or other regulatory efforts?
Mr. Baker. I think the chairwoman talked about blue carbon.
Wetlands are incredibly important, for any number of reasons.
We have got a lot of areas to develop, and we just have got to
stop destroying wetlands. The concept of mitigating destruction
two to one, three to one, with manmade wetlands, human-made
wetlands, just does not work anywhere near as well as the
original wetland.
The only other last thought is that wetlands with sea level
rise can be destroyed. They need room to migrate inland. That
has happened throughout the millennia, but very slowly. Now it
is happening much more quickly, and that is a critical need, to
allow wetlands to migrate inland as the seas rise.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much. I yield back my
time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to continue on what I was talking about earlier, and
that has to do with the way in which we regulate or don't at
the Federal level, the need to pull together the various
Federal agencies so that they are all working together early on
in the process.
Just for a heads up, the U.S. military has a lot of bases
around. They are required by law to reach out to the Native
American communities, which they usually do at the end of
process, which then creates lawsuits and other kinds of delays.
So I am looking at ways in which we can have the Federal
Government engage earlier in a coordinated way. I ran out of
time last time, so if you could come back with your best ideas
about how that could be done across the board--Army Corps of
Engineers, military, EPA, and the like.
Also, one of you early on in your testimony indicated the
length of time it takes to process any application.
Unfortunately, right now it is a 5-year period of time that an
applicant, once approved, stands. We are looking at extending
that to a 10-year period of time. So if you are able to obtain
a permit, that permit is good for 10 years, considering that it
takes 5 years just to get started on the next project.
So we are looking at that. I draw that to the attention of
the committee and for your review of it--and if you like it let
us know; we hope to move that. We would hope that we could
authorize, reauthorize, the NEP this year, at least no later
than next year, so that when 2021 arrives, we are good to go
and more money.
So just a couple of questions for you that you might
respond to. How could we better coordinate? I think I ended--I
cut you off. Whose sound got cut off in the middle that we
never got to San Francisco or beyond.
Ms. Blackmore. Sure. So H.R. 2247, introduced by
Congressmen Heck and Kilmer, includes an idea I think aimed at
exactly what you are saying, sir. It would require the creation
of a Federal task force that includes the military as well as
EPA, NOAA, the Corps, the usual suspects.
It requires them to come together, create an action plan
working with us, the State, and with our Tribes early in the
process to identify actions that the Federal Government will
undertake. And it also requires regular reporting on their
progress and outcomes. So I am very excited about that
possibility.
Mr. Garamendi. I think that was done early on in the
Everglades, like in the 1990s, that task force.
Ms. Blackmore. Oh, really? OK. Yes.
Mr. Garamendi. That would apply across the Nation, or just
for----
Ms. Blackmore. This bill just applies to Puget Sound. But I
could imagine it having benefit across the Nation.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, it's back to San Francisco.
Mr. Pine. Yes. So I have had the opportunity to talk about
our regulatory integration team. And just to make one further
point there, what we of course often see is that regulators
have timelines, but those timelines commence when the
application is deemed ``complete.'' And often that's where the
delay occurs, with back and forth until that completion is
deemed ready.
So in our new efforts, we are hoping that the regulators
will work to make sure the application is complete to get those
clocks running, and we are putting timelines in place that
measure performance from the submission of the application, not
necessarily from the date of completion. So that is an area
where we want to see improvement.
Mr. Cole. As I had mentioned earlier, we have some dual
responsibilities as it relates to permitting. The State of
Wisconsin and the U.S. Corps of Engineers have a dual
permitting process so it is one-stop shopping. When you put
your permit in, we act as the agent and coordinate with the
U.S. Corps of Engineers, EPA.
That region is in Chicago. We hold quarterly meetings on
enforcement issues related to actions that we are taking,
actions that they are taking, where they are there in the State
in Wisconsin. And so we collaborate. I am blessed to have the
previous Secretary for the DNR being the Regional Administrator
in Chicago for the EPA. So we spend a lot of time having
conversations as well.
Mr. Garamendi. Another thing I draw attention to is the
nationwide process rather than a regional Corps of Engineers
issue here. It is really important, particularly with regard to
Native American sites. There would be a nationwide program.
That is in--that was in process. It has now been delayed. We
will see if we can move that along.
Thank you very much. I draw your attention once again to
H.R. 1764 that extends the deadline or the permit from 5 to 10
years.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Lowenthal, would you have any additional questions,
sir?
Mr. Lowenthal. I might have one.
Mr. Pine, first I want to congratulate the San Francisco
Bay Restoration Authority on its selection as 1 of the 10 pilot
projects for the beneficial use, or beneficial reuse, of dredge
materials by the U.S. Army Corps in I believe it was December
of 2018.
I understand that since the Gold Rush, San Francisco Bay
has lost over 90 percent of its wetlands due to development,
but that this pilot project is part of a larger regional effort
to restore thousands of acres of wetlands and aquatic habitat.
Can you expand on this initiative and tell us how your
region has been able to forge a multi-agency partnership to
restore these tidal wetlands? Be very----
Mr. Pine. Yes. I would be happy to. One of the big
challenges we face in restoring wetlands is finding sufficient
dirt and mud to build up former agricultural lands or former
salt production lands, which over time have subsided. So in
order to restore them, tremendous amounts of soil need to be
brought in. And the beneficial reuse of dredge materials will
be critical if we are to restore the properties that we want
to.
Historically, oftentimes those materials were brought out
under the Golden Gate and dumped in the ocean. So under this
pilot program, we are trying to change the direction towards
the reuse and restoration. One challenge we face is although we
are one of the pilots, as the other nine, the funding from the
U.S. Army Corps has not yet emerged to fund those pilots. And
that is something that needs yet to be straightened out. But we
desperately need the beneficial reuse of dredge material.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, I think it is great that you are doing
it, and I can just imagine how that can be used. Recently I
spent a weekend with Congressman Graves from Louisiana--I do
not think the congressman is here--and from southern Louisiana
on the importance also of using the sediment that comes down
from the Mississippi because they have lost thousands and
thousands of acres.
And so he showed me what was going on. So my question is:
How come is it taking so long, and what has been the Army
Corps' issue? Why are we talking about a pilot project rather
than a regular project, and what has happened in the past?
Mr. Pine. Well, the Army Corps has always taken the view
that it is less expensive and more economical to simply dump
the materials in the ocean. But that is really not correct when
you think about the project as a whole. To bring in those soils
from a land-based source is extraordinarily expensive. So it
has really been an argument with the Corps about the economics
of the reuse of dredging material.
Mr. Lowenthal. Does anyone else want to comment on this,
the reuse, beneficial reuse, and what some of the issues are?
If not----
Mr. Ford. Very quickly, sir, for us in our region, the Los
Angeles River, as you are very familiar with----
Mr. Lowenthal. Very familiar. I am on the receiving end----
Mr. Ford. Yes, you are.
Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Or lack of receiving end.
Mr. Ford. So the very good news from the Army Corps of
Engineers is that the sediment sampling in the Los Angeles-Long
Beach Harbor, due to getting rid of the pollutant loading, is
that those sediments are now approaching a point where they
could be beneficially reused.
Mr. Lowenthal. OK. That is a very----
Mr. Ford. So the obstacle that we found in the past was
that, yes, the water was polluted. The sediments were polluted.
And so there were very few options with what to do with the
sediment.
We certainly need it. We need to put it in smart places.
And at this point in time, because of all the work we have
done, we are approaching sediments that are clean enough to do
that work.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Yes?
Ms. Trail. Mr. Lowenthal, I'm with the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation in south Louisiana. So we were happy to host
you on your visit to south Louisiana to see some of the amazing
projects we have.
Mr. Lowenthal. And they are amazing.
Ms. Trail. Yes. Yes. And so we view the Mississippi River
as a tool, and we look forward to being able to use that
sediment to rebuild our wetlands. And of course we are
dependent upon that permitting process to be expedited, get
those sediment diversion projects constructed so that we can
restore our coast.
Mr. Lowenthal. I am just so glad to have this discussion
about the beneficial reuse. I think it is just critically,
critically important, and I know it has been a difficult issue
to deal with in the past. But because of all the work, both the
one I am aware of in L.A. County and cleaning up and the
permitting that has kept the dumping out and the cleaning of
our waterway, and working with the Army Corps now to begin to
figure out, how do we use this beneficial reuse? And it is a
beneficial reuse, critically important.
And with that, I thank the chair, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. It is funny that
you mention the Army Corps. I understand Brigadier General Toy
is going to be in charge of the Mississippi River. So maybe we
could schedule a meeting to be able to give him our concerns
over the dredging material and other things.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any of the questions that may be
submitted to them in writing; and unanimous consent that the
record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing. And without objection, so
ordered.
And I would like to thank all of you for being here so long
and for providing testimony to this committee. And if no other
Members have anything to add, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss regional
watershed programs and areas that are part of EPA's National Estuary
Program.
These critical areas contribute to the health of regional
ecosystems and are responsible for local and national economic
benefits, supporting commercial and recreational fisheries, wildlife,
and tourism.
Unfortunately, some of these estuaries and watersheds are in need
of restoration.
Cooperative programs like EPA's National Estuary Program and EPA's
regional watershed initiatives are important to those efforts.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and learning
about successes and challenges these estuaries and watersheds face. I
yield back.
Statement of Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Napolitano
Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman, for
convening this hearing on how to protect our historic waterways, and
for your consideration of H.R 1132, the San Francisco Bay Restoration
Act. I have introduced this legislation every Congress since the 111th
Congress in 2010, and the need for action to protect the Bay has been
increasing ever since. With climate change and rising tides threatening
to cause serious damage in the coming decades, the urgency could not be
greater. The degradation of San Francisco Bay would be an enormous loss
for the residents of the Bay Area and our Nation. San Francisco Bay is
the heart of the region, which generates more than $370 billion in
goods and services annually and is home to more than three and a half
million jobs. And, it is a natural treasure to the Nation, with a
vibrant ecosystem that is home to the largest estuary on the West
Coast.
It is so important that we provide more federal funding to protect
and restore the Bay. Not only does the Bay strongly contribute to
federal, state, and local public health and economic strength but it is
also a home to more than 100 endangered and threatened species.
Similarly, the region's tidal and seasonal wetlands are a significant
part of the coastal resources of the United States. Forty percent of
the land in the State of California drains to the estuary, so its
restoration is essential to a healthy ocean ecosystem.
Over the last 200 years, an alarming 90% of the Bay's wetlands have
been destroyed by human activity. The increase in pollution from cars,
homes and communities in the burgeoning Bay Area has flowed into the
creeks, rivers, and streams that pass into San Francisco Bay and
eventually the Pacific Ocean, further damaging the Bay and the
coastline. In August 2010, the Government Accountability Office
published a sobering report on the San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed,
finding that a lack of sufficient federal funding is one of the biggest
risks to long-term restoration. We must protect the San Francisco Bay,
and it is obvious that we cannot do so without steady and robust
federal funding.
The urgency could not be greater. Rising tides due to climate
change are threatening to irreversibly drown the Bay's wetlands unless
we take immediate action. Studies have shown that by 2030 the expected
sea level rise in San Francisco Bay will exceed the rate at which the
marshes can elevate and grow into higher ground. If we don't step in
now to accelerate the pace of Bay wetland restoration, the marshes will
drown and the Bay Area's shoreline communities will lose the crucial
flood protection that restored wetlands would provide.
Additional federal funding, as proposed in HR 1132, will create
huge benefits for Bay restoration and pollution mitigation. The funding
will buttress ongoing efforts by state and local authorities, who have
already invested significantly in the Bay. In fact, Bay Area voters
decided to tax themselves to restore their treasured wetlands, passing
Measure AA with 70 percent support in all 9 Bay Area counties in 2016
to pay for tidal marsh restoration grants through the San Francisco Bay
Restoration Authority. The Measure AA parcel tax is generating $25
million each year, and over 20 years will generate $500 million in
local funding for the Bay, but that is still less than one third of the
funding estimated to be needed to restore 36,000 acres of tidal marsh
and maintain it--mostly on federal government property in the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, the State of
California has invested more than the Federal Government to acquire
retired salt evaporation ponds and diked hayfields to add to this
federal refuge, so they can be restored to tidal marsh habitat.
The San Francisco Estuary Partnership's Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Policy (CCMP) found an enormous gap between funding
needed for a healthy Bay and what is available from current local,
state and federal funds for San Francisco Bay. Local citizens and
community organizations are striving to fill the gap left by inadequate
federal efforts. Save The Bay mobilizes 5,000 volunteers annually to
help restore the Bay's shoreline habitat and remove trash and invasive
species; San Francisco Baykeeper patrols the Bay to spot pollution from
ships and sewage treatment plants; and many neighborhood groups have
adopted creeks that flow into the Bay to try to restore them to health.
But we need more resources to support the federal agencies that are
failing to meet their current legal obligations--to manage tens of
thousands of acres of national wildlife refuges and marine sanctuaries,
to prevent pollution and preserve habitat in the Bay as required by the
Clean Water Act, and to protect fish and wildlife as required by the
Endangered Species Act.
There is additional evidence that current federal funding is
insufficient. Recent demand for grant funding from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) small San Francisco Bay Water
Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) has been more than three times what is
available in that program to restore wetlands and reduce water
pollution. Over the last 11 years, the WQIF has received $176 million
in grant requests for the $50 million available to grant--that's 350
percent more project funding requested than available over those 11
fiscal years. The WQIF lacks statutory authorization and has not grown
to meet the need for resources.
Increased funding through H.R. 1132 would also restore some balance
to our federal investment in our Nation's iconic waterways. Between
2008 and 2016, EPA geographic programs invested only 45 million dollars
into San Francisco Bay, while Puget Sound received over 260 million
dollars and Chesapeake Bay 490 million dollars--over ten times as much,
and a fraction of the ecological needs established in the CCMP. Looking
at the relative size of the populations served by these bodies of
water, a mere 6 dollars was spent on the Bay for each resident of the
San Francisco Bay Area, while almost 30 dollars were spent for each
resident living near Chesapeake Bay and almost 60 dollars spent for
each resident living near Puget Sound. And in the most recent round of
appropriations in early 2018, the SF Bay's WQIF appropriations remained
at $4,819,000, while smaller geographic programs received substantially
more, including Lake Champlain ($8,399,000) and Long Island Sound
($12,000,000). These disparities underscore how the federal government
has been under-investing in the San Francisco Bay, compared to more
substantial efforts for other waterways.
My bill, H.R. 1132, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act, would
fill the gap and provide the federal investment needed to protect the
Bay. This legislation will authorize $25 million annually for five
years to the EPA to fund projects, programs, and studies that implement
priority objectives of the CCMP. The priority objectives for the
funding would include water quality improvement, wetland and estuary
restoration, endangered species recovery, and adaption to climate
change. It will also establish a San Francisco Bay Program Office
within Region 9 of the EPA, and it will authorize the EPA Administrator
to appoint a Director of that Program Office to oversee that funding.
The bill will require that the President's annual budget submission to
Congress provide information on federal agency expenditures for the
protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay, so that we can
better monitor federal investments in the Bay.
This bill has enormous support from the local community. It is co-
sponsored by the entire California Bay Area Congressional delegation,
including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representatives Anna Eshoo, John
Garamendi, Ro Khanna, Jared Huffman, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry
McNerney, Mark DeSaulnier, Eric Swalwell, and Mike Thompson.
It is clear that we cannot save San Francisco Bay without federal
funds. We know that by 2030 the damage to the Bay will be irreversible,
and Californians and Americans nationwide will suffer as a result.
Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman, I thank you again
for convening this hearing, and I urge you to please take action to
move H.R. 1132 expeditiously through committee so that we can begin to
make the full efforts necessary to save the San Francisco Bay Estuary
for people today and in future generations.
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Hon. Elaine G. Luria, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Napolitano
June 25, 2019.
Hon. Grace Napolitano
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, 1610 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, 209 Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman,
Thank you for holding this hearing on ``Protecting and Restoring
America's Iconic Waters.'' Keeping our waterways healthy and safe must
be a top priority. I want to additionally thank you for inviting Will
Baker of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and drawing attention to the
urgent need to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of our nation's greatest natural
resources. It generates $33 billion in economic value annually and
hosts one of the most important sites for ecological diversity in North
America. Thanks to innovative partnerships across the state and federal
level, great progress has been made in preserving, protecting, and
restoring this crucial ecosystem.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1620) would
fully fund the Chesapeake Bay Program for the next five years, ensuring
that states get the resources they need to comply with their
obligations to protect the Bay. The vast majority of funding for this
Program would go directly toward states within the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed to help them control pollution and manage runoff into the
tributaries that feed into the Bay. This bipartisan bill will help
ensure that the Bay remains a vibrant and beautiful destination for
future generations.
I again thank you for holding a hearing on this crucial topic and
urge you to pass H.R. 1620 out of Committee before the end of July.
