[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(109-69)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 4, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-284 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
TED POE, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
CONNIE MACK, Florida Columbia
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Louisiana, Vice-Chair (Ex Officio)
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from
Maryland....................................................... 6
Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from Virginia.. 6
Franks, Hon. C. Ron, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Chesapeake Bay Executive Council.................... 10
Gross, Penelope A., Mason District Supervisor, Fairfax County
Board of Supervisors........................................... 10
Grumbles, Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 10
Hoagland, Roy A., Vice President for Environmental Protection
and Restoration, Chesapeake Bay Foundation..................... 10
Swanson, Ann Pesiri, Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay
Commission..................................................... 10
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., of Maryland........................... 38
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 42
Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, of Virginia................................. 43
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., of Maryland............................ 53
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Franks, Hon. C. Ron............................................. 45
Gross, Penelope A............................................... 55
Grumbles, Benjamin H............................................ 63
Hoagland, Roy A................................................. 75
Swanson, Ann Pesiri............................................. 81
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Bailes, Hon. Gerald L., Director, Miller Center for Public
Affairs, University of Virginia, statement..................... 85
Sheenan, Denise M., Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, State of New York, letter, June 8, 2006.......... 89
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
----------
Thuesday, May 4, 2006,
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment, Washington,
D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John J.
Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Mr. Duncan. I want to go ahead and welcome everyone to our
hearing today on the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and
H.R. 4126 that we are doing at least in major part at the
request of our good friend and members of the Subcommittee,
Congressman Gilchrest, who is so interested and involved in all
of this.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United
States and is critical to the economy, environment and way of
life for millions in the mid-Atlantic area. Covering 64,000
square miles, the watershed spans parts of six States and the
District of Columbia, and is home to 16 million people. There
are 150 major streams and tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay
basin. The Bay is an important environmental feature in the
region. It is home to millions of waterfowl and a vast array of
fish, shellfish and other aquatic plants and animals.
For the human population, the Chesapeake Bay provides
millions of pounds a seafood, a wide variety of recreational
opportunities and is a major shipping and commercial hub. Two
of the Nation's largest ports are on the Chesapeake Bay, the
ports in Baltimore and the port at Hampton Roads.
Beginning with colonial settlement and until today, land
use changes in the watershed have affected the health of the
Chesapeake Bay. Public concerns about the health of the Bay
have been raised since the 1930s. The deterioration of the
Chesapeake Bay can be seen in a decrease in water clarity, a
decline in the oyster and crab populations and a lack of
underwater grasses.
There are 11 areas of the Bay that are classified as dead
zones, where there is not enough oxygen in the water to sustain
life. The EPA says the major causes of the Bay's deterioration
are excessive nutrients and sediments coming from farm lands,
wastewater treatment plants and urban runoff. Septic systems
and air deposition of emissions from power plants, cars and
trucks also contribute to the degradation.
In the next 25 years, an additional 3.7 million people are
expected to be living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As more
concrete and asphalt replaces forests and open spaces, the
runoff of nutrients and sediments into the Bay will quicken.
However, it is this same development that provides the economic
stability and future growth prospects for the region. We must
balance our economic development with our need for clean water
and a healthy environment.
In 1983, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District
of Columbia signed with the EPA the first Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program was authorized
formally by Congress and the Clean Water Act. Today, the
program is a partnership of States, local entities and the EPA
that directs and conducts restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement set ambitious restoration goals
to be met by 2010.
Over the last 10 years, $3.7 billion in direct funding has
been provided to the program from the Federal Government and
the States. Of this, $972 million has been provided by the
Federal Government. An additional $1.9 billion in indirect
funding has gone to programs that improve the health of the
Bay.
Also in the last 10 years, the EPA has provided $1 billion
to Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania through the Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund. The EPA reports that some progress
has been made in cleaning up the Bay, but many challenges
remain.
A Government Accountability Office report last year
suggested that the reported improvements in the Bay may be
overstated. To address the need to reauthorize the Chesapeake
Bay Program, our Subcommittee colleague, Wayne Gilchrest, has
introduced H.R. 4126, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Enhancement Act of 2005. The bill has 16 bipartisan co-
sponsors, including another Subcommittee colleague, Eleanor
Holmes Norton.
The bill would authorize the Chesapeake Bay Program through
2011, with some modifications. H.R. 4126 would increase the
accountability of the program to achieve water quality goals,
and would increase the role of the local governments in Bay
restoration. Also, the bill would increase authorized funding
from $40 million to $50 million annually through 2011.
This is an important bill and deserves our careful
consideration. We have assembled expert witnesses to help us
consider this important program, and Mr. Gilchrest's bill.
We have two distinguished members of Congress from the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia and Ben
Cardin of Maryland. In addition, we have representatives of the
State and Federal partners who administer the program. I look
forward to hearing from all of you, and let me now turn to my
good friend, the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for any opening
statement she wishes to make.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing on the Chesapeake Bay, one of our wonders of the
world, and on the much-needed efforts to improve its
environmental health.
The Chesapeake Bay is an ecological treasure, lying in the
back yard of our Nation's capital. Home to more than 16 million
people and more than 3,600 species of plants and animal life,
the Chesapeake Bay watershed has a long history of human
settlement, starting with the first Native American communities
roughly 12,000 years ago.
Yet there is also a long history of declining health of the
Chesapeake Bay in part because of the utilization of the Bay
watershed's natural resources. For example, during the 19th
century, a shift toward commercial agriculture led to more land
devoted to crop production, more reclaimed wetlands as well as
the importation and utilization of nitrogen fertilizers to
enhance productivity. These factors, when combined with
residential and industrial growth in the region, placed
significant pressure on the delicate balance of the Bay's
ecosystem.
Soon afterwards, the warning signs of the Bay's declining
health began. By the late 1800s, oysterman began to record
declining harvests of oysters from the region. By the beginning
of the 20th century, reports document declining migratory bird
populations and fewer acres of native eel grass beds and other
habitat.
In 1968, a local survey reported that pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay cost $3 million in annual losses to the Bay
fishing industry. Mr. Chairman, the warning signs have been
around for over a century. Yet we have only recently started
paying attention.
For decades, numerous governmental and non-governmental
organizations, including many here this morning, began to focus
on declining health of the Bay and on the steps necessary to
stop the decline and hopefully assist in the restoration and
protection of this resource. As an example, the ever-present
Save the Bay bumper stickers have encouraged citizens'
awareness for over 40 years.
Yet awareness of the issues and achieving cleanup results
are two different ends of the same task. I am concerned that
despite our efforts thus far, we are no further in actually
restoring the ecological health of the Bay than we were decades
earlier. Mr. Chairman, decades of study on the Bay have
outlined where the problems are and identified how to address
these problems.
So this is not a question of what is wrong or how we can
clean it up. This entire debate boils down to one key point: do
we have the commitment? Do we have the commitment to take steps
necessary to control the sources of nutrients and silt that
continue to pollute the Bay? Do we have the commitment to take
an aggressive stand on land use and non-point sources of
pollution? Do we have the commitment at all levels of
Government to collect and spend necessary financial resources
to make a different in addressing ongoing sources of pollution
to the Bay?
Without an aggressive commitment to address ongoing sources
of pollution and to fund necessary projects throughout the
watershed, I am certain that when we revisit this issue in the
next reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
statements you hear will be the same as today: that we know
where the problems are, but we are not aggressively taking
steps to address them.
I hope after today's witnesses, which I look forward to
hearing, we might be able to move forward. Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for holding this
hearing today. And actually, I enjoyed listening to both of
your statements. They were a combination of describing the
beauty in an eloquent fashion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
and quite accurately, I might add, the history of human
activity in the Bay watershed, and the fact that now we know
how, we understand the physics of the ecological system of the
Chesapeake Bay. So we know what the parameters are for fixing
this problem, and it is in essence making human activity
compatible with nature's design. And the science of that is
evident. Our commitment has to be reinvigorated.
What we are trying to do with this reauthorization is to
take this legislation that has been around now for almost 20
years and fine tune it to the extent that there is more
collaboration, more coordination from the Federal agencies, the
vast array of Federal departments, with the State governments
and the local governments, so each has an enhanced but an
acceptable amount of responsibility to not only report the
findings but do something about the findings.
So today, we would like to have some understanding from the
perspectives of the witnesses as to what are the greatest
accomplishments of the Chesapeake Bay Program to this point,
what are the weaknesses of the Chesapeake Bay Program up to
this point. And where are we as far as restoring living
resources, water resources, vital habitats and managing open
space?
And in Maryland, for example, how are we managing our
critical areas laws? Are we enforcing this with all our
efforts? Or are we lax with the relationship between State and
local planners? How do we deal with sprawl? How do we deal with
impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces in the last 10 years
have increased by 40 percent as the population has increased by
8 percent.
And we know that impervious surfaces are one of the key
difficulties with restoring the Bay habitat. What is the
relationship between EPA and USDA as far as the Chesapeake Bay
Program is concerned? What is the relationship between EPA and
all the other Federal agencies that have an impact on the
Chesapeake Bay? Do we have a prediction as to how much water is
available for future development and what about the sewer
systems and their impact over the next 20 or 30 years?
Is there an effective collaborative nature of the program
with small watershed grants between the various States, between
the various agencies? What is the relationship between the
Corps of Engineers and EPA, especially with non-native species
and the introduction of non-native species?
The involvement of the President's cabinet with the Bay
restoration, Federal agencies, the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and
the unified plan. That is an entity that has a working
relationship with the Bay program. The States' role. I guess I
could go on and on.
One last comment about the State and local government. How
well are they coordinated, collaborative effort with the
program to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the
limited funds for small watershed grants? And certainly, we
want to increase the amount of money for those small watershed
grants, because that is where the rubber hits the road.
In this huge bureaucracy, we need initiative, ingenuity,
intellect, clarity, collaboration and strong, determined
leadership. And the goal sits out there. How are we compatible
with nature's design? That is our target. That is the local
planners' target, the county commissioners' target, the mayors'
target, the manager of EPA, USDA, the Federal agencies, the
Governor, DNRs, you name it. How do we become more compatible?
So I really look forward to everyone's testimony and I want
to thank the Chairman for his indulgence with my, what can we
say, too much chatter? Passion.
But what I would like to do is submit my official statement
for the record and former Governor Baliles from Virginia, his
statement into the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Without objection, those statements will be
placed in the record.
Dr. Boustany, do you have a statement?
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just going to say, I want to commend my colleague, Mr.
Gilchrest, for the hard work, the passion that he brings to
this issue. And also state that much of what we have learned
with the Chesapeake Bay applies also to my home State of
Louisiana and the coastal issues that we deal with.
