U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–290 PDF 2010

PROTECTING AND RESTORING 

AMERICA’S GREAT WATERS, PART II: 

THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND SAN 

FRANCISCO BAY 

(111–107) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

April 28, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice Chair 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Blumenauer, Honorable Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon ............................................................................................................... 4 

Dingfelder, Jackie, Senator, Oregon State Senate ................................................ 15 

Gioia, John, Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors .......................... 15 

Hastings, Honorable Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington ........................................................................................................... 4 

Kelly, Judy, Executive Director, San Francisco Estuary Partnership ................ 15 

Lumley, Paul, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission ........................................................................................................................ 15

Marriott, Debrah, Executive Director, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership .................................................................................................................. 15 

Speier, Honorable Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California .............................................................................................................. 4 

Stoner, Nancy, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 9 

Wunderman, Jim, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bay Area Council .... 15 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 35 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, of Washington .................................................... 36 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona ............................................................................ 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl ........................................................................................... 38 

Dingfelder, Jackie .................................................................................................... 44 

Gioia, John ............................................................................................................... 46 

Hastings, Hon. Doc .................................................................................................. 52 

Kelly, Judy ............................................................................................................... 54 

Lumley, Paul ............................................................................................................ 60 

Marriott, Debrah ...................................................................................................... 66 

Speier, Hon. Jackie .................................................................................................. 78 

Stoner, Nancy ........................................................................................................... 80 

Wunderman, Jim ..................................................................................................... 90 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon, supplement to testimony ....................................................................... 41 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Bay Area Council, Jim Wunderman, President and Cheif Executive Officer, 

letter to Representative Speier ........................................................................... 98 

City of Portland Oregon, Sam Adams, Mayor, Amanda Fritz, Commissioner, 

Nick Fish, Commissioner, Dan Saltzman, Commissioner, Randy Leonard, 

Commissioner, letter to Representative Blumenauer ....................................... 99 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Harry Siniskin, Chairman, written testimony ....................................................................................... 101 

County of Sonoma Board of Supervisers and the Sanoma Water Agency, 

Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane, Directors, written testimony ........................ 107 

Restore America’s Estuaries, Jeff Benoit, President and Cheif Executive Officer, leter to Representative Speier ..................................................................... 111 

Page

VI 

San Fransisco Estuary Partnership, Strategic Plan for 2010-2012 ..................... 113 

Save the Bay, David Lewis, Executive Director, letter to Representative 

Speier .................................................................................................................... 137 

State of Oregon, Thodore R. Kulongoski, Governor, letter to Chairman Oberstar ........................................................................................................................ 138 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 56290.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 56290.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 56290.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 56290.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 56290.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 56290.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 56290.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 56290.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 56290.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 56290.010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 56290.011
(1) 

HEARING ON PROTECTING AND RESTORING 

AMERICA’S GREAT WATERS, PART II: THE 

COLUMBIA RIVER AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Grace F. 

Napolitano [acting Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, Boozman and Taylor. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 

Today’s hearing is on the current state of water quality and the 

ecological health of two of America’s great water bodies, the Columbia River and the San Francisco Bay. 

This is the second hearing we have had in this Congress about 

our great waters, and I am very pleased the Subcommittee will receive oral testimony from Congressman Earl Blumenauer; from 

Congressman Doc Hastings; and from Congresswoman Jackie 

Speier; from the Environmental Protection Agency; the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership; the San Francisco Estuary 

Partnership; and the other stakeholders from the Columbia River 

and the San Francisco Bay regions. 

The Chairwoman will be with us shortly. She is detained in another Committee, so I will read part of the statement that she had 

prepared. It goes as follows: 

As I stated in my first hearing, my District in Dallas, Texas possesses neither coasts nor estuaries, but I continue to strongly believe that it is important for this Subcommittee to hold hearings on 

these issues because our Nation’s coasts and oceans provide a 

wealth of resources for the entire Country. 

Amongst these areas, nowhere is more valuable than our estuaries. Estuaries are the bodies of water that receive both fresh 

water from the rivers and salt water from the sea. This mix of 

water makes for a unique environment that is extremely productive 

in terms of its ecosystem values. Estuaries are rich in plant life, 

coastal habitat, and living species. 

The ecological productivity of these regions translates directly 

into economic productivity. It seems to me that a central problem 

in the protection and restoration of the estuaries is that they ultimately lie downstream from all. Everything that enters the smallVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
2 

est stream, tributary or headwater in the watershed eventually 

runs into an estuary, impacting in some way all the biological elements of that ecosystem and all of the commerce that revolves 

about it. 

I am interested in hearing how the lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership have 

addressed pollution issues in their respective regions, and what actions they propose to be addressed in the future. 