Sincerely,
Elaine G. Luria
Member of Congress
Letter of June 24, 2019, from Hon. Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of
Michigan, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Napolitano
June 24, 2019.
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Dear Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members
of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), and the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), I ask you to reauthorize the
Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
The subject of Tuesday's hearing is to protect and restore
America's iconic waters. As Governor of The Great Lakes State, I
believe there are no more iconic waters in our country than The Great
Lakes. These bodies of water hold 21 percent of the world's freshwater,
84 percent of the country's fresh surface water, and generate over one
million jobs. In addition to offering unique, pristine beauty, The
Great Lakes are among the most vital ecological and economic resources
in America.
Congress has long recognized the importance of The Great Lakes and
has taken action to protect and restore this precious resource. The
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), created by Congress in 2010,
is a key means by which the Federal Government demonstrates its
commitment to The Great Lakes. The GLRI is a multi-agency collaboration
that provides funding to 16 federal organizations to strategically
target the biggest threats to The Great Lakes ecosystem and to
accelerate progress toward achieving long term goals, including
ensuring safe sources of drinking water; providing safe water for
recreation, including the catching and consumption of fish; delisting
of federal Areas of Concern (AOCs); and protecting habitats and native
populations from harmful algal blooms and invasive species. Since 2010,
the GLRI has provided nearly $3 billion to federal organizations to
work toward these goals. Over the past nine years, one-third of the
region's most toxic hotspots have been cleaned up, sparking
redevelopment and business opportunities on waterfronts; conservation
practices on area farms have doubled, reducing harmful nutrient runoff;
and habitat and wildlife connectivity continue to improve, with nearly
5,000 miles of rivers cleared of darns and other barriers.
In Michigan, there are many demonstrable positive impacts of the
GLRI to our economy, our people, and our environment. A wide variety of
programs in Michigan's EGLE and DNR are supported by the GLRI,
including infrastructure related to The Great Lakes and the Aquatic
Invasive Species program. Local communities have received millions of
dollars of GLRI funding, enabling the creation of programs to address
AOCs that have been identified as showing severe environmental
degradation, combat invasive species that threaten tourism and the
economy, and improve conditions across parks, lakes, and riverfronts.
Among many examples of the impact of GLRI funds on Michigan
communities and the health of The Great Lakes:
Two of Michigan's fourteen Areas of Concern, White Lake
in West Michigan and Deer Lake in the Upper Peninsula, have been
cleaned up and removed from the list of Great Lakes toxic hotspots;
The GLRI funds a Michigan Grass carp response team that
is responsible for leading the implementation of control actions in
Michigan waters of Lake Erie. Grass carp, one of four invasive Asian
carp species, have the potential to disrupt The Great Lakes' ecosystems
by consuming large amounts of vegetation and reducing habitat for
native fish and wildlife. Crews are conducting work to address critical
uncertainties that are limiting the effectiveness of removal actions.
These actions will lead to more effective control strategies, with the
goal of eradicating Grass carp from The Great Lakes;
GLRI-funded restoration work in Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron is restoring historically important reef complexes to support the
recovery of native fish species, such as Lake Trout and Whitefish,
which are vitally important to our recreational and commercial
fisheries. For example, with $980,000 in GLRI funding, The Saginaw Bay
Rock Reef Restoration Project will restore approximately 2 acres of
rock reef habitat to support the bay's recreational fishery; and
In 2015 and 2016, $9 million in GLRI funding was used to
construct the Little Rapids GLRI habitat restoration project on the St.
Marys River. The project removed a causeway and replaced it with
approximately 600 feet of open-span bridge, restoring unrestricted flow
of the St. Marys River through the Little Rapids to improve fish
spawning habitat for several important game species, such as salmon,
trout, bass, perch, and smelt.
But there is much more to be done. The spread of new and existing
aquatic invasive species continues to be exacerbated by warming waters
due to climate change. Our residents' health is still at risk due to
toxic sediment in the remaining twenty-two AOCs. Harmful algal blooms
caused by runoff from farm fields threaten our water systems and
economy. Communities across The Great Lakes region face aging,
crumbling drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, while lead,
copper, and emerging contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) pose risks to the safety of our drinking water.
The Great Lakes have benefited immeasurably from the GLRI, and we
must neither slow nor halt the progress that has been made in
protecting and restoring these iconic waters. Knowing of its
importance, I respectfully ask Congress to reauthorize the GLRI for
five years at $475 million per year, the amount first appropriated in
2010. The Great Lakes region's economy, environment, and public health
all rely on this important program.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Whitmer
Governor of Michigan
Letter of June 24, 2019, from Thomas Wegner, Board Chairman, and Adam
Payne, County Administrator, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Napolitano
June 24, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chair
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Chair
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Dear Honorable Members of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee,
Due to decades of industrial pollution and its neglect, the
Sheboygan River was named a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) and
Superfund site in 1986. For over thirty years the community dealt with
the stigma associated with having one of the nation's dirtiest rivers.
What should have been promoted as an asset to our region was frankly a
black eye that was limiting investment and redevelopment in the area.
For years, the community worked tirelessly to produce a solution and
progress was painfully slow. Fortunately, thanks to tremendous teamwork
and persistence, we were finally able to begin the necessary dredging,
clean-up and habitat restoration work to begin the long process of
delisting our river from the list of AOC's. This work would not have
taken place without the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
funding.
Sheboygan County passionately encourages you to continue to fund
the program and recommends increasing the funding available as costs
have undoubtedly risen since its inception.
The GLRI invested over $50 million in cleaning up the Sheboygan
River. Without that investment, the community would still be hanging on
to hope that something might one day happen. Instead, our riverfront is
going through a renaissance. Since 2013 when the dredging and habitat
restoration work concluded, well over $60 million in redevelopment
activities have taken place directly adjacent to, or very near, the
Sheboygan River. In addition, many more development projects are in the
planning stages, and charter fishing, recreational use and tourism are
all on the rise.
Thanks to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Sheboygan
River is no longer a polluted, wretched body of water. This work is
critical for health and safety, economic development, and is simply the
right thing to do for our children and generations to come. We urge you
to continue to support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Thank
you for your consideration and leadership.
Respectfully,
Thomas Wegner
Sheboygan County Board Chairman
Adam Payne
Sheboygan County Administrator
Letter of June 21, 2019, from Darren J. Nichols, Executive Director,
Great Lakes Commission, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Napolitano
June 21, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chair
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Chair
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, and Ranking Members
Graves and Westerman:
I am writing on behalf of the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) to urge
Congress's continued investment in restoring the Great Lakes under the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
The GLC appreciates the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment convening a hearing on a topic of such importance to the
Commission and to the eight party states to the Great Lakes Basin
Compact.
The Great Lakes: A Vital Asset for the Great Lakes States
The Great Lakes are a vital environmental and economic asset for
the United States and Canada, and for the eight states and two
provinces of the Great Lakes Basin. With 90 percent of the U.S. supply
of fresh surface water, the Great Lakes provide abundant fresh water
for communities and industries; an efficient transportation system for
raw materials and finished goods; unparalleled recreational
opportunities for residents and tourists; and extensive habitat for
valuable fish and wildlife resources. The Lakes provide the social and
cultural foundation for millions of citizens and visitors, indigenous
communities, cities and shorelines.
The Great Lakes are a significant component of our national and
regional economy. Michigan Sea Grant estimates that more than 1.5
million jobs are directly connected to the Great Lakes, generating $62
billion in wages. NOAA's 2019 Report on the U.S. Ocean and Great Lakes
Economy shows that our nation's water-dependent economy grew much
faster than other sectors of the economy and, in 2016, employed more
people than the national crop production, telecommunications and
building construction sectors combined.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River form the longest deep-draft
inland navigation system in the world, stretching 2,300 miles to the
geographic center of North America and the North American heartland.
The Great Lakes maritime system links more than 100 U.S. and Canadian
ports to the global economy, moves 200 million tons of cargo annually,
generates more than 325,000 jobs and $45 billion in business revenue,
and supports industries such as manufacturing, steel production,
agriculture and energy generation.
The binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin hosts a $6
trillion economy and nearly one-third of U.S. and Canadian economic
activity. The maritime transportation system is a vital component of
our region's economic infrastructure. These figures--and the growing
value of abundant fresh water--illustrate the Great Lakes' unique
competitive advantage. Restoring, protecting and wisely using the lakes
is a key component of a broader binational strategy to create jobs,
stimulate economic development, and strengthen communities. An
environmentally healthy Great Lakes and economically vibrant regional
economy are in our national interest.
Restoring the Great Lakes: A Bipartisan Priority
Restoring and caring for the Great Lakes is a longstanding and
bipartisan priority for federal, state and local leaders in the region.
The current Great Lakes restoration program is based on a comprehensive
strategy initiated by a set of priorities identified by the region's
Governors and developed with active input from more than 1,500
stakeholders across the eight-state region. Completed in 2005, the
strategy was put into action under the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (GLRI).
Since 2010, the GLRI continues to enjoy enthusiastic and bipartisan
support among Great Lakes leaders, regional organizations, and the
Great Lakes Congressional delegation. Each year the GLC collaborates
with a coalition representing state, tribal and local governments,
conservation groups, business and industries, and Great Lakes ports on
a suite of priorities for the Great Lakes, and the GLRI is consistently
at the top of the list. Sustaining Great Lakes restoration has been an
ongoing priority for the House and Senate Great Lakes Task Forces, and
earlier this year a bipartisan group of 59 members of the House
delegation wrote to the appropriations committee supporting at least
$300 million for the GLRI in FY 2020.
The GLC and Great Lakes states have been actively engaged with the
GLRI since its inception and find it to be a strong and valuable
program. GLRI has administered funding through programs and authorities
from a range of federal agencies and projects that address the most
serious problems facing the Great Lakes. While U.S. EPA manages the
overall program, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force ensures
engagement across the federal government and leverages specific areas
of expertise in each agency. This process has evolved to include multi-
agency subgroups focused on specific priorities with the goal being to
improve efficiency in identifying and targeting resources to priority
projects. The GLRI is supported by sound science and is guided by an
Action Plan with detailed performance goals. An updated Action Plan III
is currently being finalized and appears to provide continued, sound
direction and accountability for the GLRI program.
Highlights of Progress Under the GLRI
The latest Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Report to Congress
and the President provides a comprehensive summary of progress under
the program. The GLC believes the GLRI has demonstrated strong
performance and has achieved a majority of the measures of progress
established in the GLRI Action Plan. The latest report to Congress
aptly summarizes the program's impact, stating that ``GLRI investments
have spread across almost 300,000 square miles and have supported more
than 4,000 projects within the Great Lakes basin. These investments
have made a monumental difference in repairing and protecting one of
the United States most unique and significant natural resources for the
more than 24 million U.S. citizens who rely on the Lakes' recreational
and economic value.''
From the GLC's perspective, the following are some highlights of
the GLRI's impact:
Cleaning up the most heavily degraded Areas of Concern
Perhaps the most striking impacts from the GLRI are being seen in
the Areas of Concern (AOC), where cleanup and restoration enables
communities to revitalize once-degraded waterfront areas, provide new
recreational opportunities, enhance fishing, maintain commercial and
recreational boating, and stimulate business development in under-
utilized urban areas. Approximately one-third of annual GLRI funding
has been allocated to cleanup work in the AOCs, making this a major
focus of the program. While much work remains, the progress has been
significant: four AOCs have been formally delisted; all cleanup work
has been completed in eight additional AOCs; 85 Beneficial Use
Impairments (key benchmarks of environmental degradation) have been
removed (out of 255 total); and approximately three million cubic yards
of contaminated sediments have been remediated, with $330 million
leveraged from non-federal partners. This work is taking place in the
31 U.S. and binational AOCs spread across all eight of the Great Lakes
states, making this a highly visible component of the GLRI that is
generating significant impacts at the community level. While
environmental restoration is the primary focus of AOC cleanup work, it
is having a real economic impact by catalyzing and creating ``enabling
conditions'' for new development in waterfront areas, facilitating new
recreational opportunities, and supporting tourism. Ultimately, the
GLRI will generate multiple benefits beyond the ecosystem improvements
that are its primary focus. The economic impact of the GLRI is
discussed further below.
Reducing nutrient pollution to prevent harmful algal blooms and protect
drinking water
The Great Lakes continue to suffer from the effects of nutrient
pollution, which include risks to drinking water for over 48 million
people that depend on the lakes. Driven primarily by nonpoint source
losses from agricultural land, solutions are proving to be complex.
Support from the GLRI is accelerating progress, both in the research
needed to understand how phosphorus moves from farm fields to the lakes
and the social science needed to better understand changes in farmer
behavior. Recent attention has also been giving to the economics of
conservation, with GLRI supporting ``soil health'' initiatives to
demonstrate that healthier soil can lead to improved water quality and
resiliency during storm events, but also higher yields. The GLRI is
also continuing to support Great Lakes communities and researchers
seeking to better understand the formation of harmful algal blooms and
take action to prevent or minimize impacts to drinking water safety,
recreation, and tourism.
Restoring and protecting habitat for valuable native species
Since 2010, the GLRI has enabled federal and state agencies,
tribes, municipalities, and numerous local and regional partners to
implement a significant number of habitat restoration projects across
the Great Lakes Basin. Nearly 5,000 miles of rivers and streams have
been opened to fish passage and over 225,000 acres of fish and wildlife
habitat have been improved or restored. Dozens of projects have focused
on enhancing habitat for federal trust species, while additional work
has accelerated restoration of fisheries that generate billions in
annual economic benefits and provide outdoor recreation opportunities
on private and public lands for millions of people. While many of these
projects have focused on habitat improvement, a common side benefit is
addressing aging infrastructure such as failing dams or dilapidated
bridges. Substantial investments have gone into improving Great Lakes
coastal wetlands where the water meets the land. These areas are
hotspots of biodiversity and have outsized economic benefits due to
their ability to remove excess nutrients that cause harmful algal
blooms, protect property from the impacts of high water levels, and
provide important habitat for fish and waterfowl.
Preventing and controlling harmful aquatic invasive species
Aquatic invasive species (AIS) represent a serious threat to the
Great Lakes, which currently contain more than 180 non-native aquatic
species, many of which are invasive and are causing ecological and/or
economic damage. The Great Lakes food webs are now dominated by
invasive species that change how the ecosystem functions and result in
substantial economic costs to the region by limiting access to clean
water, interfering with recreation, disrupting native fish populations
and hurting tourism. Preventing new species introductions and managing
existing harmful species is a top priority for the GLC. GLRI
investments in invasive species prevention and control have totaled
more than $443 million in eight years, providing vital support for
actions to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into
the Great Lakes;
development of new ballast water treatment technologies
to prevent new AIS introductions through commercial shipping;
implementation of advanced early-detection methods to
identify new species early in the invasion process;
increased capacity to detect and contain or eradicate new
invasions before they can do damage to the environment or economy;
research and manage to respond to priority species such
as zebra and quagga mussels, Phragmites, invasive crayfish, and
hydrilla; and
implementation of control activities to reduce
populations of established species and minimize their harmful impacts.
Economic Impact of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
In 2018 the GLC and the Council of Great Lakes Industries released
the first-ever comprehensive study of the overall impact of the GLRI on
the Great Lakes regional economy. Conducted by a team of economists
with the University of Michigan's Research Seminar in Quantitative
Economics, the study analyzed the economic impacts of GLRI project
spending between 2010 and 2016; the amount of region-wide economic
activity that will be generated through 2036; the growth in regional
tourism that has resulted from the GLRI; and the program's impact on
the region's quality of life as reflected in increased home values. The
study's key findings are that
Every dollar of GLRI project spending from 2010 through
2016 will produce $3.35 of additional economic activity in the Great
Lakes region through 2036. The number was even higher in some Great
Lakes communities: each dollar invested in Buffalo, New York, and
Detroit will produce more than $4 of additional economic activity.
The GLRI has enhanced tourism in the Great Lakes region.
Every dollar of GLRI project spending from 2010 through 2016 will
generate $1.62 in economic value in tourism-related industries through
2036.
The GLRI increased the value that residents place on
living coastal areas: every project dollar spent between 2010 and 2016
produced quality of life improvements in coastal communities worth
$1.08 to residents as measured in housing values, which means that
people place a higher value on living in those communities because of
GLRI projects.
Despite its primary focus on environmental restoration,
the GLRI created or supported as many jobs per dollar of investment
that would be created by a conventional federal stimulus program.
To provide local context for the results, the study developed case
studies that demonstrated how the GLRI's regional impacts have
translated into real improvements in eight Great Lakes coastal
communities: Duluth, MN, Superior, WI; Sheboygan, WI; Waukegan, IL;
Muskegon, MI; Detroit, MI; Ashtabula, OH; Erie, PA; and Buffalo, NY.
Key, local impacts from GLRI investments include:
Millions of dollars of new real estate and commercial
development, particularly in waterfront areas;
Resurgence in traditional recreational activities and the
emergence of new opportunities such as kayaking, kitesurfing, and
paddle-boarding;
Increased tourist visits and growth in revenues earned by
tourism-related businesses; and
Improved quality of life as shown by new residential
housing, growing numbers of young people choosing to stay in or
relocate to Great Lakes communities, and the marketing of water-related
amenities as a recruiting tool for employers.