With that, I look forward to the testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Ms. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that, coming from Pennsylvania, it is our
tributaries that flow into the Chesapeake. I have been a strong
proponent of bringing home Federal dollars to assist a lot of
the small, rural communities in my district to improve
wastewater facilities and make sure that we are being
responsible stewards of those Pennsylvania tributaries to make
certain that the national treasure that we have in the
Chesapeake Bay continues to be a place where it is
environmentally sound that we continue to respect the integrity
of that.
So we appreciate the two of you being here today and we
will continue in Pennsylvania to work to keep our streams and
rivers clean. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Shuster.
As we have discussed at other times, there is an important
Federal role in regard to this work, because people from all
over the Country come to and visit the Chesapeake Bay area. On
the other hand, I know from my home area and places all over
the Country, people have gone berserk over land that is on the
water. The value of the properties on water have just exploded.
What that means is that some of the local governments are going
to have to shoulder perhaps a little more of the burden also
than they have done in the past. But we will get into that as
we go along.
Our first panel is a members panel. In my six years
chairing the Aviation Subcommittee and now my sixth year
chairing this Subcommittee, with members panels, I always ask
the members to withhold any questions to the members in
consideration of the fact that these members have very busy
schedules and need to get on to other things, and also, because
we can discuss matters with them on the floor and at other
times.
So we will put your full statements into the record and we
give you, we ask that witnesses limit their statements to five
minutes. We know it is hard to get a five minute statement
sometimes into that amount of time, so we give you six minutes.
But after that, we ask you to stop, so we can get on to other
witnesses.
We will go first with ladies first, our friend,
Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, who represents the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Ms. Davis.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE HONORABLE
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF MARYLAND
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to be with you today.
I appreciate your efforts, and I thank you for allowing me
to sit in on your committee this morning.
Mr. Duncan. Let me interrupt you just a moment. I have to
run and do a vote in another committee. Dr. Boustany is going
to take over for me, but I will see your full statements.
Mr. Boustany. [Presiding.] Mr. Chairman, while we are
waiting for the change in chair, I just want to welcome Ms.
Davis and Mr. Cardin this morning. I would be remiss if I
didn't say that both these members work very hard for the
restoration of the Bay that they also reside on. Thanks for
coming to testify today.
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. You may proceed.
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my colleague on the
other side of the water, Representative Gilchrest, I want to
thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay. As
a member of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, I commend
you for your leadership and your dedication to the Bay. In the
six years that I have been here, I have heard about the Bay
from you for those entire six years.
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, as I said, and I
am proud and honored to represent Virginia's First
Congressional District, which spans most of the Bay's western
border. The James, York and Rappahannock Rivers, three of the
Bay's major tributaries, flow through my district. The Bay and
tributaries have shaped and continue to shape the lives of the
residents of Virginia, especially in my district. I want to see
the Chesapeake Bay restored and the environment improved.
We as a Nation have a special responsibility to act as
stewards of our natural resources and environment. In Virginia,
we are gearing up for the 400th anniversary of America's
founding at Jamestown. Part of the commemoration, hopefully,
will include the designation of the Captain John Smith
Chesapeake Bay National Historic Water Trail.
John Smith explored most of the Chesapeake Bay and the
tributaries in 1607 and 1608. What he found was an astonishing
assortment of wildlife and beautiful scenery. He wrote in his
journal, ``Heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a
place for man's habitation.'' And I, along with about 16
million other people, agree that the Bay and its tributaries
are a great place to live. They are also worth protecting and
taking strides to improve the health of the region's waterways.
The Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement focused on significantly
reducing nutrient pollution and sediment deposits by 2010. That
date is fast approaching and with much still left to do.
Improved water quality is and should remain the number one
priority of the State, Federal and local partners involved in
the Bay cleanup. This is such a large undertaking and the
complexities of understanding such a large estuary are
daunting. The Federal and State governments have already
invested billions, and it is our responsibility to make sure
that we are getting the most cleanup for our tax dollars.
I am encouraged by Representative Gilchrest's vision to
address these concerns by increasing the responsibilities and
the role of local governments in Bay restoration. Localities
and individuals are vital components of any action and plan to
clean up the Bay.
I want to take a minute or two to give a couple of concrete
examples that exemplify a wide range of local efforts underway
to improve water quality in the Bay region. This morning the
National Association of Counties recognized the efforts of
community volunteers in Caroline County, Virginia. About a
dozen volunteers were instrumental in assisting local officials
with a critical wastewater project.
Dawn is a small, rural community without indoor plumbing.
Poor drainage and heavy storms wash waste into the drainages,
threatening wells, groundwater and public health. Seeing the
need and recognizing the health and environmental impact,
volunteers assisted local officials to collect easements and
regulatory paperwork. Thanks in large part to volunteer
efforts, the community is slated to begin construction of a
wastewater facility early next year.
This is just one example of how local officials and
communities working together can address the health and
environmental problems that will ultimately impact the health
of our waterways.
I want to give you one more example of the important role
that local governments are playing in Bay restoration.
Fredericksburg, Virginia is reflective of many areas in the Bay
watershed. Located just south of D.C., the whole region is
feeling the pressures of growth and the strains associated with
traffic, congestion and land use. In Fredericksburg, along the
banks of the Rappahannock, the local government has just voted
to place 31 miles of riverfront land under conservation
easement, creating an important buffer against runoff and
development. This is another examples of concrete steps that
local groups are making to preserve green spaces, to protect
Bay tributaries and enhance restoration efforts.
Finally, I want to remind the Committee of the important
role that our watermen, oystermen and commercial fishermen of
eastern Virginia have in the future health of the Bay.
Generations of watermen have fished and lived off the water.
Still in my district, commercial watermen, private companies
and individuals are cultivating millions of oysters each year.
Oyster aquaculture business adds oysters that clean and filter
Bay waters, an important component to improving water quality.
These men and women know better than most the status of the Bay
and their input is essential.
Residents of Northumerland County have relied on the health
and the bounty of the Bay's fish stock for generations.
Reedville, Virginia is the third largest fishing port in the
United States. It is a little tiny rural area. We need to
ensure that when these issues are discussed that local
communities and businesses that have the knowledge, investment
and stake are consulted and involved in the process.
I believe that the Chesapeake Bay Program and the EPA
should make it top priority to meet mandated improvements to
water quality before embarking on efforts to manage fisheries
which may be best addressed under the existing structure at the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission.
I want to just say that when I was in the State
legislature, I was on the Chesapeake Bay and its Tributaries
committee then. Like Representative Johnson said, we have all
discuss it, we all know the problems. But it is going to take
the commitment of all involved, the Federal, State and local,
to do what is necessary to clean up our Bay, keep it clean for
our generations and for future generations to come. I have a
granddaughter three months old and I want it to be there for
her in years to come.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.
Mr. Boustany. We thank you for your testimony.
Next we will hear from the Honorable Benjamin Cardin from
the State of Maryland. Mr. Cardin, you may proceed.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
this opportunity to testify. I want to thank Mr. Gilchrest for
his leadership on this legislation. I am proud to join his as a
co-sponsor, along with every member of the Maryland
Congressional delegation, as well as many other members. I want
to also thank Jo Ann Davis for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, let me go back if I might, I am not going to
go back 400 years, a lot has changed in the Chesapeake Bay
since Captain John Smith traveled down it. But in the 1980's,
before the Federal partnership was created, I was the speaker
of the Maryland House of Delegates and Harry Hughes was
Governor of Maryland. We, along with colleagues from
Pennsylvania and colleagues from Virginia and the Nation's
capital, got together in an effort to try to do something about
a Chesapeake Bay that was in trouble.
We developed a partnership in the 1980's and recognized
that unless we took dramatic action, the Bay that we loved, the
Bay that was part of the life of the people of this region and
Nation, one of the great treasures of our Country, would be
lost. We developed a program that changed laws in our States
and formed partnerships with private organizations and got
people energized about taking some dramatic action, including
land use controls and restrictions on fishing and all types of
matters that were extremely controversial for the time.
We then went to the Federal Government, almost 20 years
ago, and said, help us, be a partner. And the Federal
Government said yes.
So I want to start by thanking you, thanking this Committee
and thanking Congress and thanking the Federal Government for
being a partner on the Chesapeake Bay Restoration. We could not
have made the progress that we have made over the last 20 years
without your help.
Now, there are many who will come up, including myself,
saying that we have tremendous challenges ahead of us. The
Chesapeake Bay is in trouble. But if it were not for the
Chesapeake Bay partnership that was started in the 1980s, the
Chesapeake Bay could very well be totally gone today.
We have established a way in which we can deal with these
problems. We need to strengthen it. And that is why Mr.
Gilchrest's legislation is so important. We can not do it now
without your help to take us to the next plateau.
And that is what his legislation does. The Chesapeake Bay
is a national treasure, but it is also a national model. And we
can work together to do a much better job on the Bay. The dead
zones are frightening to all of us. We see the fish that have
cancerous tumors and we know about the striped bass in this
region. We know that we are the habitat for the striped bass,
and we are worried that your granddaughters will not see
striped bass in the future unless we take action today in order
to deal with these issues.
So the Gilchrest legislation renews the commitment, expands
the commitment and looks at new challenges that we face. And
one of those challenges is to energize local governments. I am
glad that Wayne mentioned that. I live in a county of 775,000
people. Wayne lives in a county of 20,000 people.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is 18,000.
Mr. Cardin. You lost two?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardin. Well, then, will have to adjust the lines a
little bit in redistricting.
But we have the same challenges. This bill does not mandate
local government action. It involves local government, tells
them to be a partner and help us and gives them the resources.
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Gilchrest about how much we get
back from these grants, these small grants that we make, that
energize school children and energize local government to be
part of it.
We have a serious problem. The Bay is not flushing itself
fast enough. We put too much pollution into the Bay with the
nutrients and the sediments. We are falling behind. Despite all
our efforts, we are falling behind. We need a new push on the
program, and we really are looking to this Committee to give us
that help. This legislation is vitally important if we are
going to be able to win the Bay for future generations. We can
do it, but we need your help, and I thank you very much for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Boustany. Let me just say that at the beginning, I
complimented my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, and I want to
compliment the two of you for the passion and drive that you
bring to this, and the long hours of work that you have put
into it as well.
We appreciate your testimony and thank you, and we will
submit the entire testimony into the record. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a very
quick comment to Ms. Davis and Mr. Cardin. And Ben reminded me
of this, and so did Jo Ann. More than 20 years ago, when both
of you were working on these Bay issues, before there was a Bay
program, what you did back then is a great model for what we
can do right now. While the Bay is in trouble and there are
dead zones and a number of other difficulties, there were
portions of the Bay, because of what you did, especially in
some of the tidal basins that are blossoming, they are
flowering, they are restoring themselves into nature's
beautiful bounty.
An example is the Sassafras River. Because of what you did
back then, and because of Critical Areas legislation, and
because of what you did to create buffers, the bay grasses in
much of that tidal basin and the restoration of the species is
really wonderful. But that is specifically tied to what you did
prior to the Bay program. The Bay program is trying to enhance
that. But the foundation that you have built, that we need to
build upon, is a blessing to us all.
