with the global climate change, we are seeing a lot of effects, but we can't explain the causes at this point. Mr. SCHEUER. Building on what you are saying there, the EPA, NOAA and the State Department are all involved in global climate change research and they have several hundred million dollars in funding for this program. Will any of this be coordinated? Is there going to be a master plan for the research? How much of it is going to be directed towards endangered coral reef research? Dr. SANTAVY. If I may speak from my knowledge of the EPA's global climate change program Mr. SCHEUER. Speak right into the mike. Dr. SANTAVY. I believe most of the funding has been funded towards terrestrial aspects of global climate warming. There is some work proceeding on oceanic processes, but those are primarily in temperate zones. Mr. SCHEUER. What? Dr. SANTAVY. Most of the global climate change research that is going on in marine systems right now is primarily coastal temperate zone. Mr. SCHEUER. And that wouldn't involve tropical coral reef areas? Dr. SANTAVY. To my knowledge, there is not that intention at this point. Mr. SCHEUER. Do you think some of it ought to be directed to the problems of tropical coral reefs? Dr. SANTAVY. I am not in a position to make that decision. Mr. SCULLY. Just on the international front there are, I think, research programs being designed including the programs within the Intergovernmental Ocean Graphic Commission, which are not necessarily specifically aimed at any particular ecosystem such as coral reefs, but the results of which would be very significant for coral reefs as for other processes in terms of oceans and coastal areas. But again this is it is still largely in the design stage. The Global Ocean Observation System, which has a coastal component along with some of the associated programs, which involve monitoring sea level rise, which involve studying oceanic atmospheric coupling, et cetera, but these are programs that would be, in part, supported through the research funds, but I would note that they are not directed specifically to coral reef ecosystems, but the data will be very significant for those, as well. I don't want to overstate where we are. We are still in the design phase in many instances. Mr. SCHEUER. Do you think Congress ought to direct-a respectable proportion of that research should be directed at coral reef research? Mr. SCULLY. I am not sure I am the most competent person to judge that as a non-scientist. I think it is important to look at the linkages between processes so that when we when we are monitoring, and also I understand it, one of the issues that is always a difficulty with respect to research funding is the question of distinguishing between priorities for basic research and priorities for sys 56-344 0 92 - 3 tematic observation, which isn't as sexy for many of the scientists themselves. Not as many research theses coming from straight systematic observation. But I think part of the point we need to look at now is to design research programs with respect to marine and coastal areas that will be multipurposed and will give us the kind of things we can begin to systematically collect the base line data, which my colleagues have mentioned. I don't want to duck the question, but I think what we should be looking at are the processes, concentrating on the processes that will give us information to understand not only what is going on in the coral reefs but coastal areas generally. Mr. SCHEUER. Did you have anything else, Henry? Mr. NowAK. Let me ask you one local question. We are not in Hawaii and I am just wondering here if-you mentioned the discharge permits and I am wondering what monitoring is required under the discharge permits for public treatment works in the Dade County or Key West areas, which is another question. Mr. JAAP. Any discharge, Mr. Nowak, has to be through EPA. They have to go through a process of getting it permitted. Once it is permitted, there are a certain number of inspections and so on, but I am not up to speed. That is a different department in the State that deals with that particular issue. Dr. SANTAVY. I am not familiar with that either. I am an environmental research microbiologist, so I am not familiar with the permitting process. We do have someone from Region IV. I am not sure if she would feel confident to answer that question or not. Mr. NOWAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. SANTAVY. Lynn. Mr. SCHEUER. If you would like to make a contribution, you would have to come up and speak into the mike and identify yourself. If there is anyone else who like to make a brief contribution, please come up. Dr. DATRAVELL. I am Loren Datravell, Region IV, based in Atlanta, Georgia. EPA's MPS permit program does often have a discharger monitor. That sort of monitoring is usually a biological toxicity-type monitoring, unless there is specifically a reason for another discharge, which I am not familiar with in Miami, Dade monitoring nor with Key West at this time. Mr. SCHEUER. All right. Thank you very, very much. If there is anybody in the audience who would like to make a brief contribution, just come up and grab a mike. Does any member of the panel want to add anything? This is very interesting and you have been instructive. Thank you very much for your patience. We have learned a great deal and we have enjoyed it. We will now ask the second panel to come to the witness table, Dr. Bruce Rosendahl, Dean of the Rosenstiel School of Marine Science and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami; Dr. James W. Porter, Department of Zoology, University of Georgia; Dr. John Ogden, Director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography, and Mr. Robert Wicklund, Director of the Caribbean Marine Research Center, Vero Beach, Florida. We are delighted to have you. We will keep it very informal. Don't hesitate to refer to anything else that you heard from the panel before you. And your complete testimony will be printed in the record at the point at which you speak. So we will start with Bruce Rosendahl. Mr. SCHEUER. Take your five minutes and review the basic thrust of your testimony. STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE R. ROSENDAHL, DEAN OF THE ROSENSTIEL SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI; DR. JAMES W. PORTER, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA; DR. JOHN C. OGDEN, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRACARIBBEAN PHY, AND ROBERT WICKLUND, DIRECTOR, MARINE RESEARCH CENTER, VERO BEACH, FL Dr. ROSENDAHL. