|
Showing 1 - 5 of
5 matches in All Departments
There continues to be congressional interest in limiting human
activity in certain areas of the marine environment, as one
response to mounting evidence of declining environmental quality
and populations of living resources. The purposes of proposed
additional limits would be both to stem declines and to permit the
rehabilitation of these environments and populations. One method of
implementing this concept is for Congress to designate areas where
activities would be limited, often referred to as marine protected
areas (MPAs). Translating the MPA approach into a national program,
however, would require that Congress resolve many economic,
ecological, and social dilemmas.
Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine
organisms in exposed areas beyond significant coastal influence.
Open ocean aquaculture employs less control over organisms and the
surrounding environment than do inshore and land-based aquaculture,
which are often undertaken in enclosures, such as ponds. When
aquaculture operations are located beyond coastal state
jurisdiction, within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ;
generally 3 to 200 nautical miles from shore), they are regulated
primarily by federal agencies. Thus far, only a few aquaculture
research facilities have operated in the U.S. EEZ. To date, all
commercial aquaculture facilities have been sited in nearshore
waters under state or territorial jurisdiction.
Four species of non-indigenous Asian carp are expanding their range
in U.S. waterways, resulting in a variety of concerns and problems.
Three species-bighead, silver, and black carp-are of particular
note, based on the perceived degree of environmental concern.
Current controversy relates to what measures might be necessary and
sufficient to prevent movement of Asian carp from the Mississippi
River drainage into the Great Lakes through the Chicago Area
Waterway System. Several bills have been introduced in the 112th
Congress to direct actions to avoid the possibility of carp
becoming established in the Great Lakes. According to the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Asian carp pose a significant threat to
commercial and recreational fisheries of the Great Lakes. Asian
carp populations could expand rapidly and change the composition of
Great Lakes ecosystems. Native species could be harmed because
Asian carp are likely to compete with them for food and modify
their habitat. It has been widely reported that Great Lakes
fisheries generate economic activity of approximately $7 billion
annually. Although Asian carp introduction is likely to modify
Great Lakes ecosystems and cause harm to fisheries, studies
forecasting the extent of potential harm are not available.
Therefore, it is not possible to provide estimates of potential
changes in the regional economy or economic value (social welfare)
by lake, species, or fishery. The locks and waterways of the
Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) have been a focal point for
those debating how to prevent Asian carp encroachment on the Great
Lakes. The CAWS is the only navigable link between the Great Lakes
and the Mississippi River, and many note the potential of these
waterways to facilitate invasive species transfers from one basin
to the other. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed and is
currently operating electrical barriers to prevent fish passage
through these waterways. In light of recent indications that Asian
carp may be present upstream of the barriers, increased federal
funding to prevent fish encroachment was announced by the Obama
Administration. Part of this funding is being spent by the Corps of
Engineers to explore options relating to the "hydrologic
separation" of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River drainage
basins. The potential closure of navigation structures in the CAWS
is of particular interest to both the Chicago area shipping
industry and Great Lakes fishery interests. Since December 2010,
Michigan and other Great Lakes states have filed a number of
requests for court ordered measures to stop the migration of
invasive Asian carp toward Lake Michigan from the Mississippi River
basin via the CAWS. The U.S. Supreme Court denied several motions
for injunctions to force Illinois, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago to take necessary measures to prevent the carp from
entering Lake Michigan. Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin sought a separate order in federal district court
seeking similar relief, which was also denied. In the 112th
Congress, language in P.L. 112-74 authorized the Corps of Engineers
to take emergency measures to exclude Asian carp from the Great
Lakes. In addition, H.R. 892 and S. 471 would direct federal
agencies to take measures to control the spread of Asian carp.
Notably, each of these bills, as well as H.R. 4406 and S. 2317,
would require the Corps of Engineers to complete the Chicago
portion of a study on hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Basin within 18 months of enactment. H.R. 2432
would require the Corps of Engineers to prepare an economic impact
statement before carrying out any federal action relating to the
Chicago Area Water System. H.R. 4146 and S. 2164 would authorize
the Corps of Engineers to take actions to manage Asian carp
traveling up the Mississippi River in Minnesota.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was first enacted in 1972,
at a time when coordinated land use planning was generally
supported in Congress. Planning was seen as central to protecting
natural resources while fostering wise development in the coastal
zone. Since 1972, pressures for both preservation and development
have grown more intense as people continue to migrate to coastal
areas to take advantage of economic opportunities, to retire, and
to pursue recreational interests; as economic activities continue
to concentrate in coastal locations; and as natural resources are
threatened by the magnitude and location of these changes. The CZMA
recognizes that many of these pressures are not compatible, and
also that states (and in some states, local government) have the
lead responsibility for planning and managing their coastal zones.
The CZMA authorizes grants to states to develop and implement
coastal management programs to address these pressures. The
concepts behind the program combined with the modest grants have
attracted 34 of the 35 eligible states and territories to
participate. Although authorization for appropriations expired
after FY1999, Congress continues to fund this program.
|
|