Mr. Cardin. Well, the Volvo races will restart, as you
know, in the Bay. I think if we didn't do what we did 20 years
ago, they may not have wanted to come into the Bay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Absolutely, Ben. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boustany. Before the two of you leave, the Honorable
Ranking Member of this Subcommittee would like to say a few
words.
Ms. Johnson. I simply want to thank you for coming and to
say thank you for coming back to the Committee. Twenty years
ago, you were a member of this Committee and set some of this
in motion. And we appreciate both of you.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you both.
We will now call forth our second panel. Let me say thank
you all for coming. We have a very distinguished second panel,
as we continue to look at the Chesapeake Bay Program
reauthorization. Welcome to all of you. We look forward to your
testimony.
Our first witness will be the Honorable Benjamin Grumbles,
with the U.S. EPA, Assistant Administrator for Water. Mr.
Grumbles, thank you for joining us, and you may begin your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; HONORABLE C. RON
FRANKS, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
CHESAPEAKE BAY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL; ANN PESIRI SWANSON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION; PENELOPE A. GROSS, MASON
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; ROY
A. HOAGLAND, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always an
honor to appear before the Subcommittee, particularly to talk
about efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. I am
Ben Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, at the U.S.
EPA. Rebecca Hamner and Mike Burke of the Chesapeake Bay
Program office are also with me, sitting behind me.
I was not disappointed by the level of the eloquent
statements that have been made so far in terms of the members
and the panelists. I am sure there will be more eloquence from
the rest of this panel.
I am just reminded of the statement from Will Shakespeare
that action is eloquence. I know that as you go through this
important hearing and you have a lot of questions and follow-up
questions, that the real measure will be the actions that are
taken as a result of the hearing and the progress that is
taken.
So in my moment of time here, what I would like to do is
summarize very briefly activities of the U.S. EPA and the
history of accomplishments that focus more on what we are doing
now with our partners and what we need to be doing. The
overarching goal and the directive from the President to the
Administrator is to accelerate the pace of environmental
protection. And the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, and
as Congressman Cardin said, it is also a national model.
So far more is at stake, as you know with your strong
interest in coastal Louisiana and elsewhere, there is far more
at stake here than just the Chesapeake Bay, although it is
truly a national treasure.
The history of the program, we have seen great
accomplishments. And when we acknowledge that 1,800 miles of
streams, migratory fish passageways have been opened, it is the
highest number in the Nation in terms of opening up the streams
and watersheds for migratory fish passage. That is an
impressive accomplishment.
There are also impressive accomplishments in terms of the
green infrastructure, forested buffers and wetlands that have
been restored and protected. There are also measurable
accomplishments in terms of recovering the populations, the
numbers of striped bass or rockfish, although we still have
important work to do in ensuring the quality of those important
links in the ecosystem and the food chain.
The main message, though, is that there is much more work
to do. As you know, we do have dead zones, or very low
dissolved oxygen levels at certain times of the year. The
oyster population is at great risk. There are tremendous
challenges ahead and much work that we need to do, all of us
together, to accelerate the pace of environmental protection.
I would like to emphasize some of the actions that we are
currently undertaking. In the President's budget request, the
agency is seeking for the Chesapeake Bay Program an increase of
$4 million above the baseline from last year. So it is a $26
million total.
That is one piece, one very important piece, but it is a
piece in a program that can provide scientific, cutting-edge
information and stewardship and help to facilitate this grand
collaboration that needs to occur to make progress in the
Chesapeake Bay.
I would like to mention that the current activities for the
agency are to focus on the core Clean Water Act regulatory
programs, the water quality standards, the permitting, the
pollution budgets, the collaborations that need to occur, and
to use those and to continue to use those tools while also
using innovations and collaborative efforts, cooperative
conservation, which is a real priority for the Administration,
bringing together USDA, EPA, Army Corps, DOT, other Federal
agencies together to work with the critically important
partners, the States and the local governments, and perhaps
most importantly private citizens and real stewards that are
going to make a difference. And we all want to make a
difference.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has seen some significant
success in terms of working with our State partners to
establish our water quality standards, nutrient goals and
requirements. That is a tremendous important effort. And it
wouldn't happen without EPA's support for the States who are
the primary leaders in that regard.
At the end of 2004, EPA, working with our State partners,
all the way from New York to Virginia to West Virginia to the
States within the 64,000 square mile watershed agreed to a
collaborative, innovative approach for watershed based
permitting. And we think that is going to lead to improved
regulation of over 450 facilities throughout the watershed and
an annual reduction of 17 million pounds of the nitrogen
loadings. The nitrogen and phosphorus continue to be one of the
greatest challenges facing the Bay. So we need innovative
approaches like that.
Mr. Chairman, one of the key components of our approach,
our strategy, is to build new partnerships and collaborations
with different agencies across the Federal Government. We are
committed to doing that. We are also committed to using tools
under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Interstate Regulation,
which was recently finalized, will help lead to a reduction of
10 million pounds of nitrogen over the course of its
implementation.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight
some of the priorities for the agency and the Chesapeake Bay
Program and look forward to answering any questions members may
have.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles.
Our next witness is the Honorable Ron Franks, Secretary of
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. We appreciate
your coming here today and look forward to your testimony. You
may proceed, sir.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, I am Ron
Franks, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. With me today is Frank Dawson, our Assistant
Secretary for Chesapeake Bay Programs.
The restoration of the Bay is an unprecedented effort. It
began with a set of untested assumptions and a steep learning
curve for a complex, dynamic ecosystem. Pennsylvania, Virginia
and Maryland have greatly increased funding for the Bay.
Pennsylvania's Growing Greener II initiative will invest $625
million in environmental restoration programs and projects.
Maryland's new Bay Restoration Fund will provide $75 million
annually to upgrade sewage treatment plants and plant cover
crops, greatly reducing the amount of nutrients entering the
Bay.
Tributary strategies are now in place for almost all of the
Bay jurisdictions. And implementation plans are under
development. Maryland's draft implementation plan was released
in February.
Washington, D.C., one of the Bay's largest urban pollution
sources, has embarked on a long-term control plan that will
reduce combined sewer overflows by 96 percent. Virginia
recently committed to preserving 400,000 more acres, and
Maryland has committed to spending $300 million for land
conservation this year alone.
Just last month, Maryland's Governor Robert Ehrlich signed
the Healthy Air Act, to reduce the atmospheric deposition of
pollutants to the Bay. Combined, these and other ongoing
measures may well bring us close to the tipping point at which
we may see dramatic improvements in water quality and living
resources. We agree with the findings and recommendations of
the GAO evaluation of the Bay program, which we understand
provided a foundation for the development of H.R. 4126. I want
to compliment Congressman Gilchrest on his legislation.
We also agree that the bill's key element, bringing the Bay
restoration effort closer to the local level, is what is most
needed. My written statement discusses how the issues raised in
the GAO report are being addressed and provide suggestions for
further improvement through changes to H.R. 4126. Here are
three key recommendations. First, shift the program's
perspective to Bay-wide to local improvements. While the Bay
program needs to continue to report on Bay-wide health, local
progress will be far more telling than Bay-wide assessments in
measuring the effectiveness of efforts.
The foundation for assessing progress at the local level is
already included in the tributary strategies. The Bay program's
planning and assistance should focus on how to accelerate
tributary strategy implementation, shifting focus among
priority watersheds over time.
Second, strategically employ the limited resources
available for Bay restoration. Resources should be concentrated
in communities that are engaged in leveraged partnerships for
coordinated, large scale restoration efforts. Prior to the GAO
evaluation, Maryland was already moving forward to utilize its
resources more effectively. Beginning with the Corsica River
initiative announced last year, we are targeting resources
where there can be a clear showing of substantial improvement.
This legislation will support and expand these efforts.
Finally, increase the Federal contribution to improving
local capacity. A specific program should be established within
the Bay program to improve local capacity for environmental
planning and measurement. To initiate and sustain local
protection and restoration efforts, a substantial increase in
financial assistance to local governments as needed.
As a starting point, the Chesapeake Bay Program needs to be
funded annually at the full authorized level, which is
currently $40 million. We feel the current authorization should
be increased to at least $50 million. Any increased funding
should be dedicated to the State implementation grants and
small watershed grants program.
I note that while the States have substantially increased
spending on the Bay, the promised benefits of these increases
will be canceled out if Federal spending for clean water
programs continues to decline. That decline needs to be
reversed.
In concluding, I ask for your perseverance. We are
attempting to do what has not been done before. We are in this
for the long haul and there will be a long haul. In spite of
the challenges, we have been able to move forward and achieve
substantive improvements in the Bay and its tributaries. With
your support, the progress will continue.
Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Franks.
Our next witness will be representing the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, Ms. Ann Swanson, Executive Director. You may
proceed.
Ms. Swanson. Thank you very much.
I would like to thank each and every one of you here on the
Committee, both Committee members and staff, for your attention
to the Chesapeake Bay. Representative Cardin couldn't have said
it better when he said thank you. Because in truth, the Federal
involvement in the Chesapeake Bay has been an extraordinarily
catalyst for the region. You should never underestimate the
power of that.
I work for three general assemblies, from Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia, representing the Chesapeake Bay.
Your efforts to support the Bay essentially help to encourage
them to do State level programs. And for every dollar that you
ante up as cash, of course they do too. And then they call upon
their citizens and local governments to do more. So this is
truly an example of leveraging.
In my limited time here, I hope you will indulge me, I have
decided to go a bit off script and instead to really talk about
the basics of why this investment is so critically important.
The first question that you have to ask yourself is why is the
Bay so special. And I was delighted to hear Representative
Johnson refer to it as a wonder of the world. I have only dared
to call it a national treasure. So I am glad a Texan went
higher.
To me, why is the Bay so special? It is one of the most
productive places that this Country has to offer. Its diversity
is extraordinary, with 3,600 species of plants and animals. The
Chesapeake Bay is a protein factory, producing a lot of our
Nation's fish, spawning most of our Nation's striped bass,
still producing a huge portion of our blue crabs. In fact, many
of the iconic American natural resources, whether those are
waterfowl or fish, come from the Chesapeake Bay. They may come
from other places, but if you were designing a Kix box or some
cereal box, those icons would be very prominent in our region.
So why then are we floundering? Why is it so difficult to
restore the Bay? And there are some fundamentals you must know,
that essentially nature and God have dealt us. One is that it
has the largest land to water ratio of any estuary on the
planet. It is five times more than the next nearest estuary.
What that means in layman's terms, what you do on the land,
greatly affects the water and dilution cannot be counted on.
And the third fundamental thing that you need to know about
why it is so important is there is an extremely narrow opening,
which people like Jo Ann Davis and others know about. And so as
a result, just counting on the ocean to carry that pollution
away is very difficult.
