SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
63–806CC l
1999
HEARING ON: H.R. 2496, TO REAUTHORIZE THE JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN PROGRAM ACT OF 1994 AND H.R. 2821, NORTH AMERICAN WETLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL EXPANSION ACT, AND H.R. 1775, ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP ACT
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SEPTEMBER 23, 1999, WASHINGTON DC
Serial No. 106–63
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SIMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ADAM SMITH, Washington
HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director
DAVE WHALEY, Legislative Staff
JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held September 23, 1999
Statement of Members:
Dingell, Honorable John D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan
Prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of American Samoa
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland
Prepared statement of
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Prepared statement of
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Prepared statement of
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, prepared statement of
Prepared statement of
Hon. Carlos A. Romero-Barceló, a Commissioner in Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Statement of Witnesses:
Davis, Michael L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Prepared statement of
Davis, Grant, Assistant Secretary, Executive Director, the Bay Institute of San Francisco
Prepared statement of
Frazer, Gary D., Assistant Director for Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Prepared statement of
Hirshfield, Michael, Senior Vice President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Melius, Tom, Assistant Director for External Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Prepared statement of
Ribb, Richard, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Yozell, Sally, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
From the Sierra to the Sea, The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed
Letter to Mr. Saxton, from David R. Anderson, Director of Federal Affairs, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Text of H.R. 1775
Text of H.R. 2821
Text of H.R. 2496
HEARING ON: H.R. 2496, TO REAUTHORIZE THE JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN PROGRAM ACT OF 1994 H.R. 2821, NORTH AMERICAN WETLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL EXPANSION ACT, H.R. 1775, ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP ACT
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, before the Honorable Jim Saxton, Chair, presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.
Today we are discussing H.R. 2496, the reauthorization of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994; H.R. 2821, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act; and, H.R. 1775, Estuary habitat Restoration Partnership Act.
The first bill, H.R. 2496, has been introduced by a friend and colleague, Congressman Solomon Ortiz, from Texas. This bill would reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act. This innovative idea was first enacted in 1994 and it has allowed thousands of school children, from kindergarten through high school, to participate in the nationwide wildlife art contest.
This program has also motivated students to take an active role in learning about and conserving our nation's wildlife resources. This measure does not make any significant changes in the underlying Act, but it will extend the annual competition, the marketing of these stamps, and the awards program for an additional five years.
The second bill, H.R. 2821, has been recently introduced by two House members who serve with great distinction on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.
This proposal, by our colleagues, Congressmen John Dingell and Curt Weldon, would increase from three to five the number of non-governmental representatives that may serve on the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.
This Council has been instrumental in approving hundreds of worthwhile conservation projects that have saved over 32 million acres of essential wetlands in Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Finally, H.R. 1775, to catalyze estuary restoration and coordinate Federal estuarine activities. This is an excellent bill and this action is long overdue from the Federal Government. I am the co-sponsor of the measure and I commend Mr. Gilchrest for his leadership on this issue.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I remain committed to attacking the problems facing this nation's estuaries and to restoring downgraded coastal habitat. Over a decade ago, Congress created the national estuary program to address serious environmental problems in estuaries of national significance. These problems include polluted runoff, habitat loss, development pressure, and harmful algal blooms.
Unfortunately, despite a significant amount of planning, very little effort has been made to implement comprehensive conservation management plans or to actively restore the most seriously degraded estuarine areas.
I am pleased that today we are taking positive steps to improve this unacceptable situation.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for his statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. Today we are discussing H.R. 2496, to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, H.R. 2821, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act and H.R. 1775, Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.
The first bill, H.R. 2496, has been introduced by our friend and Subcommittee Colleague, Congressman Solomon Ortiz of Texas. This bill would reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act. This innovative idea was first enacted in 1994 and it has allowed thousands of school children from kindergarten to high school to participate in a nationwide wildlife art contest. This program has also motivated students to take an active role in learning about and conserving our nation's wildlife resources. This measure does not make any significant changes in the underlying Act but it will extend the annual competition, the marketing of these stamps and the awards program for an additional five years.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second bill, H.R. 2821, has been recently introduced by the two House Members who serve with great distinction on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This proposal by our colleagues, Congressmen John Dingell and Curt Weldon, would increase from three to five the number of non-governmental representatives that may serve on the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. This Council has been instrumental in approving hundreds of worthwhile conservation projects that have saved over 32 million acres of essential wetlands in Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Finally, H.R. 1775, to catalyze estuary restoration and coordinate Federal estuarine activities. This is an excellent bill, and this action is long overdue from the Federal Government. I am a cosponsor of this measure, and I commend Mr. Gilchrest for his leadership on this issue. I remain committed to attacking the problems facing this nation's estuaries and to restoring degraded coastal habitat.
Over a decade ago, Congress created the National Estuary Program to address serious environmental problems in estuaries of national significance. These problems include polluted runoff, habitat loss, development pressure, and harmful algal blooms. Unfortunately, despite a significant amount of planning, very little effort has been made to implement comprehensive conservation and management plans or to actively restore the most seriously degraded estuarine areas. I am pleased that today we are taking positive steps to improve this unacceptable situation.
Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank and commend you for holding the hearings to consider the bills that are now before the Subcommittee.
I certainly look forward this morning to the hearing and especially appreciate that you have rescheduled for two days of hearing on H.R. 1775, a bill introduced by our colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, to facilitate estuary habitat restoration. That was postponed last week due to Hurricane Floyd.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, consequently, we certainly have a busy agenda this morning. To keep things moving along, I will defer at this time from formally commenting on H.R. 2496, to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Program. Actually, I do approve and support very much the proposed bill by our good friend and member of this Subcommittee from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, as well as the expanding the North American Wetlands Conservation Council by two seats.
I enjoy and welcome our distinguished colleague, Mr. Dingell, who is not here yet, but I certainly welcome him for hearing and I'm looking forward to his testimony and certainly look forward to hearing from our friend from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, on his bill.
Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 1775, again, I commend my good friend from Maryland for introducing this legislation. I share his overarching concern regarding the continued loss of estuary habitats across our nation. Ecologists and researchers estimate that we have lost well over 90 percent of the estuary wetlands that existed when European explorers first discovered—and I'd like to change that word and say the European explorers never discovered this part of the world. They landed here on this continent 400 years ago. Even though Columbus got lost, Mr. Chairman, but they came here nevertheless.
The estuaries, such as San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay, once renowned for their high ecological productivity, are now mere vestiges of their former selves.
To restore past ecological abundance is to begin to understand how much we have all lost and, most importantly, how far we must go to restore what has been despoiled.
Mr. Chairman, the decline in estuary habitat has been well documented in the scientific and resource management literature for over 30 years. We are now beginning to see what this loss means to the environment, expressed through the declines in commercial fisheries, saltwater intrusion, coastal aquifers, and shoreline erosion and subsidence threatened, even private property.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A loss of estuary wetlands also has contributed to a declining water quality in these areas and these habitats serve as natural filters for pollutants.
Mr. Chairman, the impacts are real and should surprise no one.
What does remain surprising is the stubborn insistence of some critics in the development and resource extraction industries who believe that we can continue to fill in and pave over our estuary habitats, somehow believing the ecosystem is left unaltered and that our human environment is not diminished.
Simply a charade to contend that this loss of estuary habitat, Mr. Chairman, has not had a pernicious impact on both our environment and the economy.
Just ask any unemployed commercial fisherman or an angler who has lost his favorite fishing area and he will tell you otherwise, or just ask the economists who recently estimated the dollar value of services provided at no cost to us by various natural environments.
Estuaries weigh in at $56,000 per acre per year for a global total of $4 trillion per year.
Mr. Chairman, after reviewing the bill, I believe H.R. 1775 would provide a reasonable balanced approach to help preserve remaining estuary habitats and would stimulate practical and effective environmental restoration on the local level.
Particularly, I am pleased that the legislation incorporates an administrative structure similar to the model currently authorized under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA.
I believe that the NAWCA model can be adapted successfully to administer a national estuary habitat restoration program and I will be interested to hear if our other witnesses share this view.
One very important concern that I do have with the legislation is that it would exclude the Great Lakes States from participation. Plainly stated, Mr. Chairman, the exclusion is unwarranted, unnecessary, and perhaps even, I might say, unfair. But I do hope, Mr. Chairman and our good friend from Maryland, your support of this would add the Great Lakes, as well as the other areas that are part of our great nation.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill proposes an artificial distinction that is inconsistent within the statutes. For example, the Great Lakes are fully recognized under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Furthermore, degraded wetlands habitats, wherever they are located, are worthy of restoration and should receive equal consideration, regardless of whether they are salty or freshwater.
With that said, I would say that my good from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest's legislation is a very good step. I believe that with some pragmatic modifications, that maybe we can make it even more effective.
I look forward to working together with the gentleman from Maryland and look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. THE HONORABLE ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this morning's hearing. I especially appreciate that you have rescheduled for today the hearing regarding H.R. 1775, Mr. Gilchrest's bill to facilitate estuary habitat restoration, that was postponed last week due to Hurricane Floyd.