Legislative Priorities for Congress
The GLC offers two priorities for Congress to sustain progress
under the GLRI:
Sustain funding for the GLRI: Continued funding for the
GLRI of at least $300 million annually, together with ongoing program
reviews and accountability, will build on planning, investments and
progress underway at the federal, state, tribal and local levels. This
will help maintain progress toward achieving goals outlined in the new
GLRI Action Plan, which focuses on cleaning up AOCs, reducing
phosphorus runoff that causes harmful algal blooms, controlling
invasive species, and restoring habitat for native species. As just one
important example, work is still underway in 19 AOCs, including the
largest and most complex areas with the costliest cleanup needs. In FY
2020 alone, U.S. EPA is prepared to begin implementation of ten
contaminated sediment cleanups in five states that require an estimated
$88 million in federal funding and will leverage nearly $60 million
from nonfederal partners. Over the course of the next five-year GLRI
Action Plan III, U.S. EPA projects that up to 50 additional
contaminated sediment sites will be ready for remediation, requiring
substantial continued GLRI funding. This is just one component of our
region's ongoing Great Lakes restoration needs, with continued support
also needed to prevent nutrient pollution that causes harmful algal
bloom and halt the threatened invasion of Asian carp into Great Lakes,
among other priorities.
Reauthorize the GLRI: The GLRI was formally authorized in
2016, providing a more secure legal foundation for continued
appropriations and Congressional oversight. The GLC calls on Congress
to reauthorize the program in 2020 to sustain this legal authority and
provide Congress with an opportunity to provide additional legislative
direction on the GLRI's management and priorities. The GLC will consult
with its members states on opportunities to improve the program's
effectiveness and looks forward to conveying its recommendation to the
committee as the authorization process moves forward.
Conclusion
Great Lake restoration is a complex, long-term investment in a
national asset. While achievements to date are substantial, they
reflect the ``low-hanging fruit.'' Looking ahead, we face daunting
challenges, including cleaning up the largest and most complex AOCs,
such as the Detroit, Rouge, Cuyahoga, Fox, St. Louis and Grand Calumet
Rivers--rivers that were heavily used and, in many cases, severely
degraded during the latter half of the 20th century; further
implementing a long-term solution to prevent the introduction of Asian
carp into the Great Lakes; and preventing harmful algal blooms in Lake
Erie and other vulnerable areas of the Great Lakes.
Successfully confronting these challenges will require sustained,
focused investment, collaboration, science-based solutions, and long-
term monitoring and adaptive management. The GLRI provides a necessary
framework and capacities for continued progress. The GLC urges Congress
to support and continue successful federal-state-tribal-local
investments to restore the Great Lakes.
The GLC appreciates the Committee's interest and oversight and
looks forward to providing input on how to best advance the Great Lakes
Basin's regional goals for a healthy environment and strong economy. If
you have questions, please contact me at ------------ or -------------.
Sincerely,
Darren J. Nichols
Executive Director
cc: Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Chad Lord, Policy Director, Healing Our
Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Napolitano
June 25, 2019.
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Dear Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman:
On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, thank
you for holding the hearing on ``Protecting and Restoring America's
Iconic Waters.'' Because of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, we
are seeing incredible results in protecting and restoring the drinking
water for 30 million Americans. Even with these results, however, we
still have a tremendous amount of work to do. I write today to offer
our views on the GLRI and ask that this letter be included in the
hearing record.
The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition is comprised of more
than 160 environmental, conservation, hunting, and fishing
organizations; museums, zoos, and aquariums; and businesses
representing millions of people whose goal is to restore and protect
North America's greatest freshwater resource. Millions depend on the
Great Lakes for their drinking water, and more benefit from the
business, industry, and commerce that is connected to them. But the
Lakes have long suffered from a legacy of toxic pollution, the
introduction and spread of invasive species, and the loss and
degradation of habitat.
In 2004, the Great Lakes community and policy makers recognized the
growing burden of these challenges and the lack of progress being made
up to address them. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was
initiated under President George W. Bush to develop a strategic
blueprint for restoration and protection.\1\ After a yearlong process
involving 1500 stakeholders, a plan was finalized that identified a
list of actions necessary for restoration and protection of the Great
Lakes, including stopping sewage contamination that closes beaches and
harms recreational opportunities; cleaning up toxic sediments that
threaten the health of people and wildlife; preventing polluted runoff
from cities and farms that cause harmful algal blooms which poison
drinking water; restoring and protecting wetlands and wildlife habitat
that filter pollutants, provide a home for fish and wildlife, and
support the region's outdoor recreation economy; and preventing the
introduction of invasive species, such as Asian carp, that threaten the
economy and quality of life for millions of people. It was out of a
need to implement activities that achieved the collaboration strategy's
goals that President Barack Obama created the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GLRC. 2005. ``Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to
Restore and Protect the Great Lakes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the GLRI is working as intended and producing dramatic
results. The program allows the region to undertake one of the world's
largest freshwater ecosystem restoration projects. Non-governmental
groups, industries, cities, states, and federal agencies forge public-
private partnerships to clean up toxic hot spots, restore fish and
wildlife habitat, and combat invasive species--partnerships that may
never have come together had it not been for the GLRI. The GLRI's size
and scope means it plays a central role in successfully restoring and
protecting the Great Lakes. Rather than just accelerating progress, it
catalyzes critical restoration action that would have never happened
otherwise. The GLRI organizes an enormous region of the country to
protect one-fifth of the world's surface drinking water.
Environmental and Economic Benefits
The GLRI is critical to the health and quality of life of the
region and nation. It drives economic development--and jobs--in
communities across the eight states, which supports the broader U.S.
economy. A report last fall from economists at the University of
Michigan, Central Michigan University, and Duke University demonstrated
that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative's (GLRI) ecological
investments are resulting in significant economic benefits. The study
showed that for every $1 the GLRIinvested through 2016 to clean up
toxic hot spots in Areas of Concern (AOC), control invasive species,
restore wildlife habitat, protect wetlands, and reduce harmful algae
the investment will produce more than $3 in additional economic
activity regionwide through 2036 (more in some cities; see chart).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This research demonstrated that the GLRI is creating new real
estate and commercial development--particularly in waterfront areas.
This development has resulted in a resurgence in water-based, outdoor
recreation and increasing tourism across the region, increasing housing
options and home values, and an increasing number of young people
staying in or relocating to Great Lakes communities. In addition, this
research showed that restoration investments created or supported jobs.
GLRI projects through 2016 are responsible for more than 9 percent
total job growth in Ashtabula County, Ohio; 4.2 percent total job
growth in Duluth, Minn.; and 3.2 percent total job growth in Sheboygan,
Wis. Specific examples include:
Twenty-seven new businesses opened to serve growing
numbers of waterfront visitors in Ashtabula, Ohio, since 2010.
Buffalo, N.Y. opened a multi-million-dollar entertainment
complex in 2015 on an old industrial site, offering a restaurant,
ziplining, a climbing wall, kayak and paddleboard rentals, a hockey
rink, and roller derby facilities.
Business at Detroit Outpost (a kayak outfitter and tour
company) has increased 500 percent since 2013 and business at Detroit
River Sports has doubled since 2015.
Bay Marine Chicago Yachting Center opened in Waukegan,
Ill. in 2018. The $5-million development serves pleasure boaters.
These economic outcomes are possible because of restoration
successes like these:
Four Areas of Concern have been delisted (one prior to
the GLRI) and an additional eight have completed all management actions
necessary to delist.
Between 2010 through 2019, 80 beneficial use impairments
(BUIs) have been removed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, nearly seven times the total
number of BUIs removed in the preceding 22 years. BUIs are the
benchmarks of environmental harm that characterize AOCs.
Additional early detection and monitoring exercises and
vital support for the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee
prepared the region to respond to new and existing aquatic invasive
species, while federal agencies and partners in one year funded work to
protect over 18,000 acres from aquatic and terrestrial invasive
species. Since the GLRI's inception more than 153,000 acres have been
protected or treated.
Combined with other funding, farmers implemented
conservation action on more than 700,000 acres of rural lands through
2018 to reduce erosion and farm runoff that feeds toxic algal
outbreaks. GLRI's supplemental funding helped double farmland under
conservation around Western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay,
reducing projected phosphorus runoff by more than 880,000 pounds.
Habitat and wildlife connectivity continued to improve as
the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration worked with partners to restore, protect, or enhance
over 370,000 acres of wetlands and other habitat. 5,289 river miles
have also been cleared of dams and barriers resulting in fish swimming
into stretches of river where they have been absent for decades.
While these numbers are impressive, the stories behind them are
more illuminating:
At the Ashtabula River in Ohio, a sediment cleanup and
habitat restoration project has restored the lower two miles of the
river and advanced efforts to get it de-listed as a Great Lakes Area of
Concern. The project has improved water quality and deepened the river
channel, making the lower Ashtabula suitable again for maritime
commerce, fishing, and recreational boating.
The iconic Two-Hearted River in Michigan has seen
increased opportunities for recreation and fishing thanks to
restoration that stabilized the riverbanks. In addition, 23 road
crossings over the river were repaired and culverts were replaced. The
combination of this work connected 35 miles of river and reduced
sediment pollution by more than 625 tons per year.
In Duluth, Minn., a conservation corps project has
improved stream health and habitat while providing jobs for 14
unemployed or underemployed Duluth residents. The Stream Corps project
worked with 175 landowners to plant more than 18,000 trees and shrubs,
which improved water quality as well as property values.
North Point Marina Beach in the Chicagoland area is safe
for residents to swim at once more, thanks to an increase in native
plants. In 2007, prior to restoration, the beach was closed for 82
percent of the swimming season due to bacteria build up from gulls. By
planting the expansive beach with native plants and grasses the
ecosystem is no longer hospitable to the gulls and bacterial pollution
has decreased.
These stories and more can be found at www.healthylakes.org/
SuccessStories
Building on a Solid Base
How the region is accomplishing all this work is as impressive as
what we are doing. The GLRI is a model for large, landscape-scale
restoration. It ensures that the focus remains on the highest regional
priorities that are identified by stakeholders through the GLRI Action
Plans, which are themselves based on the larger restoration blueprint,
the ``Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and
Protect the Great Lakes.'' It also provides a way for the U.S. to meet
its commitments under the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with
Canada. The GLRI is a critical component towards ensuring that the
goals we set for ourselves in both the agreement and in this
comprehensive plan can be achieved.
Additionally, the way the GLRI works also effectively allows
federal agencies to obligate their GLRI funds quickly to on-the-ground
work. The EPA, working with other federal agencies like the Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National Park Service,
quickly convert the funding they receive to supplement restoration
activities through existing, authorized programs. This structure allows
for funds to move quickly from EPA through the interagency agreements
EPA reaches with the other federal agencies and onto the ground to
complete important restoration work. This model also ensures
accountability through the establishment of an ``orchestra leader''
(EPA), helps accelerate progress, and avoids potential duplication, all
of which help save taxpayers money while focusing efforts on the
highest, consensus-based priorities.
This model, however, works best when both existing federal agencies
and programs, as well as the GLRI, have the funding they need to
support each other.
Maintaining Support Until the Job is Done
Even with the tremendous results we are seeing, the Great Lakes
still face serious threats. Nineteen U.S. AOCs are still contaminated
with toxic sediment, threatening the health of people and stunting the
development of communities. Harmful runoff from farm fields continues
to pollute our waters, causing toxic algae outbreaks that threaten
water systems, public health, and economic vitality. Habitat loss and
aquatic invasive species continue to damage our region's outdoor way of
life. And communities across the Great Lakes region continue to grapple
with crumbling, antiquated water infrastructure and are faced with a
staggering $179 billion over the next 20 years for needed improvements,
upgrades, and repairs in the eight-state region. Many of these threats
disproportionately impact people that have historically borne the brunt
of environmental injustice underscoring an urgency to address these
issues for everyone in the region. Furthermore, our changing climate is
exacerbating all our region's challenges, making restoration efforts
more complex and even more critical to ensure our communities
resiliency.
The GLRI works, but with far reaching and ambitious conservation
targets being set in the next GLRI Action Plan, there is still a lot of
work left to be done. For example:
The GLRI has helped remediate 80 beneficial use
impairments (BUIs) across the region--less than a third of all
identified BUIs. Under the proposed Action Plan III, the EPA aims to
remove another 48 BUIs and achieve the completion of management actions
at 22 of 31 AOCs. Yet, by 2024 nearly half of identified BUIs will
remain untreated and management actions at 30 percent of AOCs will
remain uncompleted. Furthermore, greater challenges lay ahead as the
remaining AOCs are expected to see increasingly complex and expensive
contaminated sediment issues. In 2020 alone, 10 pending sediment
cleanup projects are expected to require $88 million in federal funding
with ongoing projects awaiting another $130 million in future years.
The GLRI has resulted in an estimated reduction of
881,467 lbs. of nutrients across the priority watersheds of the Maumee,
Saginaw, Genesee, and Lower Fox Rivers. A significant step, but under
the binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement the U.S. has
committed to a 40% Phosphorus reduction--a reduction of over 7.3
million pounds--in Lake Erie alone.\2\ Other state and federal actions
have led to significant reductions in Lake Erie, but early estimates
suggest achieving only a 34% reduction by 2020. Greater action is
needed to meet our bi-national targets, improve water quality, and
address the increasing likelihood of HABs across all Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA, 2018 ``Factsheet: U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (2018)''
Accessed: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/
lake_erie_action_plan_fact_sheet_-_march_1_2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat restoration is critical to protecting and
improving regional water quality, enhancing the recovery of native
species, and improving the resiliency of coastal communities. The GLRI
has led to the restoration, protection, and enhancement of over 370,000
acres of habitat. A lot of work remains. The Great Lakes Interagency
Taskforce identifies 1,550,000 acres of habitat in need of action and
expect to have only reached 29% of this target by 2024, under current
funding levels. Simply reaching the target of 260,000 acres of coastal
wetland restoration, under current estimates, could cost somewhere in
the range of $336 to $483 million alone.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hansen et al. Targeting Investments To Cost Effectively Restore
and Protect Wetland Ecosystems: Some Economic Insights, ERR-183, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 2015;
Accessed at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45347/
51895_err183.pdf?v=0
Additional congressional investment through the GLRI is critical to
begin to close the gap on these targets. Beyond the GLRI, it is
congressional action that will help supplement this restoration
progress by helping communities replace lead pipes, address emerging
contaminants like PFAS, ending polluted stormwater runoff, and keeping
water affordable and safe for everyone. Congress must further support
action to stop Asian carp and other aquatic invasive species from
invading the region and act to mitigate the damage from climate
pollution to help the Great Lakes adapt to a changing climate. We also
need strong clean water protections, as well as institutions that are
adequately staffed and funded to enforce protections that we all depend
on.
Conclusion
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is working, and along with
other restoration investments, is producing unprecedented results. This
initiative has given the region an opportunity to protect and restore
one of the world's largest freshwater ecosystems. It has spurred
public-private partnerships between non-governmental groups,
industries, cities, states, tribes, and federal agencies. Their work is
resulting in cleaned up toxic hot spots, restored fish and wildlife
habitat, and protected against the harmful impacts of urban and
agricultural runoff. The GLRI's size and scope gives it a central,
albeit not the only, role in our region's success for restoring and
protecting the Great Lakes. It's a good program for which this
subcommittee should be proud.
But serious threats remain, and we must continue to work together
to bring about the restoration of our waters and our region. As you
look to the future, we urge you to continue to support the GLRI.
Recognizing its success as a model for landscape-wide restoration, but
also seeing that as our region begins to deal with more and more
complex restoration challenges its resources are being stretched
further than ever before. We call on Congress to reaffirm its
commitment to the region and a program with far-reaching impacts within
the basin and beyond its boundaries. We ask you to reauthorize this
program for another five years bringing its funding levels up to $475
million to match the first year of the program.
We appreciate the subcommittee's interest and leadership in
highlighting the results stemming from the GLRI and for holding today's
hearing that examines the benefits of protecting and restoring our
iconic waters. The Great Lakes region will celebrate next year a decade
of successful restoration and protection. Even with the broad benefits
of the GLRI, it is important to recognize that there is still much work
to be done.
Thank you again for your support and the opportunity to share our
views with you. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at ------------ or -------------.