Finally, confounding it, we have 16 million people spanning
the Mason Dixon line. We have an enormous number of
governments, 1,600 or more ruling local governments, and they
all need to be coordinated.
So in my remaining time, let me focus on what has been
accomplished. Extraordinary participation, some of the finest
science in the world. It is why we are asked to go
internationally and speak. We know more about this estuary than
most other places. And I would only wish many other places in
America and globally to know as much about their place.
So then what is wrong? If we know about it, we have also
done more costing than almost any other natural place that I
know of, certainly the other big estuarine and environmental
programs of this Country. They call us to say, how have you
done this, how have you costed it out? Where that gets you when
you carefully define what you know about a place, what you need
to do and how much it is going to cost, is it gets you to the
implementation phase.
And that is what is wholly unique about the Chesapeake
region. We are deep into that implementation phase, and quite
honestly and candidly, and my mother might not like me to say
this, but it is hard as hell. It is incredibly difficult.
So what do we need? What have we learned at this point?
This legislation addresses several of those things. First, you
must target, you must have the political guts to target.
Because if you don't, with the limited dollars available, you
can't go the distance. The idea of encouraging local
governments to be more involved, the idea of small capacity
grants for local governments is pivotal. Incentivize them. Get
them having the guts to be innovative and proactive. They have
the intellect. They have the compassion. They need support.
And the last thing that I would say in my remaining time is
in terms of the Federal Government, yes, we need the Federal
agencies working very closely together. This legislation calls
for an interagency cross-cut budget. That is a good thing. We
need to push for strong integration and strong cooperation so
that the Departments of Agriculture and the Departments of
Energy and the Departments of Environment, the EPA, et cetera,
are working very closely together.
I commend this legislation. You are heading in the right
direction, getting more money at the local level and in the
small watershed grants, and calling on increased targeting.
Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. We thank you for your testimony. Next we will
hear from the Honorable Penelope Gross, representing the
Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. She also
serves as Mason District Supervisor on the Fairfax County Board
of Supervisors from Annandale, Virginia. Welcome, and we look
forward to your testimony. You may proceed.
Ms. Gross. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss Chesapeake Bay
restoration activities and the vitally important role of local
governments in those efforts.
Chesapeake Bay issues are of particular interest to me as a
founding chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, a member of the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Blue Ribbon Financing Panel, and I
recently was elected chair of the Bay Program's Local
Government Advisory Committee, also known as LGAC.
I chair Virginia's Potomac Watershed Roundtable and as you
mentioned, I represent Mason District on the Fairfax County
Board of Supervisors. Fairfax County is one of the largest
jurisdictions population-wise in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Each of these responsibilities has helped shape my perspective
on what is needed to keep our efforts to achieve a clean bay on
track.
Of the 98 commitments in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, 22
specifically involve local governments and other commitments
imply local government involvement. From a local government
perspective, we know what to do to continue making progress.
But we need more help from our State and Federal partners. The
Bay program has successfully generated plans and documents that
outline what actions local governments should take to restore
the Bay. However, I believe we are heavy on written plans. And
we are struggling on the follow-through, that is technical and
financial assistance to get more done.
This was the most common and strongly voiced concern among
LGAC members from all jurisdictions at our most recent meeting
held right here in this building. And I want to take this
opportunity Congressman Gilchrest and his staff and Congressman
Jim Moran's staff for engaging in substantive dialogue with
LGAC members about this legislation.
Local governments throughout the watershed are spending
millions of local dollars to do our part in cleaning up the
Bay. However, there needs to be greater emphasis on developing
mechanisms to capture those substantial implementation efforts
by local governments and others, which are not funded through
State or Federal Chesapeake Bay funds.
I understand that the States may be working on a tracking
system for urban non-point sources, but to facilitate reporting
by implementing entities, I would recommend that this system be
web-based and simple to use. I am sure it is no surprise to you
that the biggest help we could use is additional Federal and
State funding. It is critical that the Federal and State
governments in the watershed assume a major role in providing
financial assistance for implementation at the local level.
I also need to mention our concern with deep cuts being
proposed to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. While local
governments and our State partners are working to increase
funding for clean water programs, the Federal SRF is being
targeted for cuts totaling $199.2 million. Many local
governments, especially in rural areas of the Bay watershed,
depend on this Federal funding to pay for high priority water
pollution control projects and the proposed budget cuts are
exactly the opposite of what is needed to achieve our goal of a
clean and healthy Bay.
But funding alone is not enough. We also need our State and
Federal partners to work cooperatively with local governments
on a watershed basis to one, clearly articulate measurable
goals for local governments to achieve and couple these with
appropriate levels of funding support. It is critical to have a
detailed plan that explains who, what, when, where, why and
how.
Second, increase the level of support for the Small
Watershed Grants Program to the proposed authorized amount of
$10 million. While far short of the estimated funding
necessary, the Small Watershed Grants may be the most effective
mechanism for engaging local governments in a common effort to
achieve water quality and habitat goals. The current funding
level of $2 million translates into just $1,212 for each of the
1,650 local governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
In addition, I recommend increasing the cap on individual
small watershed grants to as much as $1 million, a substantial
increase over the present $50,000 limit. Let me give you an
example. In Fairfax County, we sometimes do not apply for
watershed grants, because the staff time involved in preparing
the grant application actually costs more than the grant
itself. The current $50,000 cap effectively eliminates larger
jurisdictions from participating in the Small Watershed Grants
program.
Third, establish a measurable goals provision for soil
conservation districts comparable to the provision for local
governments. Fourth, enhance the tributary strategies and
implementation plans to explicitly address nutrient and
sediment cap management as growth continues.
Fifth, a one size fits all approach to local government
coordination and C2K agreement implementation will not work.
Differences in local government access to technology must be
considered during the development of communication strategies.
A strong, structured technical assistance program to local
governments is needed, especially in smaller, more rural
jurisdictions that lack staff expertise and stormwater
management and watershed protection.
Sixth, we are concerned about the proposed language that
requires tributary strategy goals, or BMPs, to be included in
NPDES permits, both point and non-point source or MS4 permits.
In Virginia, non-point source pollution standards should not be
written into MS4 permits, because the Commonwealth does not yet
have an effective mechanism to track urban non-point sources.
Each of these areas is of strong interest to LGAC. With
appropriate staff and requisite resources, I can envision an
activist role for LGAC as the tributary strategies are turned
into action plans, including one, developing goals at the local
level and helping ensure that localities live up to their
responsibilities; two, partnering with State and local agencies
to achieve an equitable allocation of funding; three, reaching
out to other sectors, especially agriculture and private
industry.
We need to open or continue dialogue with all our partners
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We are all in this together,
from those who labor under the Statue of Freedom atop the
Capitol, dome to the Pennsylvania farmer, to the Maryland
waterman, the Virginia technology worker, the long-time
resident and the new American. Finger pointing won't clean up
the Bay. Working together just might.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear today
and for your leadership in helping keep the Bay restoration
effort moving forward. LGAC is looking forward to working with
you all to achieve our shared goals of a restored Chesapeake
Bay watershed. Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Ms. Gross.
Next we will hear from a representative from the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation, Mr. Roy Hoagland, who is Vice President for
Environmental Protection and Restoration, out of Annapolis,
Maryland. Welcome, Mr. Hoagland, and you may proceed.
Mr. Hoagland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Gilchrest and members of the Committee. I am in fact the Vice
President for the Policy and Advocacy Arm of the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, a non-profit organization of over 160,000 members
across the Nation. Congresswoman Johnson, we are the Save the
Bay bumper sticker people.
I am here also as a former member of the citizens advisory
committee to the Chesapeake Bay Program. I have served as its
chairman for two years and just have completed my term. So my
history is here as both an insider and an outsider when it
comes to the Chesapeake Bay Program, both a critic and
supporter.
You have heard an awful lot already about the successes and
the challenges that face the Chesapeake Bay Program. In the
time I have, I would like to focus on the bill itself, to urge
you to act favorably on this legislation, this critical
legislation, and in fact, consider three modifications to it.
The first modification is to strengthen the roles and
responsibilities of the Federal Government in the Chesapeake
Bay Program. We will not, we will not save the Bay absent more
Federal dollars, more Federal enforcement and increased Federal
commitment. You have heard about recent State commitments
toward the Chesapeake Bay Program. We need a parallel Federal
commitment. One provision in particular in the legislation does
have us concerned where it actually reduces the Federal
agencies' responsibilities to Bay restoration and the
commitments of this Chesapeake 2000 agreement. We would
respectfully suggest that provision be either removed or
reworked.
The second modification, provide a separate $20 million
authorization for the Chesapeake Bay Program State
implementation grants. You have heard a lot today about the
need for implementation. That is the stage we are at. These
grants are fundamentally different from the core research
communication, coordination elements of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. We urge not only independent authorization language,
but also language that makes the use of those funds
specifically contingent on implementation on the ground, not
staff support, not agency operation costs, but implementation,
because implementations are the next key steps that we need in
terms of moving forward to saving the Bay.
The third modification, create a new, separate $15 million
authorization for a Chesapeake Bay targeted watershed grants
program. The Chesapeake Bay has received targeted watershed
grants in the past, and currently, as a result of EPA's
national program, but only as a result of appropriation
language earmarks. The Chesapeake Bay, as you have heard, is a
national treasure. It is a resource of ecological, cultural,
historic significance. And we would urge that you statutorily
identify it as such through a targeted watershed grant funding.
Those are the three modifications we would urge that you
consider as you move this legislation forward. Strengthen the
roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government in the
Chesapeake Bay Program efforts; provide a separate $20 million
authorization for the Chesapeake Bay Program State
implementation grants; and make those grants contingent on
actual, on the ground implementation use; and create a new,
separate $15 million authorization for the Chesapeake Bay
targeted watershed grants program.
Congresswoman Davis stated that nearly 400 years ago,
Captain John Smith wrote of the Chesapeake Bay that ``Heaven
and earth never agreed to better frame a place for man's
habitation.'' The truth is that we have not treated that
extraordinary gift of earth and heaven with the full
stewardship it deserves. As you have heard, we know the
problems. We have the solutions. What we need is to make the
necessary investments and aggressively pursue the
implementation of these solutions.
We urge you to perfect and pass this legislation so that
the Bay Program, the Federal Government, all the partners to
this restoration effort of this national treasure can move
forward and more aggressively toward effective stewardship. We
thank Congressman Gilchrest for his leadership not only on this
bill, but for his historic leadership on Chesapeake Bay
restoration efforts. And thank you for the time you have given
us to participate today.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hoagland.
Now we will proceed with questions for the panel. Because
of time constraints, I am pleased to defer to the Ranking
Member, Ms. Johnson, to begin questioning.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoagland, according to the Chesapeake Bay Office,
roughly 45 percent of all the nutrients and two-thirds of the
sediment loads that are negatively impacting the Bay come from
agricultural, non-point sources. And yet, EPA has limited
authority to address these non-point sources of pollution,
other than trying to reach voluntary agreements to implement
these management practices.