Consequently, we certainly have a busy agenda this morning. To keep things moving along, I will defer at this time from formally commenting on either H.R. 2496, which would reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Program, or H.R. 2821, which would expand the North American Wetlands Conservation Council by two seats. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our esteemed colleague and avid sportsman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and I await with interest his comments regarding this legislation.
I do have some brief remarks regarding H.R. 1775, and I commend my good friend from Maryland for again introducing this legislation.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I share his overarching concern regarding the continued loss of estuary habitats across our Nation. Ecologists and researchers estimate that we have lost well over 90 percent of the estuarine wetlands that existed when European explorers first discovered this continent 400 years ago. Estuaries such as San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay—once renowned for their high ecological productivity—are now mere vestiges of their former selves. To read historical accounts of past ecological abundance is to begin to understand how much we have all lost, and most importantly, how far we must go to restore what has been despoiled.
The decline in estuary habitat has been well-documented in the scientific and resource management literature for over 30 years. Worse, we are now beginning to see what this loss means to the environment expressed through declines in commercial fisheries, salt water intrusion ruining coastal aquifers, and shoreline erosion and subsidence threatening public and private property. Loss of estuarine wetlands also has contributed to declining water quality in these areas, as these habitats serve as natural filters for pollutants. Mr. Chairman, the impacts are real and should surprise no one.
What does remain surprising is the stubborn insistence of some critics in the development and resource extraction industries who believe that we can continue to fill in and pave over our estuary habitats and somehow believe that the ecosystem is left unaltered, and that our human environment is not diminished.
It is simply a charade to contend that this loss of estuary habitat has not had a pernicious impact on both our environment and economy. Just ask any unemployed commercial fishermen, or an angler who's lost a favorite fishing area, and they will tell you otherwise. Or just ask the economists who recently estimated the dollar value of services provided—at no cost to us—by various natural environments. Estuaries weigh in at $56,000 per acre per year, for a global total of $4 trillion per year.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After reviewing the legislation, I believe that H.R. 1775 would provide a reasonable, balanced approach to help preserve remaining estuarine habitats and would stimulate practical and effective environmental restoration on the local level. Particularly, I am pleased that the legislation incorporates an administrative structure similar to the model currently authorized under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA. I believe that the NAWCA model can be adapted successfully to administer a national estuary habitat restoration program, and I will be interested to hear if of our witnesses share this view.
One very important concern that I do have with this legislation is that it would exclude the Great Lakes States and insular areas from participation. Plainly stated, this exclusion is unwarranted, unnecessary and unfair, and I hope the Chairman and the sponsor will support the addition of these areas.
This bill proposes an artificial distinction that is inconsistent with other statutes. For example, the Great Lakes States and insular areas are fully recognized under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Furthermore, degraded wetland habitats—wherever they are located—are worthy of restoration and should receive equal consideration, regardless of whether they are saline or freshwater.
With that said, Mr. Gilchrest's legislation is a good first step, and I believe with some pragmatic modifications, that it can be made even more effective. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland, and of course with you Mr. Chairman, to move this important legislation forward in the process.
Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for a very thoughtful statement. Just to amplify on what the gentleman just said, it was just a day or so ago that we were successful in adding several thousand more acres to the Coastal Barriers Resources system and we thank you for your cooperation, and I say that from the bottom of my heart, as you know.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Ortiz.
STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for having this hearing today and for including the Junior Duck Stamp legislation on the agenda.
I had the honor of sponsoring the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act back in the 103rd Congress, when I was a Subcommittee chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
The purpose of the program, as specified in the law, is to provide elementary and secondary school students with educational opportunities relating to the conservation and management of migratory birds. The program is also intended to increase the capacity for schools, states and other educational programs to conduct conservation and education programs.
As I was preparing for this hearing, I was pleased to hear the progress that has been made with this program. I am sure I am not the only person here who knows the importance of programs of this type to the future of our nation.
As economic and population growth continues and increasingly impacts our environment and natural resources, we have to work harder to find ways to preserve both our world and our standard of living. I would agree, solutions to these types of problems begin with knowledge and understanding and these begin with, of course, education.
This is where the benefits of programs such as the Junior Duck Stamp Program will be embraced by society. I am proud to be a part of the program that reaches out to grade school students to teach an appreciation for environmental science and habitat conservation, while also rewarding hard work and effort with support for continuing education.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I can see how this is a great tool to help educate students who have not had the opportunities that some of my colleagues and I have had to spend time in nature and develop an appreciation of our resources and their management.
I thank our witnesses for being with us today and look forward to hearing their testimony. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to introduce someone who truly needs no introduction, Mr. John Dingell, one of our most outstanding conservationists in the House, who is here to discuss the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Act of 1999.
My good friend, John Dingell, if you would take your place and proceed as you are comfortable, sir.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. DINGELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the outstanding work of this Subcommittee. I feel very comfortable because I've spent a lot of time here in this room, both as a member of the Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee, which was just referred to by my good friend Mr. Ortiz, and, also, as a member of the Commerce Committee.
This is indeed the home of great conservation legislation and it has a proud history both in earlier days and also under your leadership, and I'd like to say how pleased I am to see my old friend Mr. Faleomavaega here and to have an opportunity to listen to him and to you, and, also, to my friend Mr. Ortiz.
I have a lengthy statement, Mr. Chairman, which I, with your permission, would like to insert into the record. It is on H.R. 2821, and I will try to summarize briefly the purposes behind that particular legislation.
You might be inquiring as to why it is I suggest a change be made. The legislation is a surprisingly important piece of legislation. In fact, NAWCA has been an enormous success. It's funded 629 projects between 1991 and 1999.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's helped to restore, enhance or help approximately 34 million acres across this continent to achieve higher levels of conservation and wildlife use values.
It's triggered a ratio of partner-to-government contributions in which $2.50 of private money have matched every public dollar that has been spent. This investment is triggered by something which tends to indicate success. The Council which handles this is a nine-member panel. This legislation would increase it to 11.
The reason is, of course, that we're finding that in success and in matters where conservation is vitally concerned, there is a desire for a large number of organizations to participate and a desire on the part of the Administration to see to it that—and that would be true of any Administration—that the benefits are achieved by sharing the participation in the business of the Council and representation on that Council rather broadly.
Two very distinguished organizations which have worked very hard on this panel were scheduled to be dropped, the Ducks Unlimited and also the Nature Conservancy. These are two institutions that put hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of dollars into this program and into other land conservation and wildlife conservation programs.
I think that it would be unwise to drop them. I'm told that now Ducks Unlimited is going to be reappointed, although I've not heard of this, but officially, and that the other organization is not seeking at this time particular membership on the Council.
Very frankly, it seems to me that if we need additional representation on the Council and additional participation to expand not only the membership, but the opportunity of different organizations to serve here and to become participants and enthusiastic participants in the program, it would appear that we should, however, at the same time, keep both the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited, because of the sterling reputation they have and because of the superb work they have done in participation in particularly the conservation of lands, but also conservation of wildlife and specifically in areas involving wetlands, migratory birds and things of that sort.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So the legislation is really very simple. It will ease the pressure in the Administration to cut off those who are serving well and very, very effectively, in the best traditions of wildlife conservation, while, at the same time, affording them the opportunity to appoint several new members to the Commission, which would be, in that fashion, very beneficial to all.
I would observe that my good friend, Mr. Weldon, who serves with me on the Migratory Bird Commission, which works very closely with this panel and indeed approves the projects that they recommend, or disapproves, and we haven't disapproved any, is also a co-sponsor of the legislation and feels, as I do, that we need to move forward to expand the capability of the Commission to do the things that it needs to do in terms of encouraging public participation by private citizens and private organizations in the conservation of wetlands under the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act of 1999.
I want to commend this Committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for the fine leadership you've shown in matters of this kind. I hope that you will not consider that I'm wasting the time of this Committee by bringing to you a relatively piddly matter. I would observe that small matters oft times are very important to greater successes and this appears to fall into that area.
So with those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy, the great work that you and the Committee are doing, and for permitting me to appear here this morning to share these thoughts with you and for your consideration of this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Chairman, I recently introduced H.R. 2821, the ''North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act of 1999.''I want to thank you and your Subcommittee staff for your generosity in granting a hearing on this legislation so quickly. I hope that H.R. 2821 might remain on a swift course so that the great benefits of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) will be fully employed to conserve more wildlife habitat.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This legislation would make a modest improvement to a conservation law that has successfully saved wetlands throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico during the past decade. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act was signed into law in 1989 in response to the finding that more than half of the original wetlands in the United States had been lost during the past two centuries. Congress recognized that protection of migratory birds and their habitats required long-term planning and coordination so that our treaty obligations to conserve these precious species would be met.