Sincerely,
Chad Lord
Policy Director
Statement of Jim Murdaugh, Ph.D., President, Tallahassee Community
College, Tallahassee, FL, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Webster
Good morning Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and
members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity of providing written testimony for
this most important hearing today on Protecting and Restoring America's
Iconic Waters. My name is Jim Murdaugh, and I am President of
Tallahassee Community College (TCC), located in the state capital of
Florida. As most Floridians will tell you we are all very connected to
our natural environment, our estuaries, our beaches and waterways. Our
economy, and the wellbeing of our State depends on a healthy
functioning environmental ecosystem. As an educational institution we
strive to teach, educate, and provide solutions to maintain and grow
the vibrancy of all of our costal waterways. We are well aware of the
impact of harmful algal blooms like red tide on our state. We have seen
the loss of key habitats resulting in significant impacts on fisheries
and water quality, we know first hand the impact of flooding and
coastal erosion related to sea level rise. Our state has become a
bellwether for our nation, and what we are able to do here has national
implications on improving our waterways throughout the country. We at
TCC are ready to help.
Tallahassee Community College is an open admission, comprehensive
community college and is one of 28 members of the publicly funded
Florida Community College System. TCC serves the most educationally and
economically disadvantaged area of Florida and has over 12,000 students
including the state's largest number of African American community
college students. The college ranks ninth nationally in the number of
Associate degrees awarded annually. Fourth nationally in the number of
Associate degrees awarded to African American students annually. First
among the 28 members of the Florida College System in the percentage of
graduates who transfer to the State University System the next year
with 75%; and first among Florida College System members in the
percentage of Associate degree completers with disabilities. TCC meets
the educational needs of a large, diverse student population with
Associate in Arts (AA) and Science (AS) degrees in 56 curriculum areas,
courses for transfer to four-year colleges, and more than 70 job
training programs. TCC is ranked among the nation's top 20 percent of
colleges and universities for veterans having been recognized as a
military-friendly college. In addition to its educational initiatives,
TCC has also embraced its environmental mission and in 2012 started
construction on the Wakulla Environmental Institute (WEI).
WEI is a world-class Institute that brings together education,
conservation and recreation in a manner that stimulates economic
development in an environmentally responsible way. This region is
regarded as one of the top five biodiversity hotspots in all of North
America. The Institute is situated on 158 acres of untouched land which
includes pine forest, a natural land bridge, sink holes and swamp. The
campus building boasts 10,000 square feet of classrooms, meeting
spaces, a state-of-the-art wet lab, and plenty of covered porch area
ideal for taking in the beautiful campus scenery. WEI was created to
highlight Wakulla's natural heritage and biodiversity through
education. The Institute offers environmentally- focused certificates
and educational programs that promote education, conservation and
recreation through hands-on activities, practical experiences and
online coursework. One of our more unique programs is our Oyster
Aquaculture Certificate Training Program.
This program was developed as a sustainable alternative to wild
oyster harvesting in response to the depleting level of oysters in the
waters of Wakulla, Franklin and Gulf Counties. Threats caused by
overharvesting, the BP oil spill and a narrowing of public combing
areas led many to find work in alternative industries. Steering
oystermen back into the industry creates a domino effect which benefits
the region's economy. The program's mission is to provide oysterman and
fishermen the tools to open their own businesses by offering training
on how to farm-raise oysters in Wakulla County. However, in addition to
the educational and business opportunities created there has also been
tremendous positive environmental impacts from our oyster program which
have the potential to be completely transformative for the state of
Florida and our Nation.
You may be wondering why oysters are so important. Oysters are
filter feeders and are thus natural combatants to red tide and other
harmful algal blooms. For millions of years oysters have lined the Gulf
and the Eastern Seaboard and have protected the coastline against
erosion, harmful algal blooms, and other environmentally harmful
effects. Now, 85% of natural oyster reefs are gone around the world
which are a key component to global ocean health. Oysters are a
keystone species, and once you take away a keystone species it has a
dramatic downward effect on the entire ecosystem. For example, oysters
clean about 50 gallons of water a day while oyster reefs provide
support for over 300 species of marine life.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The water in both tanks is from the same time and place.
The tank on the right has oysters.
In response to the decline in wild oyster harvests and the
subsequent impact on the local economy, WEI initiated a grower training
program for oyster aquaculture in 2013. It obtained a five-acre
submerged land, full water column lease for aquaculture in the Oyster
Bay, Wakulla County, FL; the first ever awarded by the Florida Cabinet.
As a result of our efforts in establishing an Oyster Aquaculture
Training Program we have found that the reintroduction of oysters has
had a tremendous economic as well as a profound environmental effect on
the region. Within a few years of establishing our Aquaculture Program
we noticed the Bay waters became clearer and the return of other
aquatic species to an area which had been desolate due the absence of
oysters. We engaged with Florida A&M University to conduct water
quality tests to determine what level of impact our Oyster Aquaculture
Program had on Oyster Bay and the results have been astounding. Not
only did the three year study determine the amount of nitrogen removed
from the system, it quantified the level of water quality by
equivocating it to be the same as having an $8 million wastewater
treatment facility per year on a five acre lease. This became the
genesis of our habitat restoration efforts in finding a way to export
clean water.
Since the start of our oyster aquaculture program in Oyster Bay we
have seen the area change from a soft bottom system with little
productivity and few species to a more diverse community with greater
abundance of fishes and the presence of seagrasses returning to the
area. In order to expedite this amazing natural occurring process, TCC
has created a patent pending invention that will reintroduce oysters
where they have been decimated by re-establishing natural oyster reefs.
We have created oyster domes.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(Oyster domes ready to be placed in the water)
Domes are \1/2\ of a sphere. Approximately 3 feet in diameter and
about 2 feet tall. Each dome has approximately 10 holes around the dome
about 4 inches in diameter. The thickness of the dome is approximately
3 inches.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(From the top of the dome, a PVC pipe, holds several mature oysters.
The oysters in the pipe spawn and populate the area with oyster that
attach to the domes.)
The deployment of our oyster reef dome technology creates an
environment for oysters to thrive by providing a protected and
deployable seed source. Our domes re-seed an area, re-establishes
oyster reefs, thus improving water quality, and acts as a buffer zone
between the watershed and estuary, thus mitigating the problems that
arise from watershed runoff.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(Oyster dome after it has been in the water)
We have a solution that will reintroduce oysters in areas where
they have been decimated and re-establish natural oyster reefs.
A 5-acre oyster dome site will bring in a permanent
oyster seed source to an ecosystem. This seed source will spread oyster
seed miles from the original spawn site, growing the oyster ecosystem.
As the 5-acre oyster dome system matures, trillions of
oyster larva will be spawned sending oyster seed to the surrounding
area, constantly improving the local ecosystem.
The trillions of egg and sperm released into the water
serves as a major food source to 300 species of very small animals that
in turn, will feed the food chain. This will greatly improve the local
fisheries.
The domes serve as wave attenuators, this helps with
reducing coastal erosion.
Oyster domes work in areas where there are limited
natural seed source or none at all. Each dome comes with its own seed
source.
5 acres of domes will produce on average of 750 trillion
oyster eggs and quadrillions of oyster sperm per group spawn.
The domes serve as a permanent space for fisheries
nursery. This will improve the local fishing.
As the water clarity improves, the sunlight will be able
to get to the sea floor. This will allow sea grasses to develop and
thrive. This will allow more fish to grow and improve spawning.
Each 5-acre site will clean 500 billion gallons of
seawater per year, by year two. This is equivalent to $8 million
dollars of water treatment from a typical wastewater treatment plant
per year.
Each dome concentrates the oyster spawn up to 5 times the
normal rate of fertilization. This technique allows far more oyster
larvae back into the environment to expand the local oyster reefs.
Harmful algal blooms are the one of most destructive natural forces
besides hurricanes that impact Florida. Red tide affects the beaches
and thus tourism which is the number one economic industry in the
Florida. Red tide and other harmful algal blooms are the result of an
imbalance in the natural habitat environment caused by toxic waste
being dumped in our estuaries from inland river systems. Harmful algal
blooms feed on nitrogen, picoplankton, zooplankton, undersea sediments
to name a few. This imbalance keeps occurring because there aren't
enough oyster reefs to filter these nutrients out of the system and
feed on algae in the water column. Because oysters remove harmful
nutrients and feed on algae, they are the perfect foil in addressing
problems with harmful algal blooms.
In Sarasota County alone, last year it was estimated that red tide
had a $44 million effect on the residents and businesses in that area.
Tourism, health, and fisheries related incidents are where the bulk of
the estimated damages occurred. Since 2013 when we started the oyster
aquaculture industry here in the state of Florida, we have produced
more than 20 million oysters in the bay, and in two years we have
experienced a dramatic change in water quality and fishing in the areas
surrounding our leases. Last year Oyster Bay did not have any recorded
accounts of red tide. We know that this is because of the presence of
the oysters as a keystone species being reintroduced in the area and
thus keeping levels of nitrogen and other nutrients that harmful algal
blooms feed on in check.
In closing, I must say it is an honor to come before the Committee
and provide written testimony to discuss these important issues. We all
understand the significant threat our waterways are under, and the
swiftness for which we must act to mitigate against true and permanent
environmental damage. As Tallahassee Community College's President, I
come before you today with possible solutions that have the potential
to be transformative for our Nation. I thank you for holding this
hearing and allowing me the opportunity to address this Committee.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Preston D. Cole, Secretary,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Question 1. You mention in your testimony that Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative funding has helped protect local drinking water
by ``working with farmers to prevent nearly 800,000 pounds of
phosphorous from polluting the Great Lakes and causing harmful algal
blooms.''
Can you describe, in more detail, what actions have been taken, and
the agreements reached between regulators and farmers to achieve this
significant reduction? Are additional efforts underway in the watershed
to control harmful algal blooms? Can these efforts be replicated
elsewhere?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to provide some additional
information about the GLRI and the work that the states and our
partners are doing to address these issues.
Since its beginning, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
goals and performance metrics recognized that success depended on
reducing both urban and agricultural sources of nutrients. The GLRI
funding has supported a multi-pronged approach that increased capacity
to carry out on-the-ground actions, develop tools to target and
prioritize, monitor effectiveness, and encourage innovation (based on
supporting science, including better understanding of the drivers of
harmful algal blooms).
The GLRI funding has supported a wide variety of actions to reduce
phosphorus loading from agricultural lands. The actions include (among
others) restoring/installing wetlands, providing incentives for
planting cover crops and implementing no-till practices, re-
naturalizing channelized streams, stabilizing eroding streambanks,
creating riparian buffers, installing waste storage facilities,
conducting farm risk assessments and implementing nutrient management
plans. Farmers are actively engaged in selecting agricultural practices
to tailor them to their farming operations and needs. The GLRI has also
supported green infrastructure projects such as rain gardens,
bioswales, porous pavement, and bioretention ponds to reduce runoff
pollution from developed urban areas.
A particularly innovative and successful GLRI-funded effort is the
establishment of the Demonstration Farm Networks, a program that was
piloted in the Lower Fox River watershed (WI) \1\, and has now been
replicated in multiple watershed areas throughout the Great Lakes
region. The Demonstration Farms program has allowed farmers to try new
practices, such as side dressing manure into corn, interseeding (sowing
cover crop seeds into the field before crops have been harvested), and
no-till practices. The program also incorporates edge-of-field
monitoring, so scientists can document the impact of the innovative
practices on water quality and provide recommendations to conservation
professionals and farmers for improving practices. And perhaps most
importantly, it facilitates peer learning by providing opportunities
for the demonstration farmers to interact with neighbors through field
days, social events (e.g., breakfasts on the farm), and workshops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First Great Lakes Demonstration Farm Network to Launch in Green
Bay Area https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wi/newsroom/
releases/?cid=STELPRDB1241556
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding for these actions is allocated through existing federal
programs such as the USDA-NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), competitive awards to state or local agencies and nonprofit
organizations, and non-competitive awards to states where the actions
support priorities of the Lakewide Action and Management Plan (a multi-
jurisdictional plan established under the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement). These multiple funding pathways are important for
enabling partners to work together toward shared goals and leverage
different organizational capacities, technical expertise, and
relationships.
Since many of the agricultural best management practices are
installed on private lands, farmers enter into voluntary agreements to
install and maintain those practices. The agencies overseeing the
projects establish contracts with farmers to maintain the practice for
a certain number of years (variable depending on the place and the
practice; usually 5 years to 15 years). In some cases, permanent
easements are established. The agencies provide funding to help pay for
the installation of the practice and may provide incentive payments for
their continued maintenance. Farmers participating in the Demonstration
Farms Network have seen significant improvements in soil health, which
in turn leads to reduced operating costs and resiliency to extreme
weather events. Many Demonstration Farmers are adopting practices for
water quality without additional contracts or incentive payments.
Beyond the GLRI-funded projects and programs, state and local
partners are working on multiple fronts to reduce nutrient inputs and
control harmful algal blooms. One example is the federal Total Maximum
Daily Load, or TMDL, Program which is part of the Clean Water Act. This
provides a systematic framework for monitoring to identify waters that
are degraded, characterizing the sources of pollutants, and assigning
reductions to those sources based on the allowable pollutant load
established by the TMDL. Pollutant limits are then incorporated into
point source permits while nonpoint sources from agricultural lands are
addressed through strategic watershed plans known as Nine Key Element
Plans. The Nine Key Element Plans provide the local, ground-level
information that conservation professionals need to strategically work
with agricultural producers for establishing practices to achieve load
reductions. These plans are focal points for public, private, and non-
governmental organizations to work together for implementation.
As a state authorized to implement the TMDL Program, Wisconsin has
been proactively developing TMDLs. U.S. EPA has approved TMDLs for the
Lower Fox River Basin (2012) and the Milwaukee River Basin (2018). A
TMDL was recently completed for the Upper Fox and Wolf River Basins.
Additional TMDL development is underway in multiple watersheds in
Wisconsin's Lake Michigan Basin.
Wisconsin was one of the first states to adopt numeric Phosphorus
Water Quality Standards for surface waters (rivers, lakes and streams),
which were adopted on December 1, 2010. In addition, the rule package
set procedures to implement these phosphorus standards in Wisconsin
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits that included
flexibility in the compliance provisions to reduce phosphorus from
nonpoint sources. Although the agricultural performance standards are
mandatory, the obligation to comply may be contingent on a 70% cost
share offer; however, available funding is very limited.
Wisconsin has also been at the forefront in the Great Lakes region
for developing a water quality trading program that enables point
sources to work with agricultural landowners to achieve nutrient
reductions required by their permits while saving money on plant
upgrades. Market-based approaches for reducing nutrients have also been
explored in the Erie P Trade project [https://www.glc.org/work/
eriepmarket] led by the Great Lakes Commission. Water quality trading
and other market-based approaches to reducing nutrients may be
transferable to other areas (and indeed, the Great Lakes region has
learned from the Chesapeake Bay experiences and others). Wisconsin has
also been encouraging the adoption of managed grazing systems, as they
have potentially significant water quality and economic benefits for
raising livestock compared to confinement systems.
Other Midwestern states are exploring new and innovative avenues
for reducing nutrient loads as well. To reduce algal blooms, Ohio has
studied a tax on fertilizer to reduce soluble phosphorus and
implemented an Agricultural Fertilizer Applicator Certification
[https://nutrienteducation.osu.edu/FertilizerCertification], which
requires anyone who applies fertilizer (other than manure) to more than
50 acres of agricultural production grown primarily for sale to become
certified by attending training and meeting application record-keeping
requirements. Michigan has established the Michigan Agriculture
Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP), a state-supported voluntary
program that enables local conservation technicians to provide a
confidential farm evaluation and recommendations for practices that
will improve water quality. Farms that implement the recommendations
receive recognition and earn regulatory assurances as well as increased
access to cost share and technical assistance (see http://
www.maeap.org/).
Within the Lake Erie basin, the 4-R Stewardship Program engages
fertilizer retailers, agriculture consultants, farmers and conservation
organizations in a common-sense approach to use the right fertilizer
source, at the right rate, at the right time, with the right placement
(see https://4rcertified.org/ and https://www.nutrientstewardship.com/
4rs/). Incentives include cost recovery for soil testing. Farmers see
an economic benefit that also reduces nutrients.
It is important for these implementation-focused programs to
operate in the larger context of watershed goals. The TMDLs and Nine
Key Element Plans provide those goals on a local scale. In a system as
large as the Great Lakes, regional goals can also play a key role. For
example, in the Western Lake Erie Basin, Binational Phosphorus Load
Reduction Targets [https://www.epa.gov/glwqa/recommended-binational-
phosphorus-targets] for phosphorus have been developed as part of
implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The phosphorus
reduction targets provide a shared goal and create a common sense of
purpose, while enabling tracking efforts such as Blue Accounting's
ErieStat [https://www.blueaccounting.org/issue/eriestat]. Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana and Pennsylvania have developed Domestic Action Plans
[https://binational.net/2018/03/07/daplanphosredinlakeerie/] that
establish the measures for achieving those targets.
The key elements of all of these efforts that may be transferable
to other areas include collaborative, science-based goal-setting;
tracking progress towards those goals; and employing multi-sector,
diverse strategies to reach them (blending regulatory and voluntary
approaches). Flexibility and adaptive learning are necessary for new
ideas to be tested and rolled out to broader audiences. Local,
producer-led innovation and information sharing should be supported.