Is that enough or is there a better way to address what
appears to be the largest, most difficult source of impairment
to the Bay?
Mr. Hoagland. Well, agricultural and controlling pollution
from agriculture is an incredibly leaky system, by the nature
of agriculture itself. The Bay Foundation has embarked on a
very aggressive partnership with the agricultural community to
get them to be the kind of colleagues that you have heard
about. There have been great steps made toward agriculture, but
we do in fact have to make great, great further strides.
The important thing to remember about regulating or
treating agricultural pollution, which the Chesapeake Bay
Commission has established is, we get a bigger bang for our
buck from nutrient reduction if in fact we put it on
agricultural lands than anywhere else. If we reduce sewage
treatment plant pollution and manage agricultural pollution, we
can get about 80 percent of the reductions that we need for
about 20 percent of the projected cost of the entire
restoration.
So one of the tools should be in fact taking a very hard
look at the Farm Bill and how we can put more directed funds
out of that program into the Bay restoration effort,
recognizing the Bay is in fact a national treasure and that it
should in fact receive a fairer share of those Farm Bill
monies.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
This question is--sorry.
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, if I could just add something
to that, Secretary Johanns of USDA has had conversations with
the leadership, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, with
Administrator Steve Johnson, and is very enthused about being a
very active partner in bringing to the table USDA programs and
authorities.
I just want to underscore Roy's comment about the benefits
of improved control of nutrients and sediments. That will be
accomplished through a variety of measures, including water
quality trading where we are seeing leadership in various
States. And it is a high priority of the EPA as well to try to
make progress, significant progress for nutrients that often
come off the agricultural lands. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
I know that the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement establishes a
series of goals for the restoration and protection of the Bay
by 2010, including correcting the nutrient and sediment related
problems sufficient to remove the Bay from the list of impaired
waters under the Clean Water Act. It is now 2006, and the
authorization contained in the bill we are discussing today
lasts through 2011.
Given the pace of the current restoration efforts, is the
Bay likely to be removed from the impaired waters list by 2010?
Anyone on the panel or all.
Mr. Hoagland. Congresswoman, given the current pace, no. No
question. Given the current pace, we will not remove from the
impaired waters list. That is precisely the problem, is that we
need to step up that pace. We need to invest more, we need to
be more aggressive.
I don't want to overstate it, but one of the successes of
the Bay program is that it has taken these years of science,
these years of studies, so that we do know the problem. We know
nitrogen reduction, we know where the sources are. And we even
have the solutions, upgrade the sewage treatment plants, put
the practices on the farm land. It is not difficult in terms of
what we have to do. It is difficult in implementation. We are
at the stage where we need to ramp up that implementation if we
are going to get the Bay off the impaired waters list.
Ms. Gross. Congresswoman, I would agree with Roy. I was one
of those elected officials who thought that we could meet the
2010 deadline. But that was back in 1998, 1999. When we needed
the Federal Government to come in and tell us what the numbers
should be, there was a great delay, 2000, the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement was signed, we thought we might have some of the
numbers, 2001 went by, 2002 went by, 2003.
We finally got some of the numbers from EPA. That was a
disappointment, and we will not meet the deadline by 2010. But
we want to make sure that we are given credit, that the local
governments are given credit for what they have been able to
do. And it is does not absolve us of responsibility from
continuing to try to reach a clean Bay.
But by 2010? No. I now have said publicly many times, we
are not going to make that goal.
Mr. Grumbles. Your question is the question that everyone
wants to ask. And it is a key question. I agree with the
responses I have heard so far from an EPA perspective. At the
current rate, we will not meet that goal. But we feel that it
would be premature to officially remove that goal. There is a
tremendous power of having a deadline out there to really
emphasize action and acceleration of progress. So while our
strategic plan recognizes that scientifically and realistically
we need to have some additional milestones, we remain fully
committed to that goal, and we think that we can make progress
through innovative approaches that States and local governments
and citizens and EPA are exploring aggressively right now.
But there is no doubt that the pace needs to be
accelerated.
Ms. Swanson. Congresswoman, I would just like to add one
brief thing, which is, I think you can look at the Chesapeake
Bay much like an overweight person. The Bay is essentially
bulging with nutrients and sediments, both of which are not bad
in the body system, unless they are in excess, similar to our
own fat.
And so essentially what we have done with the Bay
Agreement, and with the very specific numeric standards that
now exist for those nutrients and sediment, is we have defined
where the perfect weight is. Not John Smith's perfect weight,
but rather where is the point at which you can have some
nutrients and some sediment in the Bay, allowing for pollution
essentially, and still de-list the Bay. And we have done that.
And I don't know of other places around the Country that have
gotten to that extreme.
So now the question is, how do we capture it? Mr. Hoagland
mentioned a study that the Bay region did on cost effective
strategies. Because the elected officials in our region knew
they didn't have the money and that they had to invest it
wisely. And what that study showed was that if you carefully
target at the point sources and five very particular
agricultural practices, you can capture 75 percent of that
nitrogen goal. So 75 percent of the weight loss, 78 percent of
the phosphorus, and 100 percent of the sediment.
Now of course, that assumes full implementation, which may
never happen. But my point is, it is extraordinary and if that
patient you were counseling on weight loss were to lose that
level of poundage, you would be very close to your goal. And
you would see a natural response in the body or the Bay to
continue. At some point nature will help us recover as well. So
I wouldn't be quick to give up. What I would be very quick to
do is take your Federal dollars, take your Federal policy
making and force the targeting and force the incentives to
really go the distance. There is a lot that can be done.
And finally, let me say this, nitrogen has no memory. What
that means is if U.S. politicians get it out of the Bay, within
a year's time you see the recovery. It is a magical pollutant
in that regard, from a political point of view. Because you can
see the rapid response.
Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That was a wonderful analogy, somewhat overweight. And I
think it is a perfect analogy. I will add one thing to that. It
is not one person that has to lose that weight.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. It is a lot of people. If that one person
was in this room today, they would understand what we are
talking about. They would get the information direct from each
of us.
One of the problems with the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
though, is that there are a lot of overweight people out there
that do not have access to the information about nitrogen and
phosphorus and air deposition and sediment and sewer and
buffers and critical areas and agriculture and all those
things. The dissemination of the information, even in this age
we are now in, is not quite what it is, what it could be or
should be.
So these overweight people, sometimes they never even hear
the word Chesapeake Bay Program or how to lose the nitrogen. So
part of my question, and in just a minute I am going to ask how
we can get to that point. Because what we are doing here, and
we all want to work hard on the restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay, and the Federal partners that we have here today with this
Committee, I think in the last year or so, this Committee has
been more, with the exception maybe of when Ben was on the
Committee, but this Committee is extraordinarily helpful in
this effort, to write this legislation. And I do want to
compliment the Committee for doing that, and I want to
compliment Edie Thompson, sitting behind me, for all the hours
and hours of work that she has gone through on this effort.
I want to say something to Ms. Johnson's question about,
and probably Mr. Hoagland, too, when you mentioned agriculture
and nitrogen flow into the Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture for a
long time, if we go back 500 years, it used to be the Indians.
Then they started growing tobacco, then we came in and started
growing commodity crops and all of those things. We put a fair
share of nitrogen into the Chesapeake Bay.
But there is a whole range of programs out there. And the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, along with the EPA, are really
beginning to work well with agriculture, to keep agriculture
economically viable and change its practices, so they can be a
part of the restoration efforts. And we see that all over the
Chesapeake Bay. We see where ag has changed its practices. We
see those buffers out there, whether they are grass buffers or
forested buffers.
And you are right, Ann, that Bay comes back, within a few
years, you have all kinds of bay grasses. And it is blossoming
with American lotus blossoms late July, early August, if you
want to come over and go canoeing and smell the sweet scent of
that flower.
And Ben, you described a whole series of things that EPA is
doing. I know I have been working with Mike Burke, Mike has
been an annex to our staff, I think, since 1990. We are doing
extraordinary things with the technology that we have. And the
Federal Government has been a pretty good partner.
But can we keep pace with increasing populations in the
watershed with what we are doing? Can we keep pace with those
impervious services over the decades to come? Can we keep pace
with the increasing amount of air deposition from the
infrastructure of a human population?
So I think there are great challenges out there. We have
great things in place. We need to get right down into the
person that just gets appointed to a planning office, so they
know. We need to get right down to someone who is just newly
elected mayor or on a town council or a county council or a
county commissioner or county administrator or county
executive. They have land use responsibilities.
What I see in my district, not a small housing development
of 60 houses being proposed, but 4,000 houses being proposed in
small towns, 3,000 houses being proposed in small towns. And
having no connection with that and the ecology of the
Chesapeake Bay. So I guess my first question is, and I would
like to see this done all over the watershed, I don't know to
exactly go about doing it, but having been in office for a few
years, and I go to town meetings all the time, I go to county
meetings all the time and I go to planning meetings. I go to
agricultural meetings and things like this.
And I would guess, and I know it is not specifically in our
legislation, but I would guess if the Chesapeake Bay Program
coordinated with other agencies, maybe the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, certainly the Farm Bureau, and on a regular basis,
you would visit in a year's time or two year's time every
single, well, let's put it this way. You wouldn't have to go to
every little single town in the watershed. You could have
regular meetings bringing in one or two or three counties,
depending on the population of those counties, and explain the
bureaucracy of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and then explain the
ecology of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
And I would say, Ann, if you were at those meetings and you
described the problem like you have described it here, and the
rest of you described that problem, the dissemination of
information and the education that people would have would be
extraordinary. They would have information. They could use
their initiative and their ingenuity and their intellect.
Right now, the dissemination of this information is just
not where it should be. So I have a couple of other questions,
and I know I am out of time. With the indulgence of the
Chairman, I will just ask a few of those questions.
But what I would like to do is work with you, so we could
pilot this in the First District of Maryland and have meetings
at Salisbury State, Chesapeake College, Cecil Community
College, Hartford Community College, Anne Arundel Community
College; market this specifically to local government people
that are going to make land use decisions for that kind of
information.
Ann, do you want to say something?
Ms. Swanson. Yes. We have now been asking our own members
to look forward and in the next, it is only five years, but in
the next five years, what would you like to see on your
accomplishment time line. These are all House and Senate
members from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. And the only
common thread the answer is to really see a technical
assistance outreach program to local governments and really
enhance technical assistance to the agricultural community.
What I would say is if you tackled both of those, and I was
at USDA just yesterday with a conversation among high level
USDA people about that critical importance of supporting
technical assistance for agriculture. And then of course the
BMPs that go with it. But really getting the message out there,
we have nothing like that, really, for local governments. And
if you combine the two, then you can get the current progress
that would come with agriculture, almost immediate response,
and the long-term investment as we change the land to a more
urban population. It is right on the money.