The purpose of NAWCA is to encourage partnerships among public and non-public interests to protect, enhance, restore and manage wetlands for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America. NAWCA has been a tremendous success, funding 629 projects between 1991 and 1999, helping to restore, enhance or help approximately 34 million acres across our continent. Most impressive has been the ratio of partner-to-government contributions, which has been about $2.50 for every public dollar invested.
A little more than one year ago I first learned of the Fish and Wildlife Service's desire to promote change in the NAWCA program when the agency announced its intent not to reappoint two non-governmental organizations that played key roles in making NAWCA a cornerstone of American conservation success. I was greatly concerned that any replacement of Council members under NAWCA should not serve as a disincentive to continued active participation in meeting the Act's goals.
I inquired of the Fish and Wildlife Service why it was attempting to replace existing Council members. The Fish and Wildlife Service informed me that it sought to ensure more diversity on the Council. One organization chose to leave the Council, I was informed. The other chose to continue to seek reappointment. Recently my office region's quality of life and recreational value. The Bay Area economy is driven by industries that are located in the Bay Area because they choose to be here—and they choose this reason because valuable employees appreciate the quality of life in the Bay Area.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As species such as the Delta smelt and the winter run Chinook salmon have been protected under the Endangered Species Act, water users, including the East Bay Municipal Utilities District and the Contra Costa Water District have faced increasing restrictions on their ability to take water from the Delta. Restoring habitat is not the entire answer to this fisheries and ESA crisis, but it is a part of the solution. If we can restore habitat and ecosystem health, it will have direct benefits for local residents and the state's economy.
The Region and the State of California Understand the Need For Estuary Restoration
There is a regional consensus in California that the restoration of habitat in the Bay-Delta Estuary should be a major priority. The state is already making funding available for the restoration of habitat in the Estuary, through Proposition 204, in 1996. This year, Governor Davis just signed a budget with $10 million for a new San Francisco Bay Conservancy—with a major focus on habitat restoration.
Save The Bay is taking a leadership role to restore wetlands habitat, working with other regional and local environmental organizations, private and public conservancies, farmers, landowners and other constituency groups, promoting policies that encourage restoration, and building alliances and partnerships to advance restoration throughout the region.
We have also learned in the Bay Area that habitat restoration can help solve some of our dredging needs. Several years ago, for example, the Port of Oakland, with the support of environmentalists, fishermen and state and Federal agencies, used millions of cubic yards of clean mud dredged from its channels to restore wetlands at a site called Sonoma Baylands. This project has been cited as a national model of cost-effective sustainable development. However, restoration does cost somewhat more than the old practice of dumping all of this material in the Central Bay. There are several other similar projects under development. Funding from H.R. 1775 could be invaluable for advancing this work.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year, another wetland restoration project was dedicated in the North Bay, affecting 300 acres of wetlands at Tolay Creek in the North Bay. What made this project particularly interesting was its broad support from environmentalists and farmers. Environmentalists and farmers in California often fight over water and wetlands issues. However, this restoration project helped farmers resolve permitting issues that had troubled their levee maintenance work. H.R. 1775 would provide for cooperation with private land owners to solve environmental problems that, if left unaddressed, could threaten the environmental and economic health of the Bay Area and many other coastal areas around the nation.
This legislation can be a catalyst for estuary restoration, eventually providing over $75 million per year of new Federal resources to achieve an actual increase of one million acres of habitat by 2010. It will also give local communities and our organizations a real voice in shaping restoration projects through voluntary efforts and public-private partnerships. It recognizes the value of watershed planning efforts and voluntary efforts by citizens groups helping with actual, on-the-ground restoration, and makes these a priority for funding. It will also improve coordination among Federal programs and agencies, and streamline their efforts to collaborate.
H.R. 1775 provides funding through the Army Corps of Engineers—and this bill could be one of the most important statutory efforts to reform the Corps' practices and shift its mandate and mission toward restoration. The Corps itself has said that it wants one third of its budget devoted to restoration within five years.
In case anyone wonders why we need funding through this bill, given the existing Federal funding for CALFED, it is important to underscore that CALFED's funding authorization expires this year. The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program also does not include the entire Bay, instead emphasizing the Delta and upstream areas. The lower reach of the estuary needs more attention, and this bill would help meet that need. While we work to renew the CALFED funding authorization, we need H.R. 1775 to help build a national constituency for estuarine restoration. Not only is that appropriate, but it will help maintain the Federal presence and effort to restore our estuary over the long term.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All of these factors explain for the bill's broad support among local organizations around the nation, and among the Federal agencies themselves.
We deeply appreciate the efforts of Representatives Gilchrest and Tauscher to work for preservation and restoration of our nation's estuaries, and we encourage you and all members of the House to swiftly pass this legislation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. And, believe me, we don't think that you are wasting our time in any way, shape or form. When we have a program that works as well as this one does, where we appropriate a dollar and it turns into two or three because of contributions that interested parties make, certainly this is in no way, shape or form a waste of time, and we thank you for being here.
I would just say that my inclination is just to say, at this point, that people who are involved in this program make these contributions and if we can get more people interested and involved in the program to make more contributions, so much the better.
So I don't have any questions at this time, but I would like to commend you for your forethought and bringing this matter to our attention, and we intend to move forward with it as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to associate myself with your comments made earlier concerning Mr. Dingell's statement. Perhaps, just for the record, to my good friend from Michigan, my own personal welcome for him to testify this morning.
As you well know, Mr. Dingell, the Department of the Interior did something very funny last year and, perhaps for the record, if you could explain to the members of the Committee, this rotation consecutive appointment seems to have done something to the way the law had originally constituted the membership of the Council.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Can you share with the members of the Committee how this has affected your decision, with Mr. Weldon, to introduce this legislation, to increase the membership?
Mr. DINGELL. Yes, I will, and I thank you for that question. Originally, there were to be three private organizational members, which would be generally representative of the conservation community.
It was to derive the benefit of their expertise, to achieve the benefit of their support, and also to encourage their participation and that of others in the conservation community and program, which, as mentioned by the Chair, has been enormously successful because it brings in about $2.50 worth of private money for every dollar we spend of Federal money, and people are confident that this program is saving money because the areas are held under long-term contract and have the prestige of being denominated as essentially government or quasi-governmental undertakings. So people are comfortable giving money to carry these programs forward.
What has transpired is that the success of this has led the Secretary, and I think in a proper exercise of his judgment, to say, well, we want to spread the opportunity for responsible organizations around, to permit them to serve on this panel.
This would have the practical effect, and I agree with it, of increasing the support that is out there in the society generally, particularly in the organized conservation community.
Having said that, at the same time, however, we drop the two organizations that participate most extensively and in terms of the largest contributions, in terms of money and time and manpower and so forth: Ducks Unlimited, which is an extraordinary organization, a great treasure, and the Nature Conservancy.
Their purposes are slightly different, but they're all geared to buying land and at conserving and preserving the wildlife resources and the other environmental values.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I find that the two purposes, the purpose of seeing to it that we encourage the participation by those who do the most, is somewhat at war with the idea of spreading it around to attract greater public attention and greater public support.
This is an attempt to meet the concerns of the Department, to see to it that we do keep the big givers and the people who do the most in a position where they can continue to do that and enthusiastically support it, while, at the same time, affording the Secretary the opportunity to provide some additional recruitment of public support for the program.
I think that in that particular, this is a pretty good compromising resolution for the difficulty that we confront and it doesn't make it so big that we run into social problems inside the institution.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for a very comprehensive explanation, and I do support the gentleman's bill, by the way. Thank you.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend and I would say to him hoya ah.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think the Chairman probably doesn't know what that means, but maybe one day when you come see the South Pacific, we will share with him the meaning of those words.
Mr. DINGELL. We will sing him a song.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that it's an honor to have the dean of the House with us this morning, and I think that you have a good bill and I'll support it. Thank you, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank you. I'm honored to be here, Mr. Chairman. You are three distinguished members and we all have large reason to be grateful to all of you for your leadership and for your hard work in these matters. Thank you.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. We want to thank you for being here this morning, John. Your testimony is much appreciated.
We will now move on. I will now introduce the second panel. We have with us Tom Melius, the Assistant Director of External Affairs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I just would like to say, as a reminder, that the five-minute rule, of course, is in effect. Your testimony will be included in its entirety for the written record, and I now recognize Tom for his statement.
STATEMENT OF TOM MELIUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. MELIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Melius, Assistant Director for External Affairs for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the first two bills at this hearing.
The Fish and Wildlife Service strongly supports H.R. 2496, the reauthorization of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program, which was introduced by Congressman Ortiz. H.R. 2496 would reauthorize the administrative expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp Program at $25,000 for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005.
In 1989, the Junior Duck Stamp Program was developed initially by the Service with a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The program was sanctioned and expanded by Congress in 1994.
This program is designed to offer young people from kindergarten to high school the opportunity to learn about wetlands, water fowl and wildlife conservation through their participation in an integrated curriculum of environmental science and the arts.