I would imagine that in order to restore and protect any large 

water system like these estuaries, there needs to be a coordinated 

effort between the Federal, the State and the local governments, as 

well as all stakeholders in that region. The Federal Government 

alone cannot restore water quality and protect our Nation’s great 

waters. Rather, proper watershed management and estuarine protection must be a process that involves all levels of government and 

all manner of stakeholders. 

The Federal Government does indeed have a role to play. However, only through the active involvement of all levels of government will we be able to restore and protect our coast and estuaries. 

I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ thoughts on the initiatives used to date to address pollution in the Columbia River and 

the San Francisco Bay, as well as ideas on future action and tools 

we can apply towards finally cleaning up these great bodies of 

water. 

That is her statement. 

I am Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power and I could 

not agree more. We have delved in a lot of these issues of pollution 

of our canals, our waters, and our streams, and we will need to 

work together. I am proposing that we do some joint hearings to 

be able to ensure further protection and ensure further assistance, 

not only from the Federal Government, but in partnership with all 

the stakeholders. 

So I am very, very happy to be here today and be Acting Chair. 

We welcome all the witnesses and I yield to Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, for any comments he may have. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on two 

water bodies that are part of the National Estuary Program, the 

Columbia River and the San Francisco Bay. Estuaries are unique 

and highly productive waters that are important to the ecological 

and economic base of our Nation. 

Fisheries, wildlife, recreation and tourism are heavily dependent 

on healthy estuary systems. Yet, despite their value, most estuaries 

in the United States are experiencing stress from physical alteration and pollution, often resulting from development and rapid 

population growth in our coastal areas. 

The National Estuary Program identifies nationally significant 

estuaries that are threatened by pollution, land development and 

overuse, and provides grants to support development of management plans to protect and restore them. The program is designed 

to resolve issues at a watershed level, integrate science into the decision-making process, foster collaborative problem-solving, and involve the public. 

3 

Unlike many other EPA and State programs that rely on conventional top down regulatory measures to achieve environmental 

goals, the National Estuary Program uses a framework that focuses on stakeholder involvement and interaction in tailor solutions for problems that are specific to that region in order to 

achieve estuarine protection and restoration goals. 

Currently, the Columbia River and San Francisco Bay are two of 

the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program, and both are 

implementing restoration plans developed at the local level through 

a collaborative process. We need to be sure that the individual estuary programs continue to effectively implement their management plans for protecting and restoring estuaries. We need to be 

careful not to add new layers of programmatic bureaucracy on the 

programs that could divert valuable resources away from implementing their plans. 

These are ecological treasures we are discussing today. It is clear 

from the testimony from the witnesses that progress has been 

made in the Columbia River and San Francisco Bay. However, at 

this unique time in our Nation’s history, we should not just be 

careful in what we fund, but also in what we authorize. 

Each of these two estuaries has a corresponding bill that has 

been referred to this Committee. Each bill amends the National Estuary Program in the Clean Water Act and creates a separate program for funding the specific estuary. As this is not a legislative 

hearing, we are only going to hear from a few witnesses today. 

However, I would suggest that should we decide to move forward 

on the bills, and any bills that come before the Committee, that we 

hold a legislative hearing to more closely examine the issues in our 

jurisdiction. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and learning more about the progress that is being made in the two estuaries. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Our first panel this morning includes three of our colleagues 

from the House of Representatives. Our first witness is Congressman Doc Hastings. Welcome, sir, I am glad to be working with you. 

Next, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who is a former Member 

of this Committee, who will also testify. I am happy to welcome 

him back to this room. 

Our next witness is also a Member of Congress, Congresswoman 

Speier, a new Member of Congress, but who has gained a very solid 

reputation for defending and protecting San Francisco Bay. And 

welcome. 

As is tradition of this Committee, there will be no questions of 

the Members after their testimony. And with that, Congressman 

Hastings, please proceed. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Chair, I wonder if I could just give deference to the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Blumenauer. I am 

more than happy to go first, and I appreciate that, but he is the 

sponsor of the legislation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You yield to him, sir? It is your prerogative. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I will yield my time as long as he will yield 

me his time. 

4 

[Laughter.] 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON; 

THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THE HONORABLE JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Doc. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member, I deeply appreciate your allowing us to be here today, and I want to strongly echo my support 

for the concepts that both of you had in your opening statements. 

I think you got it right. 

I want to particularly reference the Columbia River, which is important to the economy and ecology not just of my State, but really 

to the entire Nation. It is the largest river in the Pacific Northwest, 

the fourth largest river in the Country by volume. It has a drainage area that extends to seven States and Canada, and includes all 

or part of five national parks. 

The Columbia was traditionally the largest salmon-producing 

river system in the world, and the salmon are still an integral part 

of the culture and livelihood of many people in the region, some of 

whom you will hear from today. 

The Columbia River Basin also includes more than 6 million 

acres of irrigated agriculture land, and its hydroelectric dams 

produce more power than any other in a North American river. 

There are approximately 8 million people who live in the Basin and 

depend upon its resources. 