Mr. Gilchrest. We don't want a more urban population, Ann.
Ms. Gross. Congressman Gilchrest, it sounds to me like you
are talking about one of the things that LGAC could be helpful
in. One of the things that came up at our meeting that, you
attended part of the meeting, but I think this happened before
you were there, was one of our members, it was a Virginia
member from down in the Fredericksburg area, said, you know,
local governments really don't have a clue.
Coming from a Fairfax perspective, that is a little hard
for me to understand, but I am beginning to understand that not
everybody is doing it the way we do in Fairfax. But there are
an awful lot of small, local governments that simply do not
have the ability, they do not have the staffing, they do not
have the funding, they sometimes do not have the commitment.
They don't understand, in many cases. And their constituents
don't, either.
So it is a selling job for those of us who are in local
government to be able to sell this idea to our constituents
also. I think that there is definitely a role for LGAC to be,
it is part of what the local government advisory committee
should be doing.
One of the things I have noticed, ten years ago, when I was
first elected, nobody was talking about the Chesapeake Bay.
Now, some people were talking about it sort of on the
periphery, those who were very involved in Bay issues. But
generally, elected officials were not talking about the
Chesapeake Bay.
We have made some changes there, at the Council of
Governments, even in the General Assembly of Virginia. A few
years ago, none of the delegates would know what you were
talking about, and now they are starting to ask the questions.
Instead of us asking them the questions, they are beginning to
ask the questions.
So we are making some strides in educating elected
officials about the Bay. We need to be able to do more of that,
and I really like your suggestion about going around to various
smaller localities and doing these sort of seminars for local
government officials. Because you are absolutely right, we need
to have that commitment, it starts at the local level.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Grumbles?
Mr. Grumbles. I just wanted to--thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
just wanted to say, Congressman, that while the Administration
has not developed an official position yet on H.R. 4126, as I
read through it, to me one of the very positive components of
it, other than reauthorizing the building upon a very
successful and proven statutory program, is the emphasis on
local government and an increased role. As everyone is pointing
out, given the challenge, the growth issues will always be a
barrier, a potential barrier to accelerating the progress.
It is very positive, very good to emphasize that in
legislation as well as outside legislation. EPA certainly
through the Chesapeake Bay Program office, will want to work
with you to follow up on your suggestions about outreach at the
grass roots level.
And you mentioned the impervious surfaces and stormwater
runoff. One of the things that we are really excited about at
the Federal level is the new partnership with the Department of
Transportation. It is called the Mid-Atlantic Green Highways
Initiative. A couple of weeks ago, we announced a $1 million
program targeted in the Anacostia, but it is about DOT and EPA
working together and then translating that effort at the local
level to have smarter practices to reduce the stormwater
runoff, to increase the areas so that instead of runoff, you
have sink-in and filter out the pollutants before they reach
the Bay.
So we are very appreciative of your theme on greater local
involvement and controlling stormwater.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ben.
I don't know if the Chairman had any questions. I was going
to--I am way over my time.
Mr. Boustany. What we will do, I have a few questions I
would like to ask, and then I will let you go with another
round.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Boustany. Your testimony was great. I learned a lot.
And I want to say that one of the common themes behind this all
is, we are certainly dealing with a very complex ecosystem.
Part of that complexity is sort of the human interaction with
growth and development and other interactions with the
ecosystem.
Specifically, for the panel, I would like the opinion of
each of you. Certainly you are aware of the recent GAO report
and recommendations that were issued there. Do you feel that
H.R. 4126 addresses the issues raised in the GAO report? I
would like each of you to maybe comment on that.
Mr. Grumbles, do you want to start?
Mr. Grumbles. I can start and make a few comments. I think
one of the messages from the GAO report, which we are certainly
taking to heart, and that we have included in our recent
report, health of the ecosystem and also the restoration
efforts of the ecosystem, is the added emphasis on data and
information to ensure accountability and results.
So I see in the legislation, in my cursory review of it,
because I need more expert review and opinion on it, but the
legislation is clearly adding some reporting mechanisms to help
steer future decisions and measure the progress and
accountability. That clearly is the theme that comes out in the
GAO reports and is reflected in the recent EPA reports on the
health of the ecosystem and the restoration efforts we are
taking.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Franks?
Mr. Franks. Yes, and I would concur with that. The
reporting requirements, I think, are essential. And I think the
bill does address that. I feel for all of us reports are
essential. We need to measure where we are, where we start and
where we wind up. I think the bill does do that.
Mr. Boustany. Ms. Swanson?
Ms. Swanson. I guess I would like to say two things. The
GAO report was very, very helpful. And essentially what it did
was amplify something we had already been struggling with,
which was, how do you tell a complex story in simple terms when
you rely both on monitoring and modeling. And one doesn't tell
the full picture.
So the GAO report helped to kick us in the pants and
basically say, you need to figure this out. And the new reports
that the EPA Bay program recently put out are a real step in
the right direction. Rebecca Hamner and others deserve a great
deal of credit for the work they did trying to do that.
But the other thing that the GAO very clearly laid out is
that your goals are not doable at your current cash flow. And
it very clearly outlines that. It very clearly says, you have
goals, but you don't have the implementation plans, which
includes cash fall, for how to get there. And so I see the GAO
report as yet another wake-up call that, okay, everybody, round
two, you have done the planning, you have gotten basic funding
in place, but now let's go the distance.
And things like what Mr. Hoagland suggested, with very
specific pots of money for local government implementation, the
small watershed grants, the targeted watershed grants, they are
phenomenal tools to get us to the next step.
Mr. Boustany. Ms. Gross?
Ms. Gross. From a local government perspective, I think
those of us who are on the outside looking in and reading that
report, I was very concerned that the report would cause EPA to
refocus everything sort of internally and sort of slow down
what we were trying to do at the local government level. I
think that has, I have been assured that that is not going to
happen. But that was an initial concern, that whoops, all this
work that we are trying to move forward now would be stuck
because they would have to be spending all their staff time
working on a response to the GAO report.
I think that the reporting requirements, if this heightens
our commitment, if the GAO report causes us to heighten our
commitment and the reporting requirements, that is fine. I
think that we really need to have projects on the ground, and I
believe that this particular bill will help us to do that.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Mr. Hoagland?
Mr. Hoagland. Mr. Chairman, the GAO report highlighted, as
you have heard, a need for increased reporting and
accountability by the program. And there is no question that
the legislation before you today addresses those reporting
elements. And in fact, the Bay Program has in the recent past
taken very responsible steps to address those concerns.
What I am not clear that the legislation contains is the
recommendation for a comprehensive, coordinated implementation
strategy. One of the things before the Bay Program right now
that has been debated that the Bay Foundation has advocated for
is a very conscious, deliberate transition from research
communication and coordination to implementation. So I would
suggest that if you are looking for having all of those
recommendations incorporated in the statute, you should
reexamine whether or not it does have that necessary mandate
for a coordinated implementation strategy.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you. And that gets sort of to the next
issue I wanted to bring up. I mentioned the complexity of the
ecosystem. But equally complex, and perhaps even more complex
is the coordination, as you mentioned, of multiple States,
local governments, various agencies. When I think of my home
State of Louisiana, it seems fairly simple in how we coordinate
our efforts with regard to our coastline in comparison to what
you all are trying to accomplish. So it is truly a monumental
effort.
Mr. Grumbles, from the Federal standpoint, do you feel that
you have adequate coordination right now amongst the Federal
agencies?
Mr. Grumbles. I think we have the mechanisms in place. We
can always, always do a better job in coordination, recognizing
the opportunities that are close to the surface or staring at
us right in the face. There is always room for improvement. But
I do feel that there is a significant amount of leadership. EPA
and its role with the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
Administrator being on the Executive Council is important. We
did just in October have a first of its kind meeting in
Washington, D.C., where Federal agency heads or their deputies
gathered among the 17 different agencies to talk specifically
about implementation, improved coordination and cooperative
conservation.
So we need to continue to work at it. I think we have the
basics for the type of integration and coordination that is
needed.
Mr. Boustany. Okay. And one last thing I would like to
mention, and that is, when you are trying to send funds down to
the local level, you apparently are certainly dealing with a
lot of competing requests. How do you prioritize? And who
should head that effort?
Ms. Gross. Mr. Chairman, let me take a crack at that from
the standpoint of something that I do as part of LGAC. That is,
I get an opportunity, I have been asked to review the Virginia
grant applications for the watershed grants. What I always look
for is projects on the ground. An awful lot of the time, the
money is going to staffing, it is going to more planning, it is
going to more reporting. And it is not going to the projects on
the ground where we are actually maybe doing some digging,
doing some planting, doing the kinds of things that we need to
do.
I think that local governments certainly get a little
frustrated. Yes, we do need funding as far as staffing and so
forth. But if we are going to have things really show up, you
get the biggest splash for the cash is planning riparian
buffers, those kinds of things. So I look at prioritizing
projects, not planning, necessary, but projects. We have had
planning up to her.
Mr. Boustany. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Mr. Franks. Yes, if you don't mind. I am going to agree
wholeheartedly. Planning is wonderful, and we have been
planning for a long time, and it is time to do it. When you
send money down, I would look for programs that have a clear
vision of where they want to go and a strategy for getting
there. And the only thing that is holding them back is the
dollars.
We have been talking here today about what steps were we
moving forward and how it is moving forward in a positive way.
The legislation that allows us to clean up our sewer treatment
plants is very, very positive legislation. The initiative in
the farm community to clean up their areas, not only clean up,
but reduce their flow of nutrients into the Bay, is absolutely
essential. We are talking here about a 75 percent to 80 percent
gain, if it is done everywhere across the board. That is
tremendous.
We also have another program in Maryland. That is, we are
looking, through an EIS, at what do we do when it actually gets
into the water. Our oyster population is decimated. And we are
taking a look at a different way of putting another oyster in
there. We don't know if it is going to be successful. But if
our EIS is successful, we will begin a large scale oyster
deployment.
If it is successful, then we have, we have tried to
minimize the stuff getting into the water. And now we are going
to remove it once it gets there. To me, putting your money into
areas that are effective is the most critical area. Planning is
good. We have to have some planning. But we really need action.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you. Ms. Swanson?
Ms. Swanson. I would like to share a recent observation
that answers the question. There is a thing called the targeted
watershed grants, and it is for very large grants, $750,000 to
$1 million. We recently went through the first round of grant
selection. I had the pleasure to be on that committee.
One of the things that this year was done that has never
been done before on any of these types of grants is we asked
for a quantification of the pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment that would be reduced based on the proposed project.
And that ended up being one of the illustrative things in the
grant that told you what you would get for your investment.
The other thing that happened is it made the people
applying think differently. Because instead of thinking about a
great process or a great plan, they thought about how am I
going to capture pounds. And for us, in our region, that is
what matters. I would suggest that kind of quantification
should be applied nationwide, in Louisiana or Texas or
wherever, so that if you are trying to get at a goal, make the
grantees quantify it. And it worked beautifully.