The highlight of the program is the annual Junior Duck Stamp contest. All 50 states and the District of Columbia participate. The Service owes a great deal of appreciation to the volunteers who assist with this program. These volunteers are responsible for many activities, such as receiving and recording the art and selecting the contest sites annually.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Service believes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program plays an important role in the education of our youth, for it instills in them a strong environmental conservation ethic. Currently, over 100,000 young people in the public, private and home-school programs participate. The Service strongly supports adoption of H.R. 2496.
The next bill, H.R. 2821, the North American Wetland Council Expansion Act, introduced by Congressman Dingell and co-sponsored by Congressman Weldon, amends the North American Wetland Conservation Act to expand the Wetlands Council by adding two additional non-governmental organizations to the nine-member group.
The North American Wetland Conservation Act provides matching grants to private and public organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetland conservation projects in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
From 1991 through March 1999, over 900 partners have been involved in 684 projects, supported with over $287 million in Federal funding and total partner contribution exceeding the $272 million figure, a ratio of $2.5 for every one dollar of Federal funding, a very great leverage.
The North American Wetland Conservation Act also directs the Secretary of the Interior to appoint state and non-government agencies to the nine-member council, with permanent seats for the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The states are represented by state directors from four of the states representing the four flyways.
The three NGO organizations are required to be active participants in wetland conservation projects. Both the states and non-governmental members are appointed to serve three-year terms.
The North American Wetland Conservation Act is one of the most successful and non-controversial Federal conservation laws, mainly due to the partnerships that have been formed for on-the-ground restoration efforts. The Council embodies these successful partnerships and represents the broad-based coalition of interests committed to the protection of wetlands and migratory birds.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For these reasons, the Service does not believe the Council needs to be expanded to meet its current mission. However, should Congress expand the mission of the Council, as has been discussed, in conjunction with the debate on the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, then the addition of two members may bring additional new expertise and perspective to the Council.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which the Senate passed in April of 1999, and is awaiting floor action in the House, as well as a bill very similar that was passed out of the Resources Committee, establishes a grant program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
The legislation encourages the Secretary of the Interior to establish an advisory group to provide guidance in implementing a grants program. If that legislation is enacted, the Service intends to designate the North American Wetland Council as the advisory group for that program.
This program would bring the expertise and experience of the Council to the full range of needs of neotropical migratory birds. Recognizing this opportunity, the Service believes that if the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act were enacted, expanding the Council to include additional non-governmental groups with expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean and neotropical migratory bird conservation, it would make sense to enhance the Council's current expertise and representation.
The Service looks forward to working with Congressman Dingell and the Subcommittee to explore these opportunities to fulfill all needs of migratory birds, including neotropical migrants, water fowl and others.
This concludes my statement and I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melius follows:]
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. MELIUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Chairman, I am Tom Melius, Assistant Director for External Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss these two Fish and Wildlife Service bills the Subcommittee is considering.
H.R. 2496, Reauthorization of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program
The Fish and Wildlife Service strongly supports H.R. 2496, which was introduced by Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz. We would like to thank Mr. Ortiz for introducing this bill and for his continued support of this program.
H.R. 2496 would reauthorize administrative expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program at $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005. Funds appropriated under this program are used for various purposes, including salary and travel expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp Manager, travel expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp winners and their teachers and parents, mailing contest information and scholarships and ribbons for contest participants.
In 1989, the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program was developed initially by the Service with a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The program was sanctioned and expanded by Congress in 1994, with the enactment of Public Law 103-340.
This innovative program is designed to offer young people from kindergarten to high school the opportunity to learn about wildlife conservation through an integrated art and science curriculum. The primary focus of the wildlife conservation program, which complements the regular environmental education curriculum for students, is waterfowl and wetland education. The highlight of the program is the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design art contest held annually and modeled after the successful Federal Duck Stamp. The Junior Duck Stamp program experienced a humble start with two states participating—California and Florida. Today, all fifty States and the District of Columbia participate.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each year, as part of their environmental education studies, students throughout the Nation submit their designs relating to conservation of migratory birds (waterfowl entries) to a designated site in their State to be judged by volunteers who are versed in art and wildlife. The ''Best of Show'' designs in the State are forwarded to Washington, DC, where they are judged by a panel of five judges. The first place design in the national contest becomes the Federal Junior Duck Stamp. The Junior Duck Stamp, which sells for $5, is a collectible and is not used for hunting.
Because of the limited resources, States rely heavily on volunteers. These volunteers receive the art, record it, prepare the art for display and decide where in the State the contest will be held. Following the contest, they prepare the art for its return and prepare certificates of appreciation and ribbons for contest participants. Without these volunteers, the Junior Duck Stamp program could not be the success that it is.
The Service believes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program plays an important role in the education of our youth and it instills in them an environmental conservation ethic. In 1998, over 42,000 students entered the art contest. Educators who have consulted with the Service on the development of the Program, estimate that for every student who enters the art contest ten other students actually participate in the curriculum. In addition, the winning designs are displayed at State Fairs, National Wildlife Refuges, art galleries, museums, and government buildings, encouraging and educating students and the public.
The Service strongly supports H.R. 2496, and we encourage Congress to pass this important legislation to help the Service continue providing this educational program for young people.
H.R. 2821, North American Wetlands Council Expansion Act of 1999
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Service would like to thank Congressman Dingell and the Subcommittee for your continued interest in and support of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and the work of the North American Wetlands Council. H.R. 2821 would amend NAWCA to expand the Council by adding two additional non-govemmental organizations to the nine-member group. While the Service does not oppose the bill, we believe it is unnecessary because the Council has been working successfully for ten years to advance the goals of wetlands and migratory bird conservation.
History of NAWCA
NAWCA provides matching grants to private or public organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The law was originally passed to support activities under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an international agreement that provides a strategy for the long-term protection of wetlands and associated upland habitats needed by waterfowl and other migratory birds in North America. NAWCA established a nine-member Council to review grant proposals and recommend approval of qualifying projects to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC).
In 1998, Congress reauthorized appropriations for NAWCA through fiscal year 2003, reflecting the strong support shared by Congress and the public for the Act's goals. The ceiling for appropriations for NAWCA is $30 million per year, and Congress has appropriated $15 million for projects in fiscal year 1999, the highest level appropriated to date.
Successes of NAWCA
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From 1991 through March 1999, over 900 partners, including environmental groups, sportsmen's groups, corporations, farmers and ranchers, small businesses, and private citizens have been involved in 684 projects under NAWCA. The law requires that U.S. and Canadian partners focus on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing important habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds. In Mexico, partners may develop training and management programs and conduct studies on sustainable use, in addition to habitat protection. NAWCA has supported projects with a total of over $287 million in Federal funding, and total partner contributions have exceeded $727 million. The law requires non-Federal matching dollars of 1: 1; however, partners have averaged 2.5 dollars for every Federal dollar. This tremendous leveraging has enabled well over 8 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands to be acquired, restored, or enhanced in the United States and Canada, while over 26 million acres in Mexico's large biosphere reserves have been affected through conservation education and management planning projects.
Current Operations of the Council
NAWCA directs the Secretary of the Interior to appoint State and non-governmental agencies to the nine-member Council, with permanent seats for the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The States are represented by State Directors of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and represent the four migratory bird flyways. The three non-govermental organizations are required to be active participants in wetlands conservation projects. Both the States and non-governmental members are appointed by the Secretary to serve three-year terms. The Secretary is authorized to appoint one alternate member to the Council, who is able to vote if one of the nine seats is vacant or a voting member is absent from a meeting. The Secretary is also encouraged to appoint ex officio members to the Council, who are not voting members but able to participate actively in the selection process. Currently one non-governmental organization holds this status. Mexico and Canada also have ex officio membership and participate in the decisions of the Council. The Council meets three times a year to review and rank project proposals and is served by staff which provides extensive technical advice. The Council recommends projects to the MBCC, which has the authority to approve funding for projects.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past ten years, the current nine-member Council has successfully collaborated to select the most important projects to protect migratory birds and their habitats and further the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Part of the success of NAWCA has been the fair, equitable and non-biased way in which the Council has formulated sound recommendations to the MBCC. The results speak for themselves. NAWCA is one of the most successful and non-controversial Federal conservation laws; mainly due to the partnerships that have been formed for on-the-ground restoration efforts. The Council embodies these successful partnerships and represents the broad-based coalition of interests committed to the protection of wetlands and migratory birds. For these reasons, the Service does not believe the Council needs to be expanded to meet its current mission. However, should Congress expand the mission of the Council as has been discussed in conjunction with debate on the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, then the addition of new members may bring important new expertise and perspectives to the Council.