Monitoring to track progress and inform future actions is necessary for
ensuring resources are allocated to effective programs and practices.
Funding to support all of this work is important. The science community
is already collaborating beyond the Great Lakes region to share lessons
learned about HABs and HAB control and evaluate transferability.
Question 2. In your testimony, you describe some of the ongoing
threats to the Great Lakes and note that ``most of these threats
disproportionately impact people who have historically borne the brunt
of environmental injustice.''
Can you be more specific as to these threats and the populations
affected? Would you recommend something specific this administration or
Congress can do to address these disproportionately affected
populations?
Answer. Great Lakes rivers and harbors were industrial hubs as the
U.S. became an economic power in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. The industries that grew up along the shores of the lakes
and rivers often left behind legacies of polluted soils, groundwater,
and riverine sediments in the centers of some of the Great Lakes
region's greatest cities. The populations who continue to live in these
urban centers (for reasons discussed in the literature \2\) are often
low-income communities and racial and ethnic minorities \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example: Taylor, D. Toxic Communities: Environmental
Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility; New York
University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
\3\ Cole, F.; Foster, S. From the Ground up: Environmental Racism
and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement; New York University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While many good programs and projects have been funded to address
water quality and infrastructure in underserved communities to date,
more work is needed. To address these disproportionately affected
populations, the federal government can act on a number of fronts.
It can support and strengthen existing programs that remove toxic
pollutants, including U.S. EPA's Great Lakes Legacy Act Program and
Brownfields Program. Removing these pollutants is an important first
step in any effort to revitalize blighted urban centers. Currently, the
Legacy Act funds can only be applied to communities designated as Great
Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). Expanding the program beyond these Areas
of Concern would provide opportunities to communities burdened with
toxic legacy pollution but without the AOC designation.
Green infrastructure practices should be considered as
redevelopment of brownfields and waterfronts occurs. Practices such as
rain gardens, pervious pavement, bioswales, and green roofs should be
encouraged and supported to reduce the impact of contaminated
stormwater runoff on waterways, enhance resilience to extreme weather
events, and bring green spaces to urban centers. They can provide
increased access to waterfronts, recreational facilities, and parks. It
is well documented that access to green spaces supports health and
wellness \4\. The GLRI has supported these types of projects in Great
Lakes communities and funding the GLRI at $475 million would accelerate
their implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, see ``The Health Benefits of Small Parks and Green
Spaces'' https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2017/april/the-
health-benefits-of-small-parks-and-green-spaces/ by Kathleen L. Wolf,
Ph.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress and the administration can continue to support U.S. EPA's
Office of Environmental Justice which provides financial and technical
assistance to overburdened communities for addressing environmental
justice issues. Examples of successful projects are a Groundwork
Milwaukee (WI) [http://www.groundworkmke.org/] project funded through a
2015 OEJ award and a People United for Sustainable Housing (PUSH)-
Buffalo [https://www.pushbuffalo.org/] project funded through a 2016
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Program award \5\.
Both projects involved installing green infrastructure (rain gardens
and rain barrels in Milwaukee; riparian buffers in Buffalo) by working
with teens and young adults. The young adults gained skills in planting
and building the practices and became ambassadors to their communities
for raising awareness of green infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA Environmental Justice Grants and Communities, a story map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/
index.html?appid=d426d553c4cc44a3af62bff7e175108e
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another program that merits continued support is the U.S. EPA Urban
Waters Federal Partnership Program (https://www.epa.gov/
urbanwaterspartners). This program helps reconnect economically-
disadvantaged urban communities with their waterways by providing an
enhanced level of coordination among federal agencies. An example
project is in Grand Rapids, MI, where efforts to restore the Grand
River are leading to expanded public use and economic redevelopment
\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Details available at ``Urban Waters and the Grand River/Grand
Rapids (Michigan),'' https://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners/urban-
waters-and-grand-rivergrand-rapids-michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the importance of water and wastewater infrastructure
for maintaining healthy communities and the high cost of upgrading
deteriorating systems, the federal government can increase funding for
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure replacement and upgrades
to accelerate the pace of progress on this issue. In addition, the
federal government can provide flexibility for meeting (or forgiving)
local cost share requirements for federal programs.
Great Lakes harbors and ports are economic engines of their
communities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges navigation
channels to maintain sufficient depth for shipping and the dredge
material must be placed appropriately, often in confined disposal
facilities (CDFs). The Corps requires local communities to share in the
cost of the dredging and disposal which can reduce the economic
viability of ports, especially as existing CDFs are filled up. Congress
and the administration can amend the Great Lakes Dredged Material
Recycling provision of the Water Resources Development Act to increase
flexibility of the Corps and its partners to remove previously disposed
dredged material for suitable beneficial purposes. The language should
be amended to state that ``the removal of previously disposed dredged
material, transportation, and unloading of such material at the site of
use shall be conducted at federal expense if the costs associated with
these activities are less than the proportionate federal share of
construction of a new disposal facility for dredged material from the
same harbor or channel.'' This would extend the life of existing CDFs,
which in turn reduces the burden on local communities for finding
alternative dredge placement options and maintains ports and shipping
as economic drivers.
Congress and the administration can also consider how to directly
implement, or support local municipalities in implementing, the
following procurement policies that strengthen local economies while
improving the quality of life for residents: pay prevailing wages for
publicly-funded projects; when contracting by Request for Proposals
(RFP), award extra points for designs that incorporate habitat, green
infrastructure, and/or public access features; ensure that established
minority & women-owned business set asides are enforced; and, implement
local hire ordinances, such as the one established by Gary, Indiana
(Ord. No. 6972, Sec. 6, 1-20-1998; see http://garycityclerk.com/gary-
municipal-code/code/) \7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Additional discussion of this topic: ``Local Purchasing
Preferences'' by Stacy Mitchell and Olivia LaVecchia, 26 Aug 2015
https://ilsr.org/rule/local-purchasing-preferences/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information:
Toxic pollutants that were left behind by industrial development
before the key environmental regulations of the 1970s are referred to
as ``legacy pollutants.'' Legacy pollutants include polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), a chemical that was used in electrical equipment,
paper manufacturing, and other manufacturing processes. PCBs are
persistent (i.e., they do not break down in the environment) and
accumulate in the tissues of insects, fish, and mammals. They are
probably carcinogens \8\. Another common legacy pollutant is polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which is a general name for multiple
chemical compounds. These were released to the environment by coal
gasification plants and other industrial operations and some of the
compounds are considered to be carcinogenic \9\. Other legacy
pollutants include metals such as mercury, lead and arsenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ refer to ATSDR public health statement for PCBs: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=139&tid=26
\9\ refer to Wisconsin DHS web page for information: https://
www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pah.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals who live in the same neighborhoods as these
contaminated sites can be exposed to these pollutants in a variety of
ways. They can be exposed when they catch and consume fish from
polluted waterbodies. They can breathe air that contains particulate
matter from polluted sites on a dry, windy day. They can eat vegetables
from a garden that has been grown in polluted soil. They can drink
water that has been drawn from polluted surface water or groundwater
and not properly treated and transported.
The U.S. and Canada recognized the importance of addressing toxic
pollution for restoring the health of Great Lakes communities, and in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement [https://www.epa.gov/glwqa]
(first signed in 1972 and updated in 1978, 1987 and 2012) designated
Great Lakes Areas of Concern to create a framework for addressing toxic
hotspots around the Great Lakes. This in turn prompted the U.S. federal
government to authorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) [https://
www.epa.gov/great-lakes-legacy-act/about-great-lakes-legacy-act] in
2002 (reauthorized in 2008) to provide technical support and funding
for toxic sediment cleanups in the Areas of Concern. This legislation
has played a very important role in helping communities to remove
contaminants, which they otherwise may not have been able to do given
the high costs of cleanups.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) has expanded the
capacity of the GLLA to carry out cleanups, and strong public-private-
partnerships have formed to carry out the cleanup projects. Examples of
GLLA cleanups include the Buffalo River [https://bnwaterkeeper.org/
projects/buffalo-river-restoration/] in Buffalo, New York; Lincoln
Creek [https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/greatlakes/lincolnpark.html] in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and, the Detroit River [https://www.canr.msu.edu/
news/yes_we_are_restoring_the_detroit_rivers_area_of_concern] in
Detroit, MI. Following cleanups in AOCs, communities have seen
significant economic revitalization \10\. The GLLA represents a success
story and one recommendation would be to expand the GLLA--allow it to
support cleanups in communities that aren't AOCs and provide additional
funds to the program (i.e., support the GLRI at the authorized $475
million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Assessing the Investment: The Economic Impact of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, a report by the Great Lakes Commission
and Council of Great Lakes Industries; see https://www.glc.org/work/
blue-economy/GLRI-economic-impact
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the GLLA supports the removal of toxics from waterbodies, the
land-based cleanups are also important and regulatory programs such as
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA, or Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and Brownfields programs have been successful in transforming
polluted industrial sites into desirable locations for new businesses,
green spaces, and residential development. These regulations and
programs should be sustained and strengthened to ensure the pace of
cleanup continues and communities can return to health as soon as
possible.
Great Lakes communities can be exposed to toxic substances not only
from contaminated soils and sediments but also as a result of nutrient
inputs from the surrounding watershed. Toxic algae can cause rashes,
stomach or liver illness, and respiratory problems in people and pets
\11\. Toxic algae impacted the drinking water system of Toledo, OH in
2014 when a severe bloom occurred in the area of the city's drinking
water intake pipe. As a result, more than 400,000 residents were
without safe drinking water \12\ for three days \13\. Restaurants
closed, tourism slowed, and residents had to rely on bottled water. The
costs of the bloom were examined in a 2015 report, Economic Benefits of
Reducing Harmful Algal Blooms in Lake Erie, prepared by Environmental
Consulting & Technology, Inc., which estimated the cost of the 2014
bloom to be $65 million.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Nutrient Pollution Effects: Human Health (https://www.epa.gov/
nutrientpollution/effects-human-health)
\12\ ``Toxic Algae Bloom Leaves 500,000 Without Drinking Water in
Ohio'' https://www.ecowatch.com/toxic-algae-bloom-leaves-500-000-
without-drinking-water-in-ohio-1881940537.html
\13\ ``Lake Erie's algae bloom is growing again after paralyzing
Toledo water system'' https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-
watch/lake-eries-algae-bloom-growing-again-after-paralyzing-toledo-
water-system
\14\ ``Economic Benefits of Reducing Harmful Algal Blooms in Lake
Erie'', M. Bingham, S. K. Sinha, and F. Lupi, Environmental Consulting
& Technology, Inc., Report, 66 pp, October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many Great Lakes communities are at the bottom of the
watershed, and often have little say in what happens on land upstream
of their communities, they bear the costs of these blooms while others
in the watershed are relied upon to take the actions that would
alleviate the blooms (and since those actions are largely voluntary,
they are not necessarily occurring to the degree that is needed to have
a meaningful impact on the severity of the blooms). The nutrient issue
is one that many federal, state and local agencies and organizations
are working together to address (see response to question 1). One
possible strategy for strengthening relationships among the partners
seeking solutions is to connect agricultural producers and the
downstream communities through fishing trips, community roundtables and
farm visits. These activities can help to build a sense of shared goals
and empathy for the day-to-day lives of others and how they are
affected by these watershed issues (see Wanted: Innovative farmers to
help slow algal bloom on Lake Erie by Richard Mertens \15\, which
mentions that ``Fishing boat captains are taking farmers out on Lake
Erie to let them see algal blooms first-hand.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2018/0529/Wanted-
Innovative-farmers-to-help-slow-algal-bloom-on-Lake-Erie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminated sediment sites and toxic algae blooms are often
visible problems that garner attention from community leaders and
funders. Less visible a threat is the reliance by older Great Lakes
cities on crumbling, antiquated drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure. Communities in the eight-state region are faced with a
staggering $179 billion over the next 20 years for needed improvements,
upgrades, and repairs. Lead service lines in drinking water
distribution systems continues to threaten the health of families in
these older urban centers. Until all lead service lines are replaced,
there will be a risk of exposure to lead in drinking water. Part of the
cost of replacing the service lines falls to the homeowner. Funding
mechanisms that would alleviate this cost for disadvantaged communities
could help ensure that infrastructure upgrades occur equitably and do
not leave them behind.
Strategies for addressing these threats share some common themes.
Successful programs such as the Great Lakes Legacy Act and Brownfields
programs exist and should be sustained and potentially expanded.
Partnerships should be supported as no one agency or organization can
clean up a sediment site, alleviate harmful algal blooms, or upgrade
infrastructure on its own. Flexibility to allow partners to arrive at
shared, innovative solutions should be supported by the agencies
managing government programs. Limited funding is an issue affecting
disadvantaged communities' ability to address these threats, and
flexibility for meeting (or forgiving) local cost share requirements
for federal programs should be considered. Funding for drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure replacement and upgrades should be
increased to accelerate the pace of progress on this issue. And
importantly, agencies who are seeking to support disadvantaged
communities should engage members of those communities in developing
solutions [for an interesting article, see ``Community Theories of
Change: Linking Environmental Justice to Sustainability through
Stakeholder Perceptions in Milwaukee (WI, USA)'' \16\].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Hornik, Kaitlyn, Bethany Cutts, and Andrew Greenlee. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(10), 979 https://www.mdpi.com/
1660-4601/13/10/979/htm#B3-ijerph-13-00979
Question 3. Your testimony also mentions the challenges of emerging
contaminants, such as nanoparticles and PFAs. These are becoming water
quality challenges across the country.
Do you have any suggestions for actions that Congress, or U.S. EPA
should be taken to address these emerging threats to water quality,
especially drinking water quality?
Answer. As Secretary Cole described in his testimony, there are a
suite of new chemicals that we are just beginning to understand,
including nanoparticles, microplastics, pharmaceuticals, personal care
products, and PFAS. Understanding sources of or these chemicals,
cycling, bioaccumulation, exposure, and short- and long-term health
effects of these chemicals individually and in combination is going to
be needed moving forward to protect the health and safety of our Great
Lakes citizens. Emerging contaminants like PFAS are particularly
challenging to address because they are long-lasting, and substitutions
use chemicals with similar chemical formulations that have been shown
to be as harmful as the original product.
For all these chemicals, most notably PFAS, the first important
step for the Federal Government is to require EPA to set nationwide
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for all emerging contaminants that
fully protects the public health from exposure in drinking water,
groundwater, and surface water as soon as possible. There are currently
no federal standards for PFAS, microplastics, pharmaceuticals, or
personal care products. They are not regulated by the Safe Drinking
Water Act, or Clean Water Act, and there is no federal mandate to be
monitoring for the chemicals. In the absence of federal standards, some
states have begun to develop their own standards and monitoring
programs, which takes time and resources away from other needs at the
state level. EPA needs to make evidence-based PFAS guidelines in
drinking, surface water, and groundwater a priority. Additionally, EPA
leadership needs to set guidelines for handling and managing waste
containing these chemicals, so contamination does not continue to be an
issue after point-sources of emerging contaminants are identified and
controlled.
Guidelines for emerging contaminants need to be guided by public
and environmental health concerns. Following guidelines and research
from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA
needs to use up-to-date scientific weight of evidence to determine safe
levels of exposure to emerging contaminants across all media.
Substances currently banned in the US may be entering undetected
through a global supply chain. The binational Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, through the Chemicals of Mutual Concern annex provides a
model for nominating chemicals, systematically evaluating their sources
and potential for release into the environment and health risks and
developing strategies to address them. Two examples of leveraging
studies conducted outside of the US were presented in June at the 2019
Great Lakes Water Quality Forum. Environment Canada (EC) initiated a
study to identify whether short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs),
substances banned in both Canada and the US were entering the country.
Preliminary results presented indicated SCCPs were detected in several
products including children's toys. This illustrates that we cannot
simply consider US-based sources of exposure.
Additionally, EPA needs to consider and fund studies that increase
our understanding of exposure health effects of unstudied emerging
contaminants and the impacts of contaminants in combination with one
another. A recent study found that even 93 percent of bottled water
showed some sign of microplastic contamination after accounting for
possible background contamination \17\, and microplastics are present
in human food sources \18\ \19\ As microplastics break down in the
water and become nanoparticles, they can pass directly through the
blood-brain barrier \20\ and cell membranes to enter the body. Because
of their size they are difficult to measure in the environment and more
difficult to filter out. Many emerging contaminants can bioaccumulate
up the food chain, impacting the aquatic food web, the health of the
Great Lakes fisheries, and the health of those who consume Great Lakes
fish and wildlife, so funding to understand and determine these
bioaccumulation factors are important to setting appropriate guidelines
that prioritize public health. These chemicals are not isolated in the
environment, and human and aquatic life are exposed to a suite of
chemicals at once. Understanding how these chemicals interact with one
another and their cumulative effects on human and wildlife is necessary
to setting appropriate thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Mason et al. Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water.
https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/FinalBottledWaterReport.pdf
\18\ Yang, D., H. Shi, L. Li, K. Jabeen, and P. Kolandhasamy
(2015). Microplastic Pollution in Table Salt from China. Environmental
Science & Technology, 49, 13622-13627.