Mr. Boustany. Mr. Hoagland?
Mr. Hoagland. Yes, Mr. Chairman, let me add a couple
additional comments. I do fear that too often we don't make the
priority choices we have to, because in fact we want to keep
everybody happy and everybody to have a small piece of this
Chesapeake Bay Program funding. We go back to the fundamental
issue of, we now that water quality is the underlying problem
that we need to solve, so that should be the first criteria.
The second criteria should be targeting those watersheds where
it is needed.
I go back to what you said about knowing the science and
knowing the problems. We know that from an agricultural basis,
we have three hot spots: the Shenandoah Valley, it is the
Lancaster area and it is the Eastern Shore. Those are the three
hot spots where excess fertilizer, excess manure, must be
managed, where we need reductions. There is no question that we
should be investing more dollars there than some other places.
Those are tough choices. But we have that information to make
those decisions.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest, another round of questions?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A number of you have talked about priorities. And to use
Ann's phrase, the political guts to target, and Secretary Ron
Franks talked about the Corsica River as a priority area and
selecting priority areas where the dollars can be spent for
much more substantive, comprehensive restoration projects
could. I guess anybody on the panel, but Mr. Hoagland, you
talked about that, and Ms. Swanson and Ron, you have talked
about it.
Is this a direction that the Chesapeake Bay Program should
take, looking at areas that are vulnerable, whether it is the
Shenandoah Valley or Eastern Shore agriculture? And just say
for the next five years, this is where most of the money is
going to go for restoration? Could each of you comment on that?
Mr. Hoagland. Congressman, I often joke, I have had this
new position with the Foundation now for slightly over a year.
But I have been with the Foundation for 16 years. And when I
got this job, the Foundation had set a goal that by 2010 we are
going to achieve that 110 million pound reduction goal. And my
dream is that on December 31st, 2010, I am either smiling or I
am frowning as to whether or not I have achieved that goal.
We cannot get to that goal. We cannot get to that goal
unless we make those decisions that you are raising right now
and invest in those key areas where we are going to make the
biggest difference in bringing that nitrogen pollution loading
down. That is sewage treatment plants, that is agriculture,
when you get into agriculture that is in those targeted areas.
There is just no question. We won't get there. We won't restore
the Bay unless we make those hard choices.
So I would say yes, we have to be more deliberative, more
specific and make harder choices in where we are going to use
the money that we do get in order to get the biggest bang for
the buck.
Ms. Gross. But Congressman, I think that we need to also be
aware of the policy changes that are necessary from the
standpoint of local governments. If these areas are hot spots,
there may be policy changes that can be put into place that
don't cost a lot of money. If you can put the policy changes in
and uphold those policies, as we are doing, for instance, in
Fairfax County right now, where we now have the Chesapeake Bay,
our new Chesapeake Bay ordinance is not allowing people to
build within 100 feet of a stream, even if it is in their back
yard.
And we are taking some heat for that. Because it means you
can't do certain things or it is going to cost--
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there court challenges to that?
Ms. Gross. No, there have been no court challenges to this
particular one. The State told us we needed to do this, and so
we are doing it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good.
Ms. Gross. And it is pinching a lot of people, because they
are not able to build alongside the lake that they wanted to,
or they are not able to do the kinds of things that they wanted
to do. They are having to mitigate for all of that.
So I guess I would say that while targeting hot spots is a
good idea, be careful about then taking the funding away from
other places that may need it. Look at the policy changes at
the local level that may be required that might also get us to
where we need to be. It is not always throwing money at a
solution, sometimes it is throwing ideas and policy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I just wanted to comment briefly
that there one of the reasons that the Administration included
in EPA's budget, the 2007 budget request, the $6 million for
the Corsica River pilot project is because rather than
practicing random acts of kindness, there needs to be a
practice of coordinated acts of conservation. If you look at
certain areas, the goal is to work in a bipartisan,
collaborative manner to truly remove from the list of impaired
waters segments through an integrated, innovative approach.
That is one good example of a way to make progress. No one
argues with success, and it can be a good model throughout the
watershed and throughout the Country.
But the important point is that while we target resources
towards particular areas or opportunities, we all have to keep
in mind what are the key challenges, what are the areas across
the watershed that really need the most action. And that is
where your points about the nutrients, the submerged aquatic
vegetation, the runoff, either agricultural or stormwater in
urban areas, we need to keep that in mind as we look to provide
limited amounts of funding and resources to those overarching
priorities and look for targets of opportunity where we can
really make a difference and set a good model for others
throughout the watershed.
Ms. Swanson. One caution. And I don't mean to walk you into
complexity. But I would say, I want to know what issue you are
talking about. And the reason for that is, if you are talking
about agriculture, and particularly manure, and you have to
understand that for point sources in the Bay watershed, about
22 percent of the nitrogen comes from point sources. Manure
contributes 20 percent or 19 percent.
And so manure alone is an enormous contributor. That is
where those three hot spots are. And there is enormous
opportunity there as a result, because it is very concentrated.
Now, if it was targeting for point sources, I might not
say, oh, yes, do the Corsica, and I mean no disrespect, but
when I start targeting, I want big flows, blue plains. And I
want it to go the lowest it can possibly go. So there, I would
target all of your sewage plants larger than 500,000 gallons.
So I would target differently when it comes to point sources
than non-point.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Franks?
Mr. Franks. In targeting, you have to be both programmatic
as well as geographic. You don't have a choice in that. You
need both aspects of it. I want to talk just for a quick minute
about the Corsica and about the watershed, just really very
quickly. We have a lot of things that we believe will be
effective in reducing pollutants to the Bay. What we tried to
do in the Corsica was bring all those things together and do
all of the things in all of the places to see whether or not we
really know.
And if we do, after we have done this, and after it has
been measured, because we are not doing anything without
measurement, we will be able to say with honesty, yes, we do
know what needs to be done and we have done it. If we find in
doing this river system that some things work and some things
don't, then we have that real experience which we can come back
and say, we don't need to do these things, but we need to do
more of this other.
Now, we picked the Corsica, and I will be perfectly frank
here, and we are about to look at another watershed. We picked
the Corsica because of our limitation of money. We did not have
enormous funds. It is going to cost about $19.4 million to
restore the Corsica, we believe, to a level which we can be
able to apply and have it removed from the EPA's impaired
waters list. That was the money we could cobble together. We
thought we could cobble together, and with your help, we have
been able to do that.
That is one watershed. We are looking at all those BMPs we
need to do in that watershed. Now we are looking at a second
watershed. This watershed will probably be a more urban
watershed, a watershed that has different needs to remove it
from the list in order to make sure that our BMPs work in a
more urban environment.
This is an experiment. It is one we think is well founded.
We think it will be successful. But it is a learning effort on
our part. And we feel very, very positive about it, and we feel
very, very positive about the next one.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who is involved in that Corsica watershed
restoration project, Ron?
Mr. Franks. When you say who is involved?
Mr. Gilchrest. Other than the Department of Natural
Resources?
Mr. Franks. We tried to make it across the board. Most
everybody is involved, from all the different State agencies to
the town of Centerville to the county of Queen Anne's, all the
non-profits. We have tried to make it across the board.
If everybody is not involved, if everybody doesn't know
what is going on, if they don't have ownership, it doesn't
work. We need to bring everybody together. We have differences,
we discuss them, we work them out and then we move forward.
When this is over with, we hope we have something that
everybody will have bought into because they have been part of
the process.
Mr. Gilchrest. Great. Mr. Chairman, I have one more
question, if I might. This question, your comment about the
Corsica and the integration of various agencies is a question I
have for Mr. Grumbles. There is, the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, do you see them playing a
role, or are they playing a role in the Chesapeake Bay Program
as far as, I would say, is there an entity within the Federal
Government or Chesapeake Bay Program that coordinates
activities between NRCS, EPA, Corps of Engineers, NOAA,
Department of Transportation, where they have, and I see
Rebecca nodding back there, where they see the watershed in
various ways as far as their contribution to its restoration or
their contribution to its degradation and how they can
coordinate the dollars, the funding, the program, the plans for
reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus and things like that?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, I certainly, and I know the agency and
Rebecca and the Chesapeake Bay Program office, we recognize the
good work, the important work that the Institute for Conflict
Resolution has done in the past and continues to do. I am not
sure that that organization or that particular entity is
absolutely necessary.
I feel that we should always keep our eyes open and our
minds open to collaborators and facilitators on multi-regional
complexities with conflict resolution. I think we do have a
good basic structure, and you certainly have the passion and
the professionalism of the partners in the Chesapeake Bay to
help make conflict resolution a way of the future. Congressman,
I hesitate to say that that particular organization is the best
approach.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, if you put that organization aside, is
there a structure within the Bay program so that these various
organizations from Agriculture to the Corps of Engineers to
Transportation to all the other Federal agencies that have some
impact or input into the Bay's watershed, is there a
collaborative effort, a structured collaborative effort for
them to work toward the same goal?
Mr. Grumbles. Former Administrator Mike Leavitt used to
say, when looking at regional collaborations and the
challenges, that oftentimes the problem is not technology but
sociology. That getting everybody together in a way to sort
through the different perspectives and pursue common ground or
if not common ground, middle ground. I feel just as an EPA
official that we have the partnership, the Chesapeake Bay
Program, the historic agreement, the Chesapeake Executive
Council. We have the overall structure to do that.
To me, one of the best examples of the framework actually
working was the end of 2004, when EPA and our partners were
able to agree to a multi-State watershed based permitting
strategy that stretches all the way up to New York and includes
other States in the watershed. That wasn't done through a
formal conflict resolution process. It was done using the
existing framework we have and spending a lot of time person to
person working out differences and different perspectives,
geographic as well as policy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I want to compliment all of you.
We all are engaged in a lot of different activities. These are,
I guess when you have, I don't want to say 16 million
overweight people out there, but it might be a million, your
efforts are well appreciated. I want to thank you for taking
this time out of your life. For some of you it is decades, for
some of you it is a little bit shorter, to accomplish these
worthy goals.
But I would also like to continue to collaborate with you
on this process, as we bring the legislation through to fine
tune it with your recommendations even further. I guess if I
could leave any message to each of you, as I see it from my
perspective, traveling around Maryland, the watershed, is if we
can develop a system to disseminate this information to a
larger group of people in an organized fashion. Talk about the
bang for the buck that we get from that. I think that would be
a real positive thing.
Thank you all very, very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
I would like to recognize Ms. Norton, who joined us a few
moments ago, and see if you have any questions.
Ms. Norton. This is a matter of such great importance
across five or six States, and I am very pleased to welcome all
of you here. I am very pleased at the regional effort and
understanding of the importance of the Bay and of the various
programs. I must say that when I read and of course, the Bay is
covered very substantially in our newspapers, about problems
with rockfish and other problems. One wonders about our
progress. Of course, this is nature, things will happen from
time to time.