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which the Senate passed in April 1999 and is awaiting floor action in the House, establishes a grants program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. The legislation encourages the Secretary of the Interior to establish an advisory group to provide guidance in implementing the grants program. If that legislation is enacted, the Service intends to designate the North American Wetlands Council as the advisory group for this program. This proposal would bring the expertise and experience of the Council to the full range of needs for neotropical birds that depend on healthy habitat throughout their migratory life cycles. Conservation of all migratory birds, not only in wetlands but in other important habitat areas as well, is already built into NAWCA. The Council is fully capable of carrying out this advisory role and has indicated its enthusiasm for doing so.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recognizing this opportunity, the Service believes that if the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act were enacted, expanding the Council to include two additional non-governmental groups with expertise in Latin America, the Caribbean and neotropical migratory bird conservation would make sense to enhance the Council's current expertise. The Service looks forward to working with Congressman Dingell and the Subcommittee to explore these opportunities and fulfill the needs of all migratory birds including neotropical migrants, waterfowl and others.
This concludes my written testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. GILCHREST [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Melius. I just have a couple of questions.
How much money did Congress appropriate for the Junior Duck Stamp Program?
Mr. MELIUS. The Junior Duck Stamp Program receives an annual appropriation of $250,000 a year.
Mr. GILCHREST. And how many schools currently receive copies or applications or information about the program, public and private, and do you target specific schools? Is the country blanketed with information? What kind of follow-up do you have?
Mr. MELIUS. The latter, as you just mentioned, is more the approach that we have taken. We try to blanket the entire nation using the database provided to us from the educational organizations, so that every school in our nation will receive information about how to implement this type of a program.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is it mailed to the individual schools?
Mr. MELIUS. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is it the school board that gets the information or the actual high school or middle school?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MELIUS. I believe it's through the elementary schools, as well as including the high schools, so that we get as broad a distribution as we can, because this is a program that does involve elementary schools or elementary students, as well as high school students.
Mr. GILCHREST. So it goes to the actual school or to the board in that county?
Mr. MELIUS. To the actual school itself, I'm told.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you send out tens of thousands of pieces of literature.
Mr. MELIUS. A brochure that explains the program, as well as then in each state and all states participate, we have a state coordinator, a volunteer normally, and we will have instructor curriculum, as well as go out and conduct workshops to try to get more participation in this program.
Mr. GILCHREST. How many schools participate, do you know? Throughout the country.
Mr. MELIUS. I believe that we have approximately 5,212 schools that are active participants at this time. We have approximately 42,000 students that are entering art into the contest to be judged annually in each one of the states. Winners of each one of these states then is submitted to Washington, DC for a national program, where we then judge a first and a second and a third place winner.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is it mostly high school students that participate, middle school?
Mr. MELIUS. It depends in each state on just where the enthusiasm lies with a lot of the volunteers and some of the instructors. We have had past state winners that are from elementary school, as well as from high schools. Last year, the winner was from Dearborn, Michigan and the winner of this year's contest, which was just announced a couple of months ago, was from Illinois.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. Is there certain criteria, water colors, acrylic, oil, does that matter?
Mr. MELIUS. The criteria of what type of medium they use is not really that important. It's more that they are learning about the whole water fowl and wildlife experience and incorporate some of that into the art that they are producing in each one of the states.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. I yield now to Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Melius for his statement this morning.
I was going through this very beautiful pamphlet or brochure about the national wildlife refuge system and I notice issues like Guam, like Baker Island, which I don't think anybody lives there, and Howland Island, even Rose Atoll, which is part of my jurisdiction.
Is there any particular reason why these areas are not included in this legislation? I notice some in Puerto Rico and the 50 states are part of the participants of the program, but I don't see any reference made to these areas. Hawaii is an area, even though it's a state.
Mr. MELIUS. I'm not certain of——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you have to have ducks in order to qualify to be a participant?
Mr. MELIUS. I'm not certain why it was not originally included in the '94 bill, as adopted by Congress. Since this is a reauthorization, that is something I'm sure could be looked into.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Administration have any objection if I do ask my good friend from Texas and others here to include the insular areas? Would it be an extra cost in the program?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MELIUS. We feel that as many areas that we can get out this type of material and participation is just valuable to all of us.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It's not so much the money. It's the program. It's the orientation. It's the getting the young people of America to appreciate what wildlife is all about, especially our appreciation for ducks.
Am I correct in that?
Mr. MELIUS. You're very correct, as well as all water fowl, not just only ducks.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Melius, we had earlier the statement that was made by Congressman Dingell about the proposed bill to add two additional members to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. I didn't get the gist of the Administrations position. Do you oppose the proposal made by the gentleman from Michigan to add two new members to the Council?
Mr. MELIUS. While we are not opposed to the addition of two additional members to the Council, the Administration believes that, at this time, under the current mission of the Council, there is a very strong balance of representation and that with the current policy of trying to rotate members onto that Council, that the Council is working very effectively.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But the Interior Department, when they took this position in '98, last year, was this part of the authorization of the legislation to allow the Secretary to do this consecutive term rotation, whatever it is?
Mr. MELIUS. The rotation policy was an effort that I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a year ago to try to give better clarity on just how the Council and the membership on the Council is going to be implemented.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, Mr. Melius, but if I hear what you're saying, the Administration does not oppose, but really would prefer not having two additional members. Am I correct in that?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MELIUS. If Congress is wanting to have two additional members, of course, we will work with that in every fashion we can. We just feel that the addition of some other areas to the Council may be a better thing to consider at this time.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You say that we have a strong balance, but what Mr. Dingell is proposing would make it even better. Right?
Mr. MELIUS. We're trying to work with the Council to make sure that there is a delicate balance kept. If the addition of two new members is what the Congress is wanting to do, I'm sure we will be able to accommodate that.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Melius, you're very—I like that. Thank you very much.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Melius, thank you for being with us today. And I think that you gave a good explanation as to what H.R. 2496 does. I think that there were some very good questions that were asked.
I guess my question would be, what do you need for us, Congress, to do so that we can meet your plans? I know this is an exciting program. Many children in the middle schools and high schools take advantage of this program.
What can we do to help you?
Mr. MELIUS. Besides just adoption of this bill to keep the authorization flowing, I would like to thank you personally for the effort you have shown in this. I remember early in the '90s specifically having an opportunity to work in this body on the old Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee, when the 1994 bill was originally drafted, an issue that I was involved with at that time.
So I appreciate your steadfast support of this. Obviously, the appropriations are the life blood in allowing us to continue and we're very pleased that Congress has been able to provide the full authorization or full appropriations at the authorization level.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. And I can assure you that I will do everything, with my good friend from American Samoa, to accommodate him, to work with him, because he's bigger than I am.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ORTIZ. I yield.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Actually, Samoans are very small people. Just don't provoke them, that's all.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, or the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no comments or questions.
Mr. GILCHREST. We thank the agency, Fish and Wildlife, for coming and testifying here this morning. Thank you very much.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to ask unanimous consent to have the statement by Mr. Frank Pallone be made part of the record.
Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. I know both the Chairman and the sponsor of this legislation have a keen interest in seeing our estuaries preserved and protected and I commend them for their efforts.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Estuaries are the richest part of our coastal areas, a wealth of biodiversity. They are havens for migrating shore birds and nurseries for essential fish habitat. They are critical to the survival of many species, which use estuaries as protective feeding areas for their young. Estuaries also offer vast scientific, educational, and recreational benefits. They are often the cultural centers of coastal communities. These fragile areas are also especially vulnerable to the impacts of over-development and pollution. At the same time, many estuary areas play a large role in local and regional economies. In New Jersey, the New York-New Jersey Harbor and Delaware Bay estuaries are important maritime commerce areas, and the Barnegat Bay estuary in the Chairman's district is a critical area for coastal recreation.
H.R. 1775's goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010 follows the spirit of President Clinton's Clean Water Action Plan which calls for an increase of 100000 acres of wetlands annually. I would like to hear our witnesses' views on the bill's goal of one million restored estuary acres.
I also hope our witnesses today will address the question of whether the bill should be expanded to include the Great Lakes and territories. I know many members of the Subcommittee would like to see the bill expanded, and I am interested in hearing what our panelists think about this proposal. Finally, I hope our panelists will comment on the council structure of the created by H.R. 1775 and the advantages to creating these types of partnerships.
Again, I thank the Chairman and the sponsor of this legislation. I am pleased to see this bill move forward and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Good morning., Today the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will be hearing from various distinguished witnesses regarding the status of the nation's estuaries and, in particular, my bill H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. This is a topic that has generated considerable interest this session of Congress, and it is my hope that we can come together to pass meaningful legislation to assist in the restoration of estuary habitat throughout the nation.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Habitat in estuaries has been degraded or destroyed over the past 100 years with little regard for its many economic values and quality-of-life benefits. Population growth in coastal watersheds; dredging, draining, bulldozing and paving; pollution; dams; sewage discharges—these and other impacts from human activities have led to the extensive loss and continuing destruction of estuary habitat.
For example, in our coastal states, more than half (roughly 55 million acres) of wetlands have been destroyed. Specific examples include:
In the Chesapeake Bay, 90 percent of sea grass meadows were destroyed by 1990. Over the last 30 years (1959-89), oyster harvest fell from 25 million pounds to less than one million.
In San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of its original wetlands have been destroyed and only 300 of the original 6,000 miles of stream habitat in the central valley support spawning salmon.