\19\ Van Cauwenberghe, L. and C. R. Janssen (2014). Microplastics
in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental Pollution,
193, 65-70.
\20\ Mattsson, Karin et al. 2017. Brain damage and behavioral
disorders in fish induced by plastic nanoparticles delivered through
the food chain. Scientific Reports 7: 11452
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government needs to develop and fund analytical methods
and monitoring programs. Guidance on monitoring protocols and program
development at the state and regional level would be invaluable for
states to quantify emerging contaminants in the environment. EPA has an
analytical method to test for 18 PFAS in drinking water, but there are
nearly 5,000 PFAS chemicals in addition to a plethora of other emerging
contaminants. There is no plan in place to develop an analytical method
to measure emerging contaminants, such as PFAS, in surface water and
wastewater. Analytical methods for both media are necessary to quantify
contamination and exposure in the environment and assess treatment and
remediation technologies. As part of this method development, EPA needs
to ensure that there are certified reference materials and other
standards solutions so results are uniform and reliable. EPA could use
its TSCA authority to request information on lab methods from PFAS
manufacturers. Alternatively, EPA's Green Chemistry Challenge \21\
serves as a model that partners with the chemical industry, trade
associates, academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other
government agencies to promote pollution prevention and incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the testimony, we do have solutions for many of these
problems, but the federal government needs to provide capacity to
states to enact solutions. Funding is required to develop new treatment
processes for contaminants, and to provide capacity for states and
communities to install new technology and properly dispose of
contaminated materials. For example, we do not have effective treatment
systems for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in
the wastewater treatment process. A study \22\ in 2013 found that only
half of prescription drugs and other newly emerging contaminants in
sewage are removed by treatment plants and that the impact of most of
these chemicals on the health of people and aquatic life remains
unclear. Wastewater treatment plants were not designed to handle these
types of chemicals, and most municipalities in the Great Lakes are
under tight budgets \23\, making additional federal programs and
supplemental funding critically important for them to implement new
technologies as they are developed. Both drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure is underfunded, and revenue caps constrain the actions
communities and their utilities can take to address them. Small
communities frequently do not have the resources to upgrade their
wastewater treatment technologies that address chemical contaminants
effectively. These communities look to states for both technical and
financial assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Uslu et al. 2013. A Survey of Occurrence and Risk Assessment
of Pharmaceutical Substances in the Great Lakes Basin. Ozone: Science
and Engineering.
\23\ ``Only half of drugs removed by sewage treatment plants.''
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-half-of-drugs-removed-
by-sewage-treatment/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While removal of contaminates at the source is a key step moving
forward, Congress needs to provide funding and guidance to remove
contamination already in the environment. States are struggling to
protect drinking water sources from PFAS contamination. In Michigan,
PFAS foam on lakes and rivers is an issue, prompting consumption
advisories on the Rogue River and Van Etten Lake \24\. PFAS has
contaminated drinking water wells in Marinette, WI, with eleven being
above the EPA's health advisory limit \25\. Currently there is little
guidance on who has authority to order investigations and cleanups and
authority of federal entities to incur remediation costs. To facilitate
contamination remediation, EPA needs to determine which PFAS are
regulated under RCRA and/or CERCLA as hazardous waste or hazardous
substances and provide information to guide remediation of PFAS-
contaminated sites per the recommendation of states and professional
organizations. We encourage EPA to complete the process to list PFAS as
hazardous substances as quickly as possible. Further, the federal
government needs to make available low- or no-cost programs for
regional cleanup efforts and fully fund projects necessary to ensure
that EPA and States can manage risks associated with emerging
contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 7 ways to address PFAS contamination in Michigan https://
www.mlive.com/news/2018/07/7_ways_to_address_pfas_contami.html
\25\ New evidence of groundwater pollution turning up near Lake
Michigan at Tyco plant in Marinette. https://www.jsonline.com/story/
news/local/wisconsin/2018/06/18/new-evidence-groundwater-pollution-
turning-up-near-tyco-plant/703136002/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Dave Pine, Supervisor, First
District, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and Chair, San
Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
Question 1. In your testimony, you mention that you have put into
place a 20-year local funding source for San Francisco Bay restoration
projects.
How does this local funding sources compare to the Federal funding
the program receives? Does the San Francisco Bay need to continue
receiving Federal funding to reach the restoration goals the Commission
has outlined?
Answer. Despite significant investment of state, regional and even
private funds, fully restoring the tidal wetlands of the San Francisco
Bay cannot be accomplished without additional federal funding.
The vast majority of SF Bay acreage awaiting restoration is federal
property within the national wildlife refuge complex. Yet the San
Francisco Bay Joint Venture estimates that of the funds spent on
acquisition, restoration and enhancement of bay lands between 1997 and
2018, only 28% were from federal sources.
In 2008, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (SFBRA) was
created to raise and allocate local funding for Bay restoration. This
was accomplished with Measure AA, a 20-year, $12 parcel tax that was
passed by 70% of the voters across all nine Bay Area counties in June
2017. Measure AA was predicated on the idea that both the state and
federal government would each contribute approximately one third of the
funds necessary to restore the Bay, with SFBRA funding through Measure
AA providing the last third.
The need for additional federal resources is clearly illustrated by
the large gap between currently available funding and funding requests
for projects. In its first two annual grant rounds, SFBRA received
almost three times more demand for project funding ($131 million) than
funding available ($47 million).
Similarly, the EPA administered San Francisco Bay Water Quality
Improvement Fund (WQIF) program, which began in 2008 and provides
grants to protect and restore San Francisco Bay, has received $176
million in grant requests but has only been able to provide $50 million
in funding. The SF Bay WIQF program has been funded through a directed
appropriation averaging only $4 million to $5 million annually. The SF
Bay WQIF program lacks statutory authorization and has not grown to
meet the funding needs of the Bay. The SF Bay WQIF program funding is a
small fraction of what the following estuaries received from Congress
in FY 2019: Chesapeake Bay ($73 million), Puget Sound ($28 million),
and Long Island Sound ($14 million).
The cost to restore land in public ownership to tidal wetlands is
estimated to total at least $1.4 billion. Moreover, this estimate does
not include the cost of preventing pollution in the Bay and providing
other benefits crucial to its health, as described in the EPA-mandated
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) completed by San
Francisco Estuary Partnership, which is San Francisco Bay's National
Estuary Program. The total cost estimate for all CCMP actions is many
billions of dollars. Measure AA over its 20 year term will generate
approximately $500 million, far short of the total amount needed.
The U.S. General Accounting Office, at the request of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has reviewed the federal
role in the San Francisco Bay's restoration efforts and has also called
out the need for more federal funding. The GAO's report, published in
August 2018, found that:
San Francisco Bay restoration needs additional federal
funding:
``Obtaining sufficient federal funding for water
quality improvement and ecosystem restoration
activities'' is considered one of the top factors
posing a ``Very Great'' or ``Great'' challenge by those
GAO surveyed.'' [p.49--figure 8, and p. 50 supporting
narrative].
The Bay can effectively utilize more federal funding: The
GAO found a high level of coordination and collaboration among entities
working on Bay restoration which will enable federal funding to be
effectively utilized and leveraged.
``The results of federal and nonfederal entities
working together can be seen in parts of the watershed,
such as the Bay, where this work has resulted in the
development of comprehensive regional strategies,
sources of funding for some restoration projects, an
expanding regional database, and an inventory of
potential projects.'' [p. 52]
Better tracking and coordination of federal funding from
different agencies is needed: HR 1132, introduced by Congresswoman
Jackie Speier and discussed below, calls for the establishment of an SF
Bay Program office at the EPA. Such a program office could track and
report to Congress all federal agency funding in S.F. Bay.
The limited federal funding for San Francisco Bay was the impetus
for Congresswoman Jackie Speier's HR 1132. HR 1132 recognizes the
success of the EPA's National Estuary Program model and the need to add
additional federal funds ($25 million a year) to implement the CCMP for
San Francisco Bay.
Stakeholders in the Bay Area and the state have demonstrated a
willingness to invest in the restoration of the Bay. The urgency of
restoring tidal wetlands in the Bay is increasing with the threat of
rising sea levels, and without additional federal funding the window of
opportunity will close for much of the potential restoration work that
remains.
Question 2. Often, investment in the restoration of local
ecosystems can be narrowly portrayed as only benefiting the environment
for its own sake; yet, several studies have shown that investment in
the restoration of local ecosystems has far greater benefits than just
protection of the environment. For example, I understand that several
global companies have offices in the San Francisco Bay region; yet,
many of these businesses also face risks due to climate change, sea
level rise, and other environmental challenges.
Can you discuss your work with the business community and others in
advocating for the restoration of the San Francisco Bay, and how the
business community perceives the benefits of the Bay's restoration?
Answer. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area
Council, the two largest business member driven organizations in the
region, were very involved in the crafting and passage of Measure AA,
and continue to be involved with the SFBRA's work. They have done so
because numerous businesses, including some of the most recognizable
corporations in the world, are located on or near the Bay shoreline and
face the threat of sea level rise and flooding.
Businesses such as Google, Facebook, and the San Francisco Giants
publicly endorsed and contributed financially to Measure AA. In
addition to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area
Council, numerous business organizations supported Measure AA
including:
Bay Planning Coalition
Environmental Entrepreneurs
Joint Venture Silicon Valley
North Bay Leadership Council
Oakland Chamber of Commerce
Outdoor Industry Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
The business community in the Bay Area is keenly aware that not
only are their immediate properties in some instances imperiled by
rising seas, but so is the infrastructure upon which they and their
employees rely. They appreciate that tidal wetlands provide a buffer
from storm surges and rising seas by knocking down large waves and
absorbing floodwaters. They also understand that a healthy Bay is a
crucial ``quality of life'' amenity for their employees.
Question 3. Unlike Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, the San
Francisco Bay is a water body contained within one state.
Why does a healthy San Francisco Bay matter to the nation as a
whole?
Answer. Economically, the Bay Area itself would rank 19th in the
world by GDP due in part to the businesses surrounding the Bay,
including numerous leading Silicon Valley companies, which are a
critical economic engine for the nation. The Bay is also a vital hub
for the movement of people and goods between the United States and Asia
and along the west coast. Three major airports are located near the
Bay, and the Bay contains six shipping ports, including the Port of
Oakland which is the eighth busiest container port in the United
States.
Ecologically, the San Francisco Bay also is of great national
importance:
It is the largest estuary on the west coast of North and
South America.
It contains more than 100 federally listed threatened and
endangered species.
It is the winter home for 50 percent of the diving ducks
in the Pacific flyway.
It hosts more wintering and migrating shorebirds than any
other estuary along the U.S. Pacific Coast south of Alaska.
The San Francisco Bay has received several national and
international designations due to its critical ecological value. It has
been designated as a ``Ramsar Wetland of International Importance'' by
an intergovernmental wetland conservation treaty, as one of 67 Areas of
Continental Significance for waterfowl by the North American Waterfowl
Conservation Plan, and a Site of Hemispheric Importance by the Western
Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.
The restoration of San Francisco Bay benefits both the environment
and businesses. Restored tidal wetlands trap polluted runoff before it
reaches open water, provide protection against flooding, rising sea
levels and storms, prevent erosion, and capture greenhouse gases to
counter climate change.
The State of California, Bay Area taxpayers through Measure AA, and
private foundations have all contributed to the remarkable progress we
have made in restoring the Bay. The missing partner in this effort is
the federal government. With additional federal investment the health
of the San Francisco Bay can be dramatically improved and our
businesses, communities and ecosystem protected for the benefit of our
nation and the world.
Questions from Hon. Denny Heck to Laura L. Blackmore, Executive
Director, Puget Sound Partnership
Question 1. Unlike Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, the Puget
Sound is a water body contained within one state.
Why does a healthy Puget Sound matter to the nation as a whole?
Answer. Puget Sound is an economic engine: it supports a $4 billion
flow of goods and services annually, and 780,000 water-dependent jobs.
A healthy Puget Sound is good for America's economy as a whole.
Restoring Puget Sound to health makes it more resilient to the effects
of extreme weather events, thus avoiding the use of federal taxpayer
dollars to rebuild.
American families nationwide consume fish and shellfish produced in
Puget Sound waters. Washington State is the largest producer of
hatchery-reared and farmed shellfish in the U.S, with more than 300
farms accounting for 25% of the total domestic production by weight and
an annual farmgate value exceeding $108 million.\1\ Salmon fishing in
Puget Sound has an average economic impact of $100 million per year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pacific Shellfish Institute website, 2013. http://pacshell.org/
default.asp.
\2\ Duke's Seafood & Chowder, 2017. ``Disappearance of wild salmon
hurts local economy.'' Seattle Times, November 20, 2017. https://
www.seattletimes.com/sponsored/disappearance-of-wild-salmon-hurts-
local-economy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American families also come to Puget Sound for tourism. Out-of-
state visitors to Washington State accounted for an estimated 12
percent of all participant days, and 27 percent of total outdoor
recreation spending.\3\ Eighty percent of tourism and recreational
spending in Washington State is tied to Puget Sound.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Earth Economics. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation
in Washington State, January 2015, http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/
ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.pdf
\4\ Earth Economics, 2008. A New View of the Puget Sound Ecology:
The Economic Value of Nature's Services in the Puget Sound Basin.
https://www.floods.org/ace-files/documentlibrary/committees/
A_New_View_of_the_Puget_Sound_Economy.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond these facts and figures, we also know that the nation and
the world care about Puget Sound recovery because they told us so. The
Governor's Southern Resident Killer Whale Task Force received over
18,000 public comments during its first year, and over 2,600 public
comments on its final report.\5\ While most of these were from
Washingtonians, 28 percent were from other states, and 6 percent were
from other countries. Schoolchildren from across the country sent
handwritten letters, and individuals flew to our meetings from
Wisconsin (and the United Kingdom) to testify in person. People care
about orcas, and orcas rely on a healthy Puget Sound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Office of Washington Governor Jay Inslee, 2018. Summary of
public comments received between October 24 and October 29 on the
October 24 version of the draft recommendations. https://
www.governor.wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment/southern-resident-
orca-recovery/task-force
Question 2. What resources is the state of Washington putting
towards Puget Sound recovery? Why is additional funding beyond the
state's existing contribution necessary?
Answer. The state of Washington invests robustly in Puget Sound
recovery. The Washington State Legislature's enacted capital budget for
the 2019-2021 biennium includes the following investments in Puget
Sound recovery:
Over $300 million for habitat protection and restoration
projects;
$275 million to replace culverts under state roads that
block fish passage; and
Over $280 million for projects to prevent toxic pollution
of our waterways.
Via the operating budget, the state also invests substantially in
state agency programs to protect and restore habitat, prevent toxic
pollution, and reopen shellfish beds to harvest. As just one example,
the Legislature awarded the Puget Sound Partnership nearly $12 million
in operating funds for this biennium. The total amount of operating
budget investment in Puget Sound recovery is not possible to calculate
because most state agency programs are statewide; however, we know that
the total is vastly larger than the $12 million provided to our small
agency per biennium.
Notwithstanding these impressive numbers, federal funding remains
crucial to our work. The primary source of funding to implement our
Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan, or Action Agenda for
Puget Sound, required under the National Estuary Program is the Puget
Sound Geographic Program. Over the past several fiscal years, Congress
has appropriated $28 million annually into this fund, managed by the
EPA. We leverage this funding at $30 for every $1 of federal
investment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. NEPORT 2018 database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this funding is significant and appreciated, estimates of the
actual need to fully implement the Action Agenda show that the funding
received falls far short: the funding gap for the 2014-2015 Action
Agenda was 68 percent, and for the 2016-2018 Action Agenda it was 73
percent.\7\ The funding gap for salmon recovery is about 84 percent.\8\
Our monitoring shows that at these funding levels, we are barely
holding our ground against further degradation, if not managing decline
of the ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Puget Sound Partnership, 2017. 2017 State of the Sound.
Olympia, Washington. November 2017. 84pp. www.psp.wa.gov/sos
\8\ Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, 2018. State of the Salmon
Report, Executive Summary, page 9. Accessed June 20, 2019. https://
stateofsalmon.wa.gov/exec-summary/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal funding is essential to our ability to recover this
ecosystem.
Question 3. If the Puget Sound Geographic Program was funded at the
$50 million level it would be authorized to receive by the PUGET SOS
Act, what kinds of projects would that extra funding go towards?