The report card notion that Mr. Gilchrest has led, the way
in which local governments have taken responsibility is
admirable. I cannot say that I have a sense of the overall
health of the Bay, as difficult as that is. In the Anacostia,
this Committee, and this is the real stepchild here, and of
course all this water flows you know where ultimately. But this
Committee, and I think Congress has approved a part of a plan
for the Anacostia that says that the Corps of Engineers is to
get the jurisdictions involved, there are three jurisdictions
involved, to develop a 10 year plan for the Anacostia. This is
one river.
But this is a part of a bill that I sponsored. What was
important to me was that everybody was working on the Anacostia
while it was still a very polluted river. We know what needs to
be done. It has a huge problem from stormwater overflow. We
know it has to be done.
But the whole notion of these periodic meetings where
everyone pledges and signs on to support cleanup didn't seem to
me to tell me anything in the long run. I am sure they did it,
and I am sure that of the commitment. What my bill did was to
put responsibility some place. Now, again, we are talking about
the Bay, which is a much more complicated matter.
But what it did was, we said, look, Corps of Engineers, you
get these jurisdictions together, you make them agree, you have
them agree on a plan. So in the end, the kind of collaboration
that it takes to clean up any body of water has got to occur,
because everybody has to agree to the plan. And there is
somebody in charge of getting the plan together.
Now, the Corps of Engineers is not going to do the plan.
The Corps of Engineers can't make individual jurisdictions do
anything. But at least we have placed responsibility somewhere,
other than in the jurisdictions involved to integrate and to
come forward with a coherent plan.
I would simply like to ask if anything of the kind exists
with respect to the Chesapeake Bay or whether it would be
useful at all.
Mr. Grumbles. Congresswoman, the first thing I wanted to do
in response to your question was to say EPA appreciates and
acknowledges your leadership on the Anacostia River. I remember
us working with Ken and other members of the Staff on the
Subcommittee many years ago, where you had a field hearing to
specifically draw national attention to the urban stormwater
challenge in the Anacostia. EPA wants to be a full partner in
that effort. We are taking important steps. Because it is a
very polluted but important asset in this whole region. It is
also connected to the Chesapeake Bay.
We do have a tributary strategy. For the Chesapeake Bay,
your question, there is a framework. There are action plans.
And they are translated into tributary strategies. There are 36
tributary strategies, and they essentially encompass watershed
plans for what brings the lifeblood into the Chesapeake Bay.
Ms. Norton. Do you integrate all those together so that you
know, does the EPA do that?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, the Chesapeake Bay program office,
which EPA does integrate, does look at them. Of course, as you
know, the key to the success and sustainability of each of
those 36 tributary strategies is based on the local and State
level and citizen level partnership in putting those together.
But yes, we do have an important role in that overall effort.
All the Bay partners have agreed years ago that the tributary
strategies are part of the salvation, the way to really make on
the ground, in the watershed progress toward the Chesapeake
Bay.
Mr. Hoagland. Congresswoman, I would answer the question a
little differently. I would say no, there is no one with
ultimate responsibility under this cooperative partnership. And
in fact, I think there is a need, and the Foundation has argued
for a greater involvement by the Federal Government.
We do have a resource that is multi-jurisdictional. It is
one of national significance. There is a key role that needs to
be played at a greater leadership level from the Federal
Government, not unlike the one that you described that you had
to address with the Anacostia.
Ms. Norton. Does anyone else have a view on that matter?
Mr. Franks. When you look at a watershed, and you ask, have
you considered all the different parts to it, that is what we
did with the Corsica. The Anacostia is more of an urban
watershed, and a much larger watershed. We took a small
watershed because that is what we thought we may be able to
arrive to acquire the funding to do all of the things in all of
the places all of the time to make it a working project.
So we have looked at a watershed-wide plan. The Anacostia
is a much more complex and much, much, much more costly
undertaking.
Ms. Swanson. I would like to respond. When I think about
the Chesapeake Bay Program, the leadership in the Chesapeake
Bay Program I would describe as a Rubik's cube, where there are
certain leaders who know they are a part of the cube. But
essentially as issues change, geographic priorities change,
dollars available or even political will, when the right
opportunities align, different leaders emerge, the same way
different pieces on the cube lead you to putting it together.
So I would say that the strength of the Bay Program is
multiple leaders. But I would also say that for some of the
other Federal agencies, all the Federal agencies in the Bay
watershed, the more they get clear direction from you as to the
priorities in the Bay watershed and their activities, the more
they will be a very prominent piece on that Rubik's cube.
And make no mistake, the Federal agencies' involvement is
vital and pivotal and keeps all of us as States and general
assemblies together. But I would say, you need to amplify that
leadership among many of the Federal agencies.
Ms. Gross. From a local, local government perspective, we
wonder sometimes about the coordination. But when you look at
an org chart, you can sort of see where some of that goes.
I would also say, though, that it is important that local
governments be fully participatory in the effort. You
mentioned, Congresswoman, the Anacostia River. In my prepared
remarks, I do mention the restoration of the Anacostia as an
example for maybe prioritizing grants within watersheds or
metropolitan areas. Because that is a very important one for
those of us in this particular region.
However, sometimes the participation of even our larger
governments within the metropolitan region is not what it
should be. I am very pleased to see especially at the District
of Columbia Government level, that there is a new environmental
department, a department of the environment being put together,
which is going to help coordinate their efforts.
Because quite frankly, it has been a little frustrating
sometimes that the level of participation in the region, and I
am not speaking for the complete watershed right now, we can
get into that another time. But for just the metropolitan
region, it has been spotty in some regards. So trying to be
cohesive at the local level, and then I don't know whether it
should flow downhill from the Feds or try to go up here.
But there needs to be coordination at all the levels. If we
can coordinate regionally or locally among ourselves while the
Federal and State governments try and figure out what to do, we
shouldn't just not do that until somebody else above us gets
their act together.
Ms. Norton. It is interesting to hear your responses. I
think the Bay is one of the seven wonders of the United States.
There is just nothing else like it. And of course, its
complexity is awesome as well, and in many jurisdictions.
This is a Federal republic. And when you have independent
local jurisdictions involved, you have a major issue about
how--every jurisdiction is supposed to deal with their own
thing. And that is the way the Federal republic is organized.
We would not want it any differently. I am not one for easy
analogies. But I do want to suggest that in this region, we
have had great difficulty despite enormous regional cooperation
on things that the region cannot do without. I give Metro as
perhaps the preeminent example. You take that away and the
whole region falls apart.
Of course right now, in one of my other committees, I am
co-sponsor of a bill where we are trying to get each part of
the region to sign on to a dedicated annual payment for Metro,
because here is this wonderful thing that the Federal
Government disproportionately contributes to, and it is, and
people love it now. They are loving it to death, they are
getting on. And we have hung out this kind of, let's call it an
incentive. We have not yet gotten everybody to take to it. But
we sit together a lot. We sit together a lot.
There is, I spoke about the Anacostia River analogy,
because you can, I think, see that the word coordinator is all
we are talking about. The Federal Government is empowered here.
It is not a new structure. It is not some new office in the
Corps. But it is responsibility, so that Congress can have a
hearing for our bill and say to the Corps, all right, what have
you done.
To give you another analogy, again, analogies are the way
in which lawyers operate. But their opponents operate in
tearing apart their analogies. So I offer them simply for what
they are worth.
But when the Homeland Security bill came through here, I
sat on one of my committees and recognized how central this
region was with the entire Federal presence located here. I
sponsored an amendment that ultimately the whole region
sponsored and we got through for a coordinator for this region.
Now, that could have been somebody who had some other role in
the Department of Homeland Security. But the fact is that
Congress said we would pay for a coordinator. So that person
sits with the counties that are involved, Fairfax, Montgomery,
out to some distance, D.C., and coordinates security, including
grants.
Now, he doesn't say you get one, you get one. But somehow
it is interesting how they have developed a way of prioritizing
security concerns within this region. I have to tell you, I
would be the first to hear it, I will be through in a minute,
and thank you, Mr. Chairman, particularly since I am on the
Homeland Security Committee, there have not developed issues.
If anything, we are on the coordinator, because they have not
come up with the final plan we want.
So my only point is, I am not sure anyone is going to be
able to tell us much about the Bay, the Bay that we love so
much until somehow somebody who looks at the whole Bay is able
to report. We do have a Federal Government and it is of course
the overarching Government, and it does seem to me that the
Federal Government has a role to play here. And we have to
think through what that role should be.
But I am convinced just by talking with you and seeing that
everybody is trying their darndest and still we have major
questions out there. I do want to say this, I think that
without that kind of coordination, when you hear about
rockfish, we run to the rockfish issue. When you hear about
whatever is the issue that makes the newspaper, that may become
your priority. I wonder if that is the way to really take care
of an extraordinary resource like the Chesapeake Bay.
I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time has
expired.
I do apologize for arriving so late for this hearing. I was
chairing my own subcommittee, also on the topic of water, or
lack thereof, about developing a drought information system for
this Nation, a rather dry subject, I must say. But we had a
very good hearing and reported a bill out creating a national
system of identifying and sharing data on the drought system.
So I am inundated with water issues today.
I don't want to take your time, and I don't have questions,
because I missed most of the testimony. But I do appreciate
your being here.
What I do want to observe is that we have done two major
things in the Congress in the past 15, 20 years. First is the
Chesapeake Bay project. Second, the Everglades. We also had a
small one on the Salton Sea.
But now the next big one is looming, and it is far bigger
than these, and that is one I am involved in. I agree with
everything Ms. Norton said about the problems of the Chesapeake
Bay, the coordination, the need for it, how large the problem
is. You multiply that probably 30-fold, and you get to the
Great Lakes, which is the issue I am concerned about.
I am very pleased not only that we got my Legacy Act passed
a few years ago, but that Mr. Grumbles and the EPA have been
very supportive in recommending funding. The President has been
even more supportive in granting the funding, and we have made
substantial progress. But I have introduced a major bill which
I hope we can get passed soon, which will do for the Great
Lakes the same thing that is going on for Chesapeake Bay and
the Everglades. And it is absolutely essential to do that, and
I know, since water and water creatures are dear to all your
hearts, that you will support that effort as well.
With that, I want to thank you for your presence here. Your
testimony has been very valuable to this Committee as we
continue to consider the reauthorization. And I certainly
appreciate your taking the time to come here and benefiting us
with your knowledge. Of course, Mr. Grumbles has shared his
knowledge with us for years. We still haven't begun to in any
way plumb the depths of his intellect and his knowledge on this
topic.
But we appreciate all of you coming here and sharing your
information with us. It is the only way the Congress can
operate, is through your help. So thank you for being here.
With that, I am pleased to bring the hearing to a
conclusion. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8284.055