70 percent of salt marshes along Narragansett Bay are being cut off from full tidal flow and 50 percent have been filled; and
Louisiana estuaries continue to lose 25,000 acres annually of coastal marshes, an area roughly the size of Washington, DC;
For the most part, the loss in each estuary is an accumulation of small development projects and other impacts. The destruction cannot be blamed on one factor alone, but the cumulative effects of the destruction are surprising in extent and severity, amounting to tens of millions of acres.
We can and must coordinate Federal, state and local management efforts to protect our estuaries. We must also provide sufficient resources for estuary restoration, without which all of our planning and coordination efforts are useless. Our estuaries are sick, and planning without implementation is like a diagnosis without any treatment. If we want to bring estuaries back to health, we need to commit the time, money, and creativity necessary to restore the vital organs that make estuaries live and breathe.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 1775, the National Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, is not about a new layer of Federal bureaucracy—it is about coordination of existing estuary restoration efforts. H.R. 1775 will complement the efforts of programs like the National Estuary Program (N-E-P) and the Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants by providing direction to Federal agencies to work together with the states, local governments, N-E-Ps, conservation groups, and others to address a most critical need—habitat restoration.
My bill, which has 45 cosponsors, creates a national estuary habitat restoration council that will be responsible for reviewing and approving project proposals and developing a national strategy to identify restoration priorities. The council will consist of the Federal agencies that have some responsibility for estuary management—the Army Corp of Engineers, EPA, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation.
The council will also include state government representatives from six regional councils from around the country. The six regional councils will be responsible for identifying restoration priorities for their member states and forwarding project applications that address those priorities to the national council. Each regional council is made up of the governor of each state in the region.
The Federal agencies will be expected to provide technical support to these regional councils in the development of their project applications. H.R. 1775 will engage the Federal agencies in new capacities to manage and restore this nation's estuaries. My bill gives the Army Corps of Engineers the responsibility for managing the operations of the national and regional councils, and for providing technical assistance on project development and implementation. NOAA is charged with collecting monitoring data on projects and maintaining a database of both successful and not-so-successful projects. All of the agencies are called upon to work together to coordinate their efforts and target those estuaries that are identified by the regional councils as priorities.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite our best efforts, the restoration of estuary habitat remains a roadblock to healthy ecosystems in many areas of the country. H.R. 1775 proposes a way to focus our efforts and to begin targeting specific, regional problems. This will be a learning experience. The agencies will need to develop new relationships and find ways to work together. With a comprehensive monitoring database, future project applicants should be able to learn from past project experiences. I see great potential for a renewed restoration effort, and I look forward to hearing the testimony on this bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. GILCHREST. Also, today, the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will be hearing from various distinguished witnesses regarding the status of the nation's estuaries; in particular, my bill, H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.
This is a topic that has generated considerable interest of this session of Congress, mostly favorable interest, but some controversial. It's my hope that we can come together to pass a meaningful piece of legislation to assist in the restoration of estuary habitats throughout the nation.
This is going to be a fairly long statement, but I want to read it anyway, because it's a really good statement. That anything we can do to provide incentive, energy, as politicians say, fire in the belly, which I never had for politics, but I don't know, it's still here.
There's a lot of work to be done out there and there's a lot of good minds out there to do the work. If we can collaborate and coordinate all the various Federal, state and local projects, instead of the fragmentation that now exists, we can really turn some of this stuff around.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Habitat and estuaries have been degraded or destroyed over the past 100 years, with little regard for its many economic values and quality of life benefits. Population growth in coastal watersheds, dredging, draining, bulldozing, paving, pollution, dams, sewage discharges.
You know, the dynamic balance of nature has its ebbs and flows. Sometimes things are really good; sometimes, if you have a volcano explode, it really destroys the landscape. But it has a dynamic element to it.
But with paving, bulldozing, dredging, sewage, there is nothing dynamic about that. It's one big massive, dull thud that never gets out of the way.
These and other impacts of human activities have led to the extensive loss and continuing destruction of estuary habitat. For example, roughly 55 million acres of wetlands have been destroyed. In the Chesapeake Bay, we've lost about 90 percent of sea grass meadows. San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of its original wetlands have been destroyed and only 300 of the original 6,000 miles of stream habitat in the Central Valley support spawning salmon.
We've lost 70 percent of the salt marshes in Narragansett Bay. Louisiana estuaries continue to lose 25,000 acres of coastal marshes annually, An area roughly the size of Washington, DC.
For the most part, the loss in each estuary is an accumulation of small projects and other impacts. Let that acre go. Let that half-acre go. Let that 20 acres go. And the cumulative impact, based on the increase in population, begins to become more of a problem, a greater impact.
We can and must coordinate Federal, state and local management efforts to protect our estuaries. We must also provide sufficient resources for estuary restoration, without which all of our planning and coordination efforts are useless.
Our estuaries are sick, and all you have to do is go to one of them anywhere in the country and you're not going to see a vibrant, clean, clear body of water. Our estuaries are sick and planning without implementation is like a diagnosis without a treatment. We all know what the problems are, but we can't quite get out there in any meaningful way—I know the Corps of Engineers is doing some work in the Chesapeake Bay on oyster reefs. So is Fish and Wildlife, so is NMFS, so are any other given agency, but it's tiny little pieces, without much coordination.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm not being—casting stones to the agencies, but we need something like—you know, we have this funnel, we have this massive Federal Government that have pieces of certain projects or grants, but it's like a strainer. They don't really get a specific problem in any big way.
What we'd rather do with our legislation is take this—if you've ever put—what do you call it—transmission fluid in an automatic car, you have this funnel and this long shaft that goes down into that tiny little tube. Well, that's what we want to do. We want to get all these massive Federal agencies and programs and departments where they can target in a significant way some projects.
We'd like, for example, to—the state has a program to restore 10 percent of the oyster reefs in about 10 years. Well, we think we can do 20 percent of the original oyster reefs in 10 years or less, if you coordinate all the efforts.
About 1 percent of the oyster production, harvest, is left after 100 years of damming and sewage and cumulative impacts of all sorts. Just one percent of the oysters are being harvested today of what it was 100 years ago, lost 99 percent of the resource.
We are fragmenting the environment. Everybody in the room knows it. And we have a fragmented program to fix it. I'm not saying this piece of legislation is going to solve all the nation's problems, but I think it would go a long way and it's a first really good step in the right direction.
H.R. 1775, the National Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, is not about—this is important, and I wish my colleague from Virginia was here to hear this—but if we can get this voted out of this Committee, it will have a great impact on the Transportation Committee.
It's not a matter of a new layer of Federal bureaucracy, and there's nothing wrong with bureaucrats, because you're related to that system. It is about coordination of existing estuary restoration efforts.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 1775 will complement the efforts of programs like the National Estuary Program, by providing direction to Federal agencies to work together with state and local governments, and we go on. We have 45 co-sponsors.
The Corps of Engineers, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation would be the people who make up this council. The six regional councils would be responsible for identifying restoration priorities for the member states and forwarding project applications that address those priorities to the national council.
Each regional council is made up of the governor of each state in the region. The Federal agencies will be expected to provide technical support to those regional councils in the development of their project.
We have the Chesapeake Bay program, and I'm sure they have similar programs—I know they have similar programs in Louisiana, similar programs in San Francisco. The Chesapeake Bay program is a good program. There's a lot of good people that work there. But there seems to me, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that there's a little bit of—whether it's agency overlap or not enough agency collaboration between the Feds and the state and local private groups, like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation or university scientists, we'd like to get all these people together, all these bright minds together and use an effective means to specifically target programs that will actually restore some of these estuaries that are having problems.
In spite of our best efforts, the need for restoration of estuary habitat remains a roadblock to having healthy ecosystems in many areas of the country. We hope that this bill proposes a way to focus our efforts and to begin targeting specific regional problems.
This is going to be a learning experience. The agencies will need to develop new relationships and find ways to work together. With a comprehensive monitoring database—and I guess I'd like to emphasize that as my last point.
We want to do good things, but we want to make sure that those good things, whether it's restoring SAVs, oyster restoration, fish habitat, a whole range of other things, that we monitor what we do so that we can improve that process.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So at that point of preaching to the choir, I'm going to yield to my good friend from American Samoa for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for explaining in great detail some of the provisions contained in the proposed bill. And I do want to apologize. I don't know what happened, but I would love to be a co- sponsor of this proposed bill, because I think, in principal, it has tremendous value.
I think the questions of the estuaries existing in our country needs to be deftly looked upon this and whether it be organizing or establishing a council similar to what we already have in our fisheries management council, I think it's a good idea, a principal one, a concept.
But I do look forward to hearing from our friends from the Administration and see what their responses, and I look forward to working with you on the provisions of the bill.
The one thing that I just wanted to raise, and maybe I kind of read it too casually, was just that the States of California and Hawaii are not included in the regions, unless if I misread the provision of the bill. But I don't know why, but I get into this position every time when there's a proposed bill.