Answer. The 2018-2022 Action Agenda for Puget Sound charts the
course for ecosystem recovery. It contains over 600 ready-to-go near-
term actions that, if funded, could be implemented within the next four
years. These projects are focused in three strategic initiatives:
1. Protecting and restoring habitat
2. Preventing toxic pollution from stormwater
3. Reopening shellfish beds
Examples of excellent projects simply awaiting funding include the
following:
Lyre River Watershed Protection and Restoration Phase II
(protect and restore habitat)
City Habitats: A Regional Partnership for Stormwater
Innovation (prevent pollution from stormwater)
Lower Stillaguamish Pollution Identification and Control,
Phase III (reopen shellfish beds)
Information about all of the projects is available online at Puget
Sound Info, our new online platform for sharing information and stories
about Puget Sound recovery. Access it at www.pugetsoundinfo.wa.gov.
Question 4. Aside from the Puget Sound Geographic Program and the
National Estuary Program, what other resources should Congress support
to enhance Puget Sound recovery?
Answer. A multitude of additional federal programs enhance Puget
Sound recovery, including the following:
The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) is a
multi-state, multi-tribe program that has provided crucial support for
salmon recovery efforts throughout the Pacific coast region. These
funds have supported the implementation of over 13,200 projects,
protected and restored over 1.1 million acres of habitat, and opened
access to over 10,550 miles of previously inaccessible streams.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NOAA Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, 2019. Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
protected_species/salmon_steelhead/
recovery_planning_and_implementation/pacific_coastal_salmon_recovery_fun
d.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) provides crucial funding
to meet the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, address tribal
fishing rights, and maintain sustainable US fisheries. Signed by the
United States and Canada in 1985, the revamped PST (2019-2028) reflects
the international commitment to ensure a better future for salmon and
Southern Resident orca.
The NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration Grants
fund community-based restoration projects that use a habitat-based
approach to rebuild productive and sustainable fisheries, contribute to
the recovery and conservation of protected resources, promote healthy
ecosystems, and yield community and economic benefits. Funding for the
NOAA Habitat Conservation and Restoration Program is critical.
The US Department of Agriculture's voluntary conservation
programs for working lands also make important contributions to Puget
Sound recovery. These programs help reduce soil erosion, enhance water
supplies, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce
damages from floods and other natural disasters.
The US Army Corps of Engineers' aquatic ecosystem
restoration business lines and continuing authorities program support
the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project to design and
implement habitat restoration projects. These programs leverage
already-secured state funds to improve the health of nearshore habitats
and their ability to support shorebirds, shellfish, salmon, orca, and
humans.
The Corps also needs adequate and timely funding for
necessary next steps to complete the federally-required downstream fish
passage at the Howard Hanson Dam and upgrades at the Hiram Chittenden
Locks, which represent important steps to increasing the number of
salmon in Puget Sound and supporting the recovery of Southern Resident
orcas.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to William C. Baker, President,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Question 1. In your testimony, you discuss the Trump
administration's efforts to roll back Clean Water Act protections
through its Dirty Water Rule to change the scope of water and wetlands
entitled to Federal protection.
Can you discuss how the President's Dirty Water Rule, if allowed to
go into effect, would affect the long-term health of the Chesapeake
Bay? Supporters of the President's proposal suggest that States will
simply fill any gap in protection of waters and wetlands; do you agree?
Answer. The Chesapeake Bay receives half of its water from an
intricate network of 111,000 miles of creeks, streams, and rivers and
1.7 million acres of wetlands, many of which are non-navigable
tributaries, non-tidal wetlands, and ephemeral and intermittent
streams. Of particular note are the 34,000 acres of Delmarva Potholes
on the Eastern Shore. These features all provide significant benefits
to the Bay. Wetlands, for example, soak up storm surges, trap polluted
runoff (helping to slow the flow of nutrients, sediments and chemical
contaminants) and provide habitat to hundreds of fish, birds, mammals
and invertebrates. The benefits they provide regarding storm surges and
flooding are becoming increasingly critical as the watershed faces new
threats and challenges from climate change.
In response to the confusion that unfolded following the Supreme
Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States, where there was no clear
majority and no definition of ``significant nexus'' (the prevailing
theory for identifying waters that are not navigable in fact), EPA and
the Army Corps of Engineers (the agencies) finalized a new definition
of ``Waters of the United States'' (WOTUS) in 2015. Commonly referred
as the Clean Water Rule, it provided clarity about what types of
wetlands require Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System or NPDES) and Section 404 (dredge and fill) Clean Water Act
permits and was based on extensive review and scientific analysis. In
2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13778, Restoring the Rule
of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the 'Waters of the
United States' Rule, and the agencies announced a two-step plan to
repeal and replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule.
In 2017, the agencies proposed rules to repeal the Clean Water Rule
(and recodify the regulatory language that was in place prior to 2015)
and change the effective date of the 2015 Rule to 2020. We expect the
agencies to finalize the repeal of the Clean Water Rule in the near
future. In December of 2018, the agencies announced their Replacement
Rule that narrows the definition of WOTUS, most notably by excluding
features that only contain water during or in response to rainfall
(ephemeral features), groundwater, many ditches (including most
roadside or farm ditches), and prior converted cropland. In addition,
interstate waters and interstate wetlands would now be considered a
separate category of WOTUS. If adopted, it is estimated that this
replacement rule will affect the status of 18 percent of streams and 51
percent of wetlands nationwide.
In the Bay watershed, this limited interpretation will have the
greatest impact in states that rely exclusively upon the federal
definition of WOTUS for the protection of ephemeral streams and
wetlands in their jurisdiction like Delaware, the District of Columbia
and West Virginia. In Delaware, for example, almost 200 thousand acres
of wetlands would be vulnerable to destruction. Even in Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia--where the states have additional water
protection programs--the impacts will be felt. We do not believe that
the state programs are sufficiently protective without a strong federal
program in place. These state programs each have areas of weakness that
will be exposed, and the lack of protections upstream will lead to
problems downstream. In addition, there have been attempts in both
Pennsylvania and in Virginia to limit the states' authority to regulate
beyond what is proscribed at the federal level.
The Administration's proposal narrows the scope of the Clean Water
Act well beyond anything that was considered in the Rapanos case and
would leave numerous wetlands and ephemeral streams in the watershed
unprotected. CBF opposes this change, and hopes that EPA, in
particular, will fulfill its purpose of setting the standard for
protecting water quality and seek ways to fulfill its leadership
obligations to the Bay under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act. I am
attaching our formal comments for a more thorough presentation of our
position.
[The formal comments are retained in committee files.]
Question 2. In your testimony, you urge Congress to expand two
Chesapeake Bay grant authorities--one for water quality and habitat and
one for innovative and market-based approaches to reducing pollution.
Can you give some success stories of this existing program that
justify its expansion?
Answer. As mentioned during my testimony last month, the Chesapeake
Bay Program is the glue that holds this historic clean-up partnership
together. Funds are used to coordinate cross-state science, research,
modeling, monitoring, and data collection. Each state uses this
information to plan, track, and adapt their restoration activities to
meet their pollution reduction goals. Over 60 percent of program funds
go to states, primarily through grant programs that leverage private
investment for restoration activities. Additionally, every federal
dollar unlocks more than $2 from other sources.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation advocated for an increased level of
funding for two of the grant programs that are specifically listed in
the Chesapeake Bay Program appropriation:
1. One grant program goes toward improving water quality and
habitat of small, local waterways known as the Small Watershed Grants
Program.
2. A second grant program supports innovative and market-based
approaches to reducing pollution, aptly named the Innovative Nutrient
and Sediment Reduction Grants Program.
This increased federal support is an important step to save the Bay
and repair some of the most damaged waterways in Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The Small Watershed Grant project is
administered for the Bay Program by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) which awards grants to local governments and non-
profit organizations. What is remarkable is that while the grants range
in size from $20,000 to $200,000, since 2000 this investment has
supported over 600 projects and the $27 million in total grant awards
has leveraged almost $90 million. Simply stated, there are no other
programs that add up to over $100 million in community-based
restoration projects. When people see an investment in their
communities, they take ownership over the water quality improvements
and develop an increased sense of stewardship. The dedication and
vested interest that results from local restoration projects cannot be
quantified.
The Chesapeake Bay Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grant
program is also administered by NFWF. The grants awarded under this
program are larger, ranging from $200,000 to $1 million. These grants
are awarded competitively and focus on those projects that can serve as
a demonstration of innovative new practices that have the potential to
accelerate pollution reductions. Additionally, through this grant
program, there is an investment in those best management practices and
strategies that prove most cost-effective and efficient at nutrient
reductions.
Like the Small Watershed Grants Program, the Innovative Nutrient
and Sediment Reduction Grant Program has aided in getting projects in
the ground throughout the watershed. According to the Bay Program,
close to 150 conservation projects have been funded through this
investment and the $69 million in federal support has leveraged over
$100 million in matching dollars.
The two programs combined have led to over 960 projects throughout
the watershed. From a total grant investment of $125 million, $233
million in matching funds has been leveraged. CBF is advocating for
more funding for these two programs because they have proven to be
successful, they provide unique opportunities to leverage additional
investment in clean water, and because year after year the project
applications exceed available funding.
I have attached a map and summary chart of all the projects
supported in whole or in part through the grant programs and two
documents that highlight particular projects. Looking through the list
of projects you will see they are both big and small, are spread
throughout the watershed and have an impressive return on investment
through the dollars leveraged. The other characteristic that stands out
is partnership--communities, local and state governments, and various
stakeholders have come together under the common goal of clean water.
It is that partnership that has gotten the Bay where it is today, and
that very same sense of collaboration is what will get us to a saved
Bay.
[The map and summary chart are retained in committee files.]
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Kristi Trail, Executive
Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Question 1. In your testimony, you mention a few projects that Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation has completed with the assistance of
grants from EPA's Lake Pontchartrain Program. Specifically, you
reference ongoing water quality monitoring and the establishment of a
museum.
Please provide the Committee with a detailed accounting of all the
grant funding the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation has received and
expended pursuant to section 121 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1273) for the past ten years. Please include the following information
for each grant received:
(a.) the annual cumulative grant amount received by the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (and date(s) the grant funding was
received);
Answer. Please find below a table indicating the grant amount
received. Please note that this is a cost reimbursement grant.
Therefore, LPBF must have a signed grant agreement in order to receive
reimbursement for costs expended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date LPBF Received Signed Grant
FY Amount awarded to LPBF Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................. $562,485.00 9/15/2009 \\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................. $568,000.00 9/14/2010 \\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.................................. $756,800.00 8/5/2011 \\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................. $616,492.00 7/27/2012 \\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013.................................. $799,500.00 10/16/2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.................................. $335,080.00 9/30/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.................................. $246,080.00 9/8/2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.................................. $326,680.00 11/3/2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017.................................. $300,000.00 11/16/2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.................................. $346,323.00 Not yet received \\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................. RFP not yet issued Not yet received
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ For these dates, this is the date LPBF was notified of the award, not the date of the signed
agreement; typically an agreement was signed 3 months after notification
\\ LPBF was notified of our FY18 award on July 26, 2018; however, to date, no signed agreement has been
received. Therefore, funds are not yet available to LPBF for our FY18 award.
(b.) a detailed description of any further activity or project
funded through the Foundation using such grant, including the recipient
of the funding, the intended purpose of such activity or project, and
the date(s) such activity or project was awarded by the Foundation, and
the date such activity or project was completed;
Answer. As LPBF is a sub-recipient of this funding, we do not grant
these funds to other entities. Below please find a list of LPBF's
current ongoing programs, and a summary of purpose for each program.
According to the current management conference structure of this
grant at this time, all items funded by PRP must produce tangible
results & preserve, protect or restore water quality & or habitat of
the Pontchartrain Basin in accordance with the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). It should be noted that the
referenced CMP was written by LPBF.
Water Quality Program: LPBF performs its basin-wide monitoring
program to gain knowledge of the water quality of basin waterways. The
program began in 2001 and still continues to this day. These funds have
helped ensure that we can monitor approximately 10-12 sites for water
quality parameters, disperse that data to the media weekly, and analyze
the data to assess trends. Based on results obtained in the basin-wide
monitoring program, LPBF established its sub-basin pollution source
tracking program in January 2002. The purpose of this program is to
locate and correct sources of fecal coliform pollution in the sub-
basins of the Pontchartrain Basin. Because data collected from this
program is used to identify sources of pollution, LPBF has an
assistance program to assistant local entities with wastewater
treatment. Additionally, LPBF established multiple ``Water Quality Task
Forces'' in various regions within the basin to coordinate sewage
problems among local, parish and state organizations. Accomplishments
of these task force meetings are developing and implementing a sewage
education plan, providing updates on the status of wastewater treatment
facilities and identifying problem wastewater treatment facilities and
coordinating efforts to rectify.
Coast & Community Program: Although LPBF has been active in coastal
restoration since its inception in 1989, it was in June 2005 that a
formal program was established. This aggressive commitment to the coast
was triggered by the realization that the coastal wetlands were
deteriorating in spite of ongoing authorized restoration programs. A
plan was devised by LPBF called the Multiple Lines of Defense Strategy,
which was referenced in LPBF's testimony on June 25, 2019. This
strategy recognizes natural and manmade lines of defense combined with
wetland habitat restoration to provide hurricane protection as well as
coastal restoration. Following the hurricanes of 2005, LPBF looked
carefully to its Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan (CHMP). The CHMP
consists of over 100 projects and is the blueprint for restoration of
the habitats in the Pontchartrain Basin. This program also conducts
many projects around the basin, including scientific studies,
restoration projects and long-term analysis. The development of our
Hydrocoast Maps provides a bi-weekly snapshot of conditions across the
basin. Additionally, LPBF partners with many agencies, NGOs and
universities to study, plan and implement projects that protect all of
our citizens from future storms and to keep our coastal region
economically and culturally sustainable for the future. This program
continues today.
Education & Outreach: LPBF's Outreach & Education Department has a
goal to educate the public on important issues affecting the
Pontchartrain Basin. With increased awareness of water quality and
coastal issues, citizens of the basin become better stewards of the
region where they live. LPBF programming is conducted onsite at LPBF's
New Canal Lighthouse as well as offsite. LPBF also works in partnership
with other organizations to keep the community informed about basin
issues. LPBF aims to inspire K-12 students in the region through STEM
activities rooted in the history and natural resources of the
Pontchartrain Basin. We teach students environmental recovery and
restoration strategies through water quality testing, hands-on models
for choosing natural and human-made coastal protection options, and
field identification of insects and marsh grasses used in coastal
restoration--in the urban marsh we created at Bayou St. John--and much
more. Funding provides programs and materials at LPBF's New Canal
Lighthouse Museum and Education Center and a nearby urban marsh on
Bayou St. John, created by LPBF.
Public Access: The Lake Pontchartrain Basin stretches from lush
hardwood forests and slow flowing rivers of the north shore to the
bayous, swamps, lakes and sounds leading to the Chandeleur Islands.
From the fisherman making his way through the early morning fog to the
kayaker slowly making her way through the spring irises, to the family
picnicking along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain, the Basin is an
environment to experience and cherish. LPBF and its partners have
restored many of the waterways and habitats of the Pontchartrain Basin
so they are once again a resource for recreational opportunities. This
program aims to communicate the ways for the public to enjoy our basin.
We started this program in 2006 and continue it to this day.
New Canal Lighthouse & Museum: LPBF restored the New Canal
Lighthouse, which opened to the public in 2013, and has operated it as
a museum and education center with funding from PRP. Our museum's
colorful displays, photos, maps, and videos provide historical context:
when the Mississippi River deposited Louisiana's coastal soils long
ago; Native American and French explorers; the City of New Orleans'
growth; the recovery of Lake Pontchartrain's waters; and strategies to
restore Louisiana's coast. The New Canal Lighthouse Museum and
Education Center educates locals and visitors about the water quality
and habitats of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, about LPBF's Multiple
Lines of Defense Strategy to address critical coastal issues, & about
the history of the lighthouse and lifesaving station.
(c.) a description of the source and amounts of additional funds
(other than those provided by section 121) paired with grant funding to
carry out such activity or project; and
Answer. The below table contains a breakdown of the percent of
funding that the Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program has
contributed per program. Please note that we are required to have at
least a 25% match for our PRP funding for each grant period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 year average %
matched by other
funding (federal 10 year average %
LPBF Program 10 year average % and non- matched by in kind
funded by PRP governmental donations
funding) &/or fee
for service
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Sustainability.............................. 10% 80% 10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Quality....................................... 50% 40% 10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education & Outreach................................ 60% 20% 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Access....................................... 75% 0% 25%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Canal Lighthouse Museum \\.............. 70% 20% 10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (includes development and operations)......... 0% 90% 10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Museum opened in 2013; therefore, this is 2013 to date
LPBF receives federal funding for our Water Quality program from
two (2) geographic water programs under EPA: PRP and the Gulf of Mexico
Program (GOMP). We have occasionally received pass-through PRP funds
from another sub-recipient of PRP. We also have periodic contracts with
the U.S. Coast Guard to provide additional water quality monitoring in
the lake for use in their rescue drills and operations in the basin
(approx. $15k per year). We have periodically had a contract with the
City of New Orleans to perform sampling and analysis of their
stormwater drains. There are no NGO sources of funding for our WQ
program. We have collected samples around the Lake (called our Basin
Wide Monitoring program) continuously since 2001. PRP has funded this
activity with each grant year since 2001, except PRP FY 16 because we
were awarded funding from the EPA GOMP for this task that year. In PRP
17, the BWMP was again funded by PRP.