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about our nation's living coral reefs. I represent one of the leading U.S. Academic institutions engaged in oceanographic research. Since the Rosenstiel School's inception in 1943, our scientists have maintained a pioneering role in the study of tropical fisheries and ecosystems, including and especially coral reefs. During the almost 50 years hence, we have developed strong programs in all major aspects of oceanography, including marine policy. I represent the voice of about 90 Ph.D. Scientists and hundreds of research staff. My colleagues and I applaud your efforts to focus attention and resources on the problems plaguing the world's coral reef ecosystems. These are unique and these are fragile systems that represent national treasures. Most Florida reefs are less than 10,000 years old, they rest upon millions of years of ancient reefal material, and they offer unique habitats for a wide range of flora and fauna. The ecologic, geologic, and economic valuations of these treasures are immeasurable. Unfortunately, our reefs face natural and anthropogenic stresses today that seem to be resulting in a rapid and alarming decline and are pushing many reef tracts toward the limits of their ability to survive. Global warming, pollution, and environmental degradation are just a few of the potential problems. They were unpredictable even a half-century ago. In our estimation, it would be a fair statement to classify the living coral reefs in U.S. Waters as endangered. In regard to the urgent need to address the health and welfare of one of our most precious natural and economic resources, I wish to make four brief points. First, we strongly endorse Federal legislation which focuses targeted, multi-year-I repeat-multi-year funding, on coral reef research and management issues. Comprehensive legislation that is long-term in focus, well-conceived, and well-thought-out is long overdue. We encourage emphases on international collaboration, public education, and mechanisms that foster a constructive dialog between scientists, policy-makers, and natural resource managers. Secondly, we believe that the research agenda should include all of these elements required to establish a complete picture of the problem. Like ailing patients, reefs under stress need regular physical examinations. The long-term environmental research and monitoring of the reefs; further investigation of the impacts of human and natural stresses on the reefs; and the development of scientific criteria for sustainable management are all critical components. We also suggest that the study of two processes, recruitment and regeneration, become key foci of the research agenda. Understanding where reefal species are recruited from, recruitment rates, and how coral recruits can grow and thrive in place of those that are dying may be key to the ultimate goals of this legislation. In the overall study of reef ecology, I should point out that distressingly little work has been done in these two areas. Thirdly, we strongly advocate research on the historical context of the reefs. The overall pattern of the Florida reefs was determined, for example, by the pattern of a previous cycle of reef growth some 120,000 years ago. Islands like Key Largo are natural 'sea-breaks" that shield their ocean-facing margins from the effects of inimical lagoonal waters. The major coral reef systems we see today were mainly formed 10,000 to 4,000 years before present during a period of rapid sea level rise during the last ice age. These reefs are still adjusting to the altered, and in some cases possibly degraded, environmental conditions that followed reflooding of the continental and insular shelves around 4,000 years ago. Evidence suggests that the vigor of individual reefs is determined by when they were "planted" and that their age is a function of the elevation of their foundation. As sea level rose, reefs developed first at deeper depths. Those reefs can now be likened to full-grown trees, while the reefs that developed later at shallower depths are more like saplings in much earlier stages of growth. Geologists from my school and others have established that coral skeletons contain records of climate variation like tree rings; it is just these benchmarks that will allow evaluation of the effects of global change. We know little about coral reef aging processes during periods of greatly reduced sea level rise such as have existed during the past 3,000 years. Combining historical studies with long-term commitments to international comparative research and monitoring programs will yield extremely important results. My fourth and final point is on the subject of infrastructure support. We have had discussions on this already. Present funding for coral reef research is best described as meager and fractionalized. Not surprisingly, the present state of coral reef research is extremely fragmented and relatively unfocused. To ensure that the ambitious new plans put forth in the proposed legislation are implemented effectively and have substance beyond the time frame of any legislation, we recommend that Federal legislation include establishment of a coral reef research institute which is representative of the research community. The mission of the institute would be to foster cooperation, to act as a clearinghouse for research, and to implement new research initiatives on regional, national and international levels. The institute could also serve as an archive or repository for results of coral reef research over the long-term. This would directly address Congressman Fascell's question. |