The first question I raise is whether Puerto Rico is included or whether the insular areas are included. We always seem to be faced with these kinds of issues whenever legislation is being introduced. With 3.8 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico, I know perhaps it was just a slight oversight or maybe it was not intended, but I——
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I'd gladly yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Hawaii and California are included and we certainly will ensure that Puerto Rico is included, as well, and American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We do have estuaries. I thank the Chairman and thank you very much for your explanation, and, again, I want to personally welcome our friends from the Administration and look forward to hearing their testimony.
Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome the witnesses here today and I'm very glad to be here.
I will have to excuse myself a little later on, because I have another commitment. But I wanted to say that I would like to also join the Chairman as a co-sponsor of this bill. It's a very important and very timely brought up, and I join with my colleague, Mr. Faleomavaega, in requesting to make sure that we are also included in the bill.
Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. We will ensure that before the markup.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Now I would like to introduce our witnesses. We have Ms. Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic—I'm going to say NOAA; Mr. Mike Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army; and, Mr. Gary Frazer, Assistant Director of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for coming this morning. We have a new light system, but we also want to make sure that your entire statement is read and we're not cut off before we miss any important information.
Ms. Yozell, you may go first.
STATEMENT OF SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Ms. YOZELL. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Sally Yozell, and I'm the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
First, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this legislation and, Congressman Faleomavaega, let me also thank you for your leadership particularly in restoration of marine areas, such as corals and our great success recently in Pago Pago in removing those vessels. So thank you for your assistance.
This hearing comes at a very timely moment. Estuaries and fisheries from North Carolina through the Chesapeake Bay and up through the New Jersey coast are suffering from the intense flooding from last week's hurricane. On Monday, the President declared a commercial fishery failure in North Carolina as a result of the hurricane.
We know that oyster beds have been destroyed, other shellfish are being contaminated, and we've only begun to assess the overall resource damages. Restoration activities can play a key role in how well and how quickly we can undo some of the damage done from this recent hurricane.
For example, we can create oyster reefs and create or restore coastal wetlands to replace those damaged by the storm. Both are important because they help stabilize the bottom and serve as a natural filter to minimize the fluxes of sediments and nutrients into our coastal waters.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today's hearing is very timely under these unfortunate circumstances.
I appreciate the Committee's leadership in focusing on the need to protect the nation's estuary and coastal resources. Estuaries are an important part of our nation's economic and environmental well being. These special coastal places provide habitat for many important species, act as a natural water treatment system, provide flood control and protection against storm damage, and are wonderful recreational areas.
In fact, estuaries and coastal wetlands provide essential habitat for 80 to 90 percent of our recreational fish catch and 75 percent of the nation's commercial harvests.
These natural systems, though, Mr. Chairman, as you just so eloquently pointed out, are in big trouble and they are suffering from many water quality problems, declining habitat, et cetera.
So NOAA supports your legislation, H.R. 1775. NOAA's science and expertise in estuary restoration can contribute significantly in achieving the goals of this bill, especially when we are coupled with the capabilities of all the other Federal agencies here and who are also included in the legislation.
You asked me to focus specifically on six areas, so let me first comment on those. Regarding the bill's impact on existing NOAA restoration programs, I can only say that it will compliment our existing suite of activities in a very major way, and, in particular, the national council will ensure coordination among the federally-sponsored estuary efforts, as well as with our partners in the local and state governments.
Second, regarding the structure of the proposed councils, I believe the collaborative approach to restoration fostered by the national council will have a great benefit. Although I strongly support the involvement of states, local governments and constituents, I'm not totally certain that having two separate councils is the most efficient way to achieve this.
Perhaps workshops or advisory panels may be more efficient or even ex-officio members will accomplish the goals, but I'd like to work with you on that.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, concerning the type of restoration that could be conducted, NOAA envisions a broad range of activities, such as improvements tidal exchange, dam or berm removals, fish passageway improvements, and the establishment of riparian buffer zones.
I would also encourage that the legislation reward the use of innovative approaches and recommend that each project include a long-term monitoring phase, as this seems to be the most effective method to determine success, make corrections and advance the science of restoration.
Fourth, concerning what we see as NOAA's main role in the bill, NOAA looks forward to serving on the national council. We envision providing the scientific and technical expertise gained over many years of involvement in habitat restoration, and I endorse the specific role to manage the data collected from all of the restoration projects.
With regard to the funding identified for NOAA to manage the monitoring data, it seems adequate. However, I'm not confident there is enough funding to support the full range of administrative and technical support activities to cover the whole Act.
Fifth, concerning the extent that NOAA participates in and coordinates estuary restoration, NOAA is involved in a wide range of these activities with other Federal and state partners.
For example, we're part of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, known as CWPPRA, which this legislation is closely modeled after. Through CWPPRA, we have sponsored 17 projects, totaling over $65 million.
NOAA's damage assessment and restoration program, or DARP, cooperates with many of our Federal and state partners. It restores coastal and marine resources injured by releases of oil and other hazardous materials. DARP has obtained more than $250 million in settlements and has been involved in over 50 restoration projects.
Then we have a new program that is called our community-based restoration program, and that works with local communities to restore coastal habitats using small amounts of Federal moneys, and we have, in the last three years, done over 70 projects.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I was asked about the role NOAA anticipates for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Through state and Federal partnership, NOAA manages 25 estuarine reserves, totaling over a million acres. To date, there has been some limited restoration at these sites, but the restoration needs are significant and this legislation would help significantly in accomplishing this.
For example, the Chesapeake Bay Reserve in Maryland is working to address erosion and habitat loss. Currently, the reserve is evaluating Maryland's policies concerning the removal of invasive marsh grasses. The reserves can also serve as a scientific baseline where areas of controlled studies can be conducted on restoration techniques.
If I could, I'd like to make just a couple more comments with regard to the legislation. First, I would recommend that the Great Lakes states (and I'm happy to hear now that the U.S. Territories and Commonwealths) should also be included and eligible for assistance. They have important estuaries and analogous restoration needs.
I also believe the bill should place greater emphasis on the biological significance of restoration, as opposed to just share acreage. Often, the greater ecological benefit is derived from a small restoration project, not necessarily a larger one.
As you noted earlier, it's a half-acre here, a full acre there, and whatever. Sometimes those can be very beneficial in just restoring that small amount.
And NOAA agrees with you that the priority should be given to restoration projects that have area-wide restoration plans in place and, also, the strong effect of non-point and point pollution programs.
Lastly, I would like to remind the Subcommittee that earlier this year, the President announced his one billion dollar Lands Legacy Initiative to expand Federal efforts to conserve and restore America's natural resources. The initiative included $14.7 million increase to improve the reserve system and $22.7 million to fund the existing community-based restoration program, which I just mentioned.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The House Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations mark includes only $1.35 million for the NERS program increase, and no increased funding for the community-based restoration effort. I know that they're going to conference now and I urge the Committee please to work with the Appropriations Committee.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have to say, we believe that the Subcommittee has taken a very important leadership role in addressing the estuarine restoration issue. NOAA supports the bill, H.R. 1775, and I applaud the efforts that have gone into developing this important legislation.
I look forward to working with you and the Committee to fine tune this very commendable legislation, and I'd like to, if I could, insert my full statement into the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yozell follows:]
STATEMENT OF SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Sally Yozell and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.
NOAA AND ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION
We appreciate the Committee's leadership in focusing on the need to protect the Nation's estuarine and coastal resources. Estuaries are an important part of our Nation's economic and environmental well-being. These special coastal places provide habitat for many important species, act as a natural water treatment system, provide flood control and protection against storm damage, and are wonderful recreational areas. Estuaries and coastal wetlands also provide essential habitat for 80-90 percent of our recreational fish catch and 75 percent of the Nation's commercial harvest.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These natural systems are in trouble. Estuaries are suffering from water quality problems, declining habitat quality and, in some areas, significant habitat loss. We desperately need to restore these areas to help replace habitat that fish, marine mammals and endangered species need to survive and prosper.
Restoration, however, is only part of the answer for degraded estuary and coastal habitats. The other part is to prevent habitat loss and degradation through sound conservation and management programs. Nonetheless, there are many instances where restoration is the only viable alternative. We believe that NOAA's expert scientific capabilities and experience in estuary and coastal restoration programs can contribute significantly to achieving the goals of H.R. 1775, especially when coupled with the science and expertise of other Federal agencies and our state and local partners. As the Nation's premier marine and coastal science and management agency, NOAA brings together a unique combination of scientific expertise and capabilities, a combination which is needed for successful restoration of our valuable estuaries and coastal waters.
H.R. 1775 ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
I now would like to focus my remarks on several specific issues that the Subcommittee has asked NOAA to address.
f How will H.R. 1775 impact existing NOAA habitat restoration programs?