LPBF's Education Program began diversifying its funding in 2018.
Historically it was 80% funded by PRP. In 2019, it is approximately 50%
funded by PRP.
LPBF's Public access program is 75% funded by PRP.
LPBF's NCLH Museum is 70% funded by PRP, and generates 20% of its
needed revenue from event rentals, gift shop sales and tours. The
museum opened in 2013. To date, 40,000 youth & adult, residents and
visitors (from 40 states), learn about the Lake's recovery,
stewardship, and coastal restoration.
(d.) a detailed description of the results the activity or
project, including a description of how the activity or project is
consistent with and furthers the statutory intent of section 121 to
``restore the ecological health of the [Lake Pontchartrain] Basin''.
Answer. To address the need to inform the public about the lake's
current water quality, LPBF's Basin-wide Recreational Water Quality
Monitoring Program (BWM) provides timely, scientific analysis and broad
dissemination of information every week. This allows the citizens to
make informed decisions about using the lake for recreation or fishing.
In the case of environmental events and/or poor water quality, it warns
the public against the use of the lake (or sections of the lake) for a
specified time period. The need to reduce water pollution from sources
upstream from the lake is addressed by LPBF's Sub-Basin Pollution
Source Tracking Program, which has the goal of improving water quality
so additional waterbodies are subsequently removed from the Clean Water
Act's 303(d) list. The need to continue expanding capacity and
strategies to address urban pollution and storm water volumes is
addressed by LPBF's work in the Greater New Orleans area with non-
profit, government, and private sector entities engaged in policies,
programs, collaborations and partnerships, all intended to help the
citizens of Pontchartrain Basin's largest urban area ``live with
water'' in ways that are healthier, safer, and benefit overall quality
of life.
This BWM program has provided tangible benefits in the past, and
continued efforts should realize other benefits as well:
This program allows LPBF to advocate for changes to water
management practices or issues within the basin. In March of 2017, LPBF
identified a sewage infrastructure failure at Bayou Castine because of
upwardly trending data;
In water bodies (e.g., lakes, rivers and beaches), EPA
develops criteria for exposure to bacteria that may indicate viruses
that cause illness in humans. LPBF monitors water in terms of criteria
set by EPA for fecal coliform and enterococci as indicators of fecal
contamination. EPA is also considering criteria for coliphages, which
are viral particles associated with E. coli and are better indicators
of viruses in treated wastewater than bacteria. This funding will allow
for LPBF to gather data about coliphages and their usefulness as a
viral indicator for the protection of public health in recreational
waters.
This program has an outreach to the local newspaper (The
Advocate)'s readership exceeding 132,000 since our weekly water quality
results are printed each week. In addition to LPBF's direct posting of
results on the Water Quality webpage, this program allows folks who use
the lake to make informed decisions about water quality.
Measurable outputs and outcomes include semi-annual results,
trends, and other statistical evaluation of the data collected within
the basin; and outreach including newspaper readership, views tracked
online, and other app-based dissemination measures.
In the north and northwest portions of our basin, in rapidly
developing parishes such as St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Livingston,
Iberville, and Ascension, some large wastewater treatment systems
exist, but many homes and businesses are responsible for their own
wastewater (mainly sewer) treatment, using small, individual wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs). Many times, these small WWTPs are not
functioning properly and can release contaminated water into our bayous
and rivers. LPBF provides education, advocacy and training to owners of
residential and commercial WWTPs to better understand their system and
reduce their contribution to downstream water pollution.
These PRP-funds allow us to:
Work with the WWTP owner to understand the parts of the
plant and how it functions. LPBF will assess the facility to see if
repairs are needed; we guide the plant owners as repairs are made. To
date, we have worked with well over 1000 commercial and 1200 home
WWTPs. They are now functioning properly and not contributing
wastewater to the rivers;
Note that several small-system WWTPs are not properly
permitted with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ), and therefore, they are not regularly monitored, inspected, or
improved. LPBF will continue efforts to inspect and permit these
facilities in partnership with the LDEQ Small Business Assistance
Program;
Identify and correct sources that contribute to fecal
pollution in the rivers as located through water quality monitoring and
GIS analysis; and
Document baseline conditions and tracks changes in water
quality.
These steps improve effluent discharge to waterways and streams to
reduce waste load allocation burdens, and contribute to returning
waterways to their full, intended use. Measurable outputs and outcomes
include semi-annual reporting of facilities inspected, and repairs
made. Reports also identify costs to make repairs, and facilities that
applied for LPDES permits.
Further, LPBF engages municipal, parish, and state officials in
water quality task forces aimed at coordinating activities to reduce
pollution in target areas of Orleans, Tangipahoa, St. Tammany, and
Jefferson Parishes. The water quality issues of these areas are
dependent on the development and environmental conditions. Across the
board, these task forces build stakeholder partnerships to
comprehensively address pollution issues revealed.
LPBF's New Canal Lighthouse Museum (Lighthouse) and Welcome Center
benefits the youth and adults of the Pontchartrain Basin, as well as
thousands of visitors from across the U.S. The Lighthouse is an iconic
symbol for LPBF. The museum offers students, locals, and tourists the
opportunity to learn about the pressing problems and solutions
regarding coastal sustainability and water quality through colorful
images, narrative, and narrations. In the future, it is LPBF's top
priority to optimize the museum exhibits and draw more people to
experience the lakefront through the lens of environmental restoration
and enjoying our natural assets.
Question 2. If the Committee were to consider legislation to re-
authorize the EPA's Lake Pontchartrain Program, do you have any
recommendations to improve the Lake Pontchartrain Program? Please
explain.
Answer. LPBF has encountered hurdles with this funding for many
years, and we appreciate the opportunity to offer recommendations.
Because we rely on continuous funding for our many programs, it is
crucial to LPBF that this funding be considered a programmatic fund. In
the current structure, there is uncertainty each cycle on when the
funding will be available, which interrupts funding of our continuous
programs. LPBF also offers a few additional recommendations:
1) Elimination of the Management Conference that works as a
liaison between the EPA and grant recipients. This would eliminate the
unnecessary time spent on communication and delays. Also, this would
allow the grantee to work directly with the EPA staff that administer
the program.
2) Currently, LPBF is forced to expend its own reserve funds to
support these programs while the Management Conference and EPA work
through a lengthy (currently 14-month) delay in disbursing funds.
LPBF's major initiatives require ongoing/continuous programmatic
funding, which is exactly what this funding stream was initially
designed to do. Consistent, timely release of the PRP RFP annually
would allow LPBF to continue the valuable work without any
interruption.
3) Eliminate the 15% cap on Public Education & Outreach. Outreach
& education is a critical component of LPBF's work. Currently, there is
a 15% cap on the Public Education portion of the program as stated in
40 CFR 1263(f)(2). The original authorization included $20 million in
total funding over 5 years. With annual appropriations significantly
reduced from the original amount, the 15% cap is now extremely
limiting. Our education & outreach programs educate the community at
large on water quality of the Basin. Through our work with local K-12
schools, LPBF also identifies potential job paths related to water
management, and ways to ignite interest in this sector.
4) Ensure funding is designed for LPBF's programs as outlined in
LPBF's Comprehensive Management Plan, as stated in 40 CFR 1263(b).
5) Allow use of grantees' approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate
Agreement (NIRCA). Currently the PRP management conference imposes an
arbitrary indirect rate of 14% on sub-awardees. LPBF has an approved
NIRCA from the U.S. Department of Interior, and recommends using that
approved rate for the grant award approved indirect rate.
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Kristi Trail, Executive Director,
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Question 1. The Bonnet Carre Spillway acts as the pressure relief
valve to the Mississippi River system, releasing excess water from the
River into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. Could you describe the
challenges of operating a restoration program in this system and how it
differs from other estuaries and basins?
Answer. Since the 1930s, whenever the spring floods on the river
are great enough to threaten the New Orleans levees below Bonnet Carre
(BCS), the BCS is opened to relieve the pressure of the high water by
sending flood water into Lake Pontchartrain. The massive spillway
structure made of 350 bays of reinforced concrete, stretches 7,000
feet. In each bay are 20 timbers that must be individually removed by a
crane to open the structure. The Spillway was opened once every 10
years due to high river levels; however, it has been opened 4 times in
the last 2 years, including twice already this year.
In 2019, the Bonnet Carre Spillway (BCS) opening has drawn
attention from scientists, environmentalists, and the general public.
Large amounts of work and funding have been spent in the past three
decades on the effort to improve water quality in Lake Pontchartrain.
When the BCS is opened, approximately ten percent of the river's flood
stage flow is directed into the Lake, which, because it is actually a
shallow estuarine system, is very sensitive to sudden changes. The
river water replaces the brackish water with muddy, cold fresh water,
nutrients and other contaminants. It should be noted that the
Mississippi River Basin is the third largest in the world, after the
Amazon and Congo basins. Parts or all of 31 states plus two Canadian
provinces drain into the Mississippi River, totaling 41% of the
contiguous United States and 15% of North America.
As the year has progressed, and as the temperatures rise, algal
blooms have begun to occur in the Lake on a large scale. Due to the
concerns about the toxicity of some of these algae, warnings against
recreational use of Lake Pontchartrain have been issued by the State of
Louisiana. After a typical Spillway opening, the Lake is typically able
to rebound and restore its balance, but the short-term impact of
spillway openings are great enough that future openings will raise many
questions from all those concerned about the health of Lake
Pontchartrain.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) authority precludes
use of the BCS for any purpose other than river flood management, and
so does not allow for the ACOE to even assess other uses. In fact, the
guide levees are considered an extension of the Mississippi River &
Tributary (MR&T) levees. One possible change to maintain the health of
the estuary is to shunt water east or west from the BCS into adjacent
wetlands. This would help revive and sustain wetland forests which help
protects levees and communities. It would also reduce some amount of
nutrient load to the estuary. In fact, diverting water from the west
side of the BCS is included in LPBF's 2017 Comprehensive Management
Plan (CMP). So the ``challenge'' is that under existing authority, the
Army Corps of Engineers' and the State of Louisiana are precluded from
using an existing BCS flood control structure for coastal restoration.
Further, LPBF supports the use of the spillway for flood control
rather than solely in response to Mississippi River levels flooding.
The Pontchartrain Estuary system is different from other estuary
systems because of the overlapping issues of flood management in a low
landscape, with a major river, and a delicate a balance of the estuary.
The wetland loss rate is also exceptional. Altogether, the perilous
state of our coast requires use of new tools (e.g., sediment
diversions) but also use of existing tools (e.g. considering the BCS as
a tool).
Other areas that affect the restoration of the Pontchartrain Basin
are considering re-authorizing the Caernarvon and Davis Pond Fresh
Water diversions for purposes of coastal restoration and not narrowly
for salinity management.
All of this is contingent upon solid, quality monitoring throughout
the system, due to the unique hydrologic and water quality issues.
Louisiana is challenged with unique problems around water flow and
draining due to the geographic location. Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation is the premier entity working with the local, state and
federal government agencies to combat the many issues faced.
Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Tom Ford, Director, Santa
Monica Bay National Estuary Program and Executive Director, The Bay
Foundation, also on behalf of the Association of National Estuary
Programs
Question 1. Twenty-eight estuaries have been designated as
estuaries of national significance. However, Biscayne Bay which is the
largest estuary on the coast of southeast Florida is not one of the 28.
It shares its shoreline with the Miami urban area, supports a wide
array of commercial and recreational activities.
A University of Miami study suggests that degraded water quality
conditions change how people use the bay, with significant implications
for the local economy. More than 25,000 acres of seagrass meadows have
vanished as Miami boomed, chronic pollution spread, and climate change
drove seas ever higher.
Given the environmental challenges Biscayne Bay is facing, wouldn't
it make sense to add it to the National Estuary Program? Why haven't we
expanded the program, many of our nation's waters need restoration?
Comments from Mr. Ford. You are correct, there are 28 estuaries
designated as estuaries of national significance. Those estuaries of
national significance support a wide array of commercial and
recreational activities such as you identify with Biscayne Bay in
southeast Florida.
Though I am not familiar with the study you reference from the
University of Miami regarding changes in human use of the bay, the loss
of seagrass meadows, the spread of chronic pollution, and rising seas
driven by climate change are familiar themes. Indeed the 28 estuaries
designated as nationally significant share similar threats or
stressors. They also share many successes reversing these downward
trends by increasing expanses of sea grasses and reducing the
concentrations and/or spread of pollution.
The National Estuary Program was intended to identify and inform
these threats and stressors, protect public health, promote the
preservation of habitats that support commercial and recreational
activities and improve water quality. To accomplish these objectives
the individual National Estuary Programs (NEPs) establish a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). This plan, is
developed by the local community, informed by science, and conducted
via annual work plans that accomplish actions addressing threats and
improve the quality of the estuary. The CCMPs are subject to update and
revision every five to ten years respectively, thus they are
contemporary documents. I have attached the FY 2017-FY 2019 CLEAN WATER
ACT Sec. 320 NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM FUNDING GUIDANCE (4-17-2017) and
Frequently Asked Questions on NEP Governance (2-19-15) for reference.
[FY 2017-FY 2019 Clean Water Act Sec. 320 National Estuary Program
Funding Guidance (4-17-2017) is retained in committee files and is
available online at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-02/
documents/nep_fy_2017-2019_nep_
funding_guidance_2_15_2017_1.pdf. Frequently Asked Questions on NEP
Governance (2-19-15) is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://www.smbrc.ca.gov/about_us/orientation/docs/
usepa_nep_governance_
faq.pdf.]
(a.) Given the environmental challenges Biscayne Bay is facing,
wouldn't it make sense to add it to the National Estuary Program?
Answer. Establishing a National Estuary Program to protect and
restore Biscayne Bay could be very beneficial to reverse the persistent
pollution, increase adaptation potential to address sea level rise and
the loss of sea grasses amongst others. The Biscayne Bay NEP would
direct local, state, and national agencies and interests to work
comprehensively throughout, in this case, the Biscayne Bay Watershed
and in its nearshore environments. Advised by technical experts,
informed by local stakeholders, and realized via actions instituted
through diverse partnerships, the CCMP for Biscayne Bay would be a
productive action plan for the region. That has been our experience
with the Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program; I am confident
you'd receive a similar response from the other 27 NEP directors
throughout the country. It has been decades since a new NEP was added
to the National Estuary Program. Meanwhile the pressures placed on
these estuarine systems are increasing due to population related
pressures, old and ineffectual infrastructure, and climate change
related stressors such as sea level rise. The successes realized in
other NEPs should encourage the expansion of this program to support
other estuaries that deserve recognition as estuaries of national
significance such as Biscayne Bay. In short, yes it would make sense.
(b.) Why haven't we expanded the program, many of our nation's
waters need restoration?
Answer. This is a challenging question and there are likely many
reasons why ``we'' haven't expanded this program. From my perspective
the successes of the National Estuary Program demonstrate the outputs
and outcomes of an ideal model to put communities first and maximize
federal investment in these places designated as nationally
significant. NEPs have leveraged federal dollars more than ten times
over with state, local, and private funds and resources contributing to
this progress.
That stated, increased funding to the National Estuary Program is
essential to expand and administer the program. Funding for the NEPs
has remained static for over a decade, with each NEP in the field
receiving about $600,000 annually in federal support. In real terms
this means that the NEPs are operating on significantly less funds than
a decade ago, and in many cases are struggling to develop and implement
their comprehensive plans with the current level of support.
In order to not undermine the existing program, it is necessary to
pair the addition of any new NEP with a commensurate increase in
funding.
The process for adding an NEP to the existing program is clearly
articulated in Section 320 of the Clean Water Act as illustrated below:
(a) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
(1) NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES
The Governor of any State may nominate to the
Administrator an estuary [https://www.law.cornell.edu/
uscode/text/33/1330] lying in whole or in part within
the State as an estuary of national significance and
request a management conference to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the estuary. The
nomination shall document the need for the conference,
the likelihood of success, and information relating to
the factors in paragraph (2).
(2) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE
(A) In general
In any case where the Administrator determines, on his
own initiative or upon nomination of a State under
paragraph (1), that the attainment or maintenance of
that water quality in an estuary which assures
protection of public water supplies and the protection
and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recreational
activities, in and on the water, requires the control
of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to
supplement existing controls of pollution in more than
one State, the Administrator shall select such estuary
and convene a management conference.
Furthermore, the recently established estuary caucus within the
U.S. House of Representatives is encouraging https://posey.house.gov/
estuaries/. This caucus provides awareness for the importance and
benefits of healthy estuaries. Inherently, this is a recognition that
many of our nation's waters need restoration. This caucus may prove
useful to build support for increased appropriations necessary to
bolster the resources required of the National Estuary Program, and in
this specific case to expand and create a new NEP in southeast Florida.