NOAA believes that H.R. 1775 will serve to complement existing habitat restoration programs in a number of ways. The national Estuary Habitat Restoration Council will help to ensure coordination and cooperation with all federally-sponsored estuarine habitat restoration efforts. The estuary habitat restoration strategy called for in H.R. 1775 should aid in keeping these programs focused on the highest priority restoration needs. We also anticipate that some restoration projects supported under H.R. 1775 can be designed in such a way as to complement those conducted by NOAA. Finally, we recognize that restoration science is still quite young and as such, the restoration efforts under this bill would enhance this body of science, especially if H.R.1775 encourages the application of innovative science and technology in its supported restoration projects.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
f What is NOAA's view on the structure of the proposed councils?
NOAA believes that a collaborative approach to decision making is important. The proposed national Estuary Habitat Restoration Council should provide for improved cooperation among Federal agencies. Our experience with collaborative efforts such as those being conducted as part of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act and Coastal America programs has demonstrated time and time again that success comes more easily when Federal agencies work together.
NOAA supports the intent of H.R. 1775 to seek out and obtain the involvement of coastal states, estuary and coastal managers, local governments, and constituents in the proposed program. Regional and local involvement in national decision-making and priority setting is critical and should be encouraged in any legislation for estuary restoration. However, NOAA is concerned that the formal nature and structure of the proposed Regional Councils could divert limited resources away from restoration projects and slow decision making. We suggest the use of regional or area workshops or advisory panels. Advisory panels are especially attractive in that they could have short or long term durations, depending on the issue or issues being addressed, and the Secretary or Council could have the flexibility to select the appropriate mix of people to serve on the panels. We have had good success with advisory panels in the management and conservation of marine resources and believe that they could help serve the needs of H.R. 1775, as well. Representatives of the regional advisory panels also could serve as ex-officio members of the national Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. We note that an August 11, 1999, Department of Justice letter outlines the Administration's concerns with a potential constitutional problem under the Appointments Clause, and we defer to the Department of Justice regarding this issue.
f What types of restoration activities could be conducted if H.R. 1775 is enacted? Habitat restoration activities could include improvement of coastal wetland tidal exchange or reestablishment of historic hydrology, dam or berm removal, fish ladder or other fish passageway improvements, natural or artificial reef/substrate/habitat creation, establishment of riparian buffer zones and improvement of freshwater habitat features that support anadromous fishes, planting of native coastal wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation, and removal of invasive vegetation. Additionally, we recommend that the habitat restoration activities include a significant research component to promote the development of innovative approaches and techniques for estuary habitat restoration. There should be a major monitoring and evaluation phase for all restoration projects, as this is the only way to gauge restoration success and advance the science of estuary restoration.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
f What does NOAA see as its main role under H.R. 1775? Does the bill provide sufficient funding and direction to carry out these activities?
NOAA sees its major role in H.R. 1775 as a contributor of the science and technology we have gained over the years in habitat restoration and in the investigation of our many coastal and estuarine ecosystems. Additionally, we see a critical role in ensuring coordination of our ongoing restoration programs with those of H.R. 1775 to minimize redundancies and to complement and capitalize on the achievements of all of the programs. We endorse the specific area of work specified for NOAA in H.R. 1775 which is to serve on the National Council and to directly support restoration efforts through the collection and management of data related to the restoration projects.
The funding as proposed in H.R. 1775 is probably adequate to address NOAA's role in establishing a monitoring database. NOAA currently is not funded and staffed to adequately support the Councils and provide the increased technical assistance that would be necessary to meet the needs from partners. We want the majority of funding under the bill to go toward on-the-ground restoration activities. However, we hope the Congress will provide a reasonable amount of funding to the Federal agencies to enable us to effectively implement this Act. We support the bill's subdivision of the authorization section, providing separate subsections for each of the following: an authorization of appropriations for restoration activities; monitoring; and a cap on administrative expenses. This is similar to the approach under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA).
f To what extent does NOAA currently participate in estuary habitat restoration efforts? Which programs are involved and what has the agency done to coordinate its efforts with other agencies?
NOAA is engaged in a wide range of estuary habitat restoration efforts. I will briefly summarize each of the major activities in four categories as well as their coordination with other agencies.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT
The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) provides funding and support for the restoration, protection, conservation and enhancement of threatened wetlands in the Louisiana coastal zone. NOAA and the other participating Federal and State agencies have the opportunity to plan and implement large-scale coastal wetlands restoration projects that are significant on a local and national level. Forging partnerships within the State such as with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and local parish governments has proven critical to the success of the restoration projects. It has resulted in funding for restoration projects totaling over $65 million that are designed to address the rapid loss of
Louisiana's wetlands. For NOAA and the State of Louisiana, CWPPRA provides the hope of sustaining coastal wetlands that are important to the economic, recreational and cultural base of the State and region.
As required by CWPPRA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established a Task Force composed of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the State of Louisiana. The Task Force annually prepares and submits to Congress a priority list of wetland restoration projects for Louisiana. The site selection process is based on the technical merit, cost effectiveness, and predicted wetland quantity and quality of the proposed project. The Task Force was responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive coastal Restoration Plan for the State of Louisiana, which was completed at the end of 1993. The Plan provides much of the basis for selecting restoration projects.
Each CWPPRA project requires the sponsorship of a Federal agency Task Force member for implementation. The Act uses a trust fund, which is supported by revenues from tax receipts on small engines and other equipment. Of the amount appropriated from this fund, 70 percent (an amount not to exceed $70 million annually) is available for wetland restoration projects and associated activities in Louisiana. While some 70 percent of the funds available under CWPRA are dedicated to restoring Louisiana wetlands, it is important to note that project selection is still based on merit criteria. CWPPRA mandates a cost-share of 85 percent Federal funds to 15 percent State funds for all projects.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RESTORING ESTUARIES THROUGH TRUSTEESHIP
As a coastal steward and a designated natural resource trustee under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), and the Oil Pollution Act, NOAA protects and restores marine and coastal resources on behalf of the public. NOAA works at hazardous waste sites with the EPA and other clean-up agencies to develop remedies to protect coastal resources, and to support habitat and human health. NOAA's Coastal Resource Coordination program works at approximately 260 hazardous waste sites a year, about 75 percent of which affect estuaries. Examples of on-going protection and restoration efforts in estuarine environments include the Tulalip Landfill in Puget Sound in Washington, the Exxon Bayway oil spill in the Arthur Kill in New York Harbor, the Apex Houston Oil Spill in Point Lobos, California, and the Greenhill oil spill in Louisiana.
NOAA's Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) restores coastal and marine resources injured by releases of oil and other hazardous materials. Since its inception, DARP and its partners have generated more than $240 million in settlement funds to restore injured coastal resources on behalf of the public from those responsible for the damage.
Through DARP, NOAA is working on a number of damage assessment cases in estuarine environments including Lake Barre in Louisiana, Commencement Bay in Washington, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, Lavaca Bay in Texas, and Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa. By working together with responsible parties and co-trustees to collect data, conduct assessments and carry out restoration actions, NOAA is able to restore a clean and healthy environment as quickly and effectively as possible. Most of these restoration projects are completed through cooperation with both Federal and state resource trustee agencies. This experience has reinforced the importance of partnerships and the absolute need to document restoration success for the benefit of future restoration efforts.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NOAA's trustee activities ensure that resources are protected and restored following releases of oil and other hazardous materials, which results in more productive and diverse estuarine habitat for fish and wildlife, cleaner water, and healthier ecosystems.
COMMUNITY-BASED RESTORATION PROGRAM
In 1996, the NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center formulated the highly successful Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP). The CRP achieves habitat restoration by engaging communities in local marine and estuarine habitat restoration projects. It provides funding and technical expertise to restore coastal habitat and partners with local constituencies to accomplish meaningful, grass roots projects. In addition to seed money, the CRP provides support by leveraging expertise and funds from partner organizations. Through these partnerships, the program generates funding up to tenfold the original Federal investment. Moreover, the program seeks to promote coastal stewardship and a conservation ethic among coastal communities.
The Administration's FY2000 Budget Request includes $22.7 million of new funding for the restoration of coastal habitat. Seven million is slated for expanding the existing CRP. Almost $16 million is identified for implementing habitat restoration on a regional basis through the creation of a new, regional habitat restoration program.
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES
Realizing the importance of our Nation's estuaries, Congress established the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) in 1972 to improve the health of estuaries and coastal habitats. This Federal/state partnership has proven successful in managing some of our Nation's relatively pristine estuaries. Through the work of expert staff, monitoring and education programs and on-site laboratories, NOAA has developed innovative partnerships with coastal states in connection with 25 Reserves, which have resulted in improved management of nearly one million acres of estuarine waters and lands.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although the Reserves represent some of the Nation's most valuable and relatively undisturbed estuaries, restoration in the Reserves around the Nation is still an essential activity to protect these biologically diverse areas. To date, many of the Reserves have undertaken innovative restoration projects. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Reserve in Maryland is working to address erosion and habitat loss. Areas of the Chesapeake Bay region are severely eroding from impacts of sea level rise. In an effort to deter erosion, the Reserve is currently evaluating Maryland's policies concerning the removal of invasive marsh grasses, a traditional restoration practice. An evaluation and revision of current State policies relating to salt