The EPA recognized the importance of the river to the Nation 

when it named the Lower Columbia River estuary ‘‘an estuary of 

national significance’’ in 1995, and the Basin, ‘‘a large aquatic ecosystem’’ in 2006. But it has never really been funded persuant to 

these designations, which is the reason for the parallel legislation 

that we have introduced. 

For too long, sadly, we have treated the river like a machine. As 

a result, much of it is degraded. In the last 100 years, wildlife habitat in the Lower Columbia River has decreased by as much as 75 

percent. Many of the once plentiful salmon runs are now listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

In addition to the loss of habitat, the Columbia suffers from toxic 

contamination, including significant levels of dioxin, PCBs, heavy 

metals and other toxic chemicals, the result of human activities 

over the last 150 years. And I think my friend, Mr. Hastings, even 

makes some comment about radioactive activity in the Basin. He 

has been a leader in trying to lead the Federal Government to deal 

with that problem. 

The problems persist today as a result of continued industrial 

waste, stormwater runoff, sewer overflows and discharge water 

contaminated with new chemicals, including flame retardants, 

pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. These contaminants 

impair the growth, health and reproduction of salmon, eagles and 

other fish and wildlife. They present a threat not only to the ecosystem of the Basin, but to the humans who depend upon it. 

5 

The EPA has detected the presence of 92 priority pollutants in 

fish that are consumed by humans. And a fish consumption survey 

I believe you will hear about in more detail showed that Native 

American tribal members eat six to 11 times more fish than the 

EPA’s estimated national average. This means that toxic contamination of the river is putting tribal members at risk. 

Unfortunately, the existing Federal investments in this area are 

not on a scale necessary to implement sustained monitoring or 

make significant progress towards reducing toxins. Despite being a 

major priority of the EPA’s work in the Basin, toxics reduction receives very little funding. 

That is why I, along with Committee Member Brian Baird and 

other Members of the Oregon and Washington delegations have introduced this Columbia River Restoration Act to provide EPA and 

the stakeholders in the region with funding to identify, understand 

and reduce contaminant sources, expand toxics reduction activities, 

and coordinate toxics efforts with habitat restoration. Senator 

Merkley has introduced companion legislation in the Senate. 

This Act establishes a program team within the Oregon Operations Office of the regional EPA. The team will assist, support and 

coordinate implementation of toxic reduction and habitat restoration efforts on the river. The bill would provide resources to successful structures that are already in place, such as the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership without duplicating efforts. 

EPA’s most recent strategic plan, which designated the Columbia 

River Basin as a large aquatic ecosystem included a goal to ‘‘protect, sustain or restore the health of people, communities and ecosystems, using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.’’ This legislation captures that goal. 

The bill will ensure that the billions, billions with a B, we are 

currently spending to protect and restore endangered salmon runs 

on the river are being used efficiently. And we are not just saving 

salmon to have them swim in a toxic river. 

Efforts to clean up the Columbia Basin are complicated by a 

Superfund site in one of its tributaries, important industries along 

the river, navigation traffic, an economically important fishery in 

ESA-listed species. But the EPA set up the Large Aquatic Ecosystem Program to make progress on exactly these types of complex water management challenges. 

The bill will help the Federal Government be a better partner to 

local communities by supporting non-regulatory community-based 

programs that will achieve results, focusing on on the ground activities driven by local communities, with coordination and technical support and base funding coming from the Federal Government. 

By embracing this legislation, this Committee has an opportunity 

to contribute to the restoration of a nationally significant river. It 

is not just about conserving the environment. It is a public health 

issue, an economic issue, an environmental justice issue. The bill 

will also create jobs. Restoration projects will employ technicians, 

maintenance specialists, construction engineers, laborers, biologists 

and contractors. This is important to a State like ours with an unemployment rate that is in the double digits. 

6 

I hope the Committee will work with us to move this legislation 

through the process quickly so we can begin this important work 

as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman. 

And now we will hear from Doc Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate this. 

And Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for allowing me to be 

here to put my thoughts in order. 

In 1995, the Lower Columbia Estuary System was put in place 

as part of one of the 28 estuaries worldwide. And I applaud the 

work that they are doing. It is a public-private partnership between Washington and Oregon, with 28 cities and other entities involved. 

Since 1999, this plan that was implemented specifically defining 

estuaries as ‘‘the area where the fresh water of the river meets the 

salt water of the ocean.’’ And I point that out because this occurs 

about 146 miles from the Columbia River. Nevertheless, the partners management plan covers an area up to Bonneville Dam. That 

is 146 miles from the river. I totally agree with the work that they 

are doing in that area because I think it is connected. 

And while I appreciate the good intentions that are part of this 

bill, I must say that I have great concerns about what the scope 

of the bill does because the bill proposes to greatly expand the 

scope and management of the Columbia River beyond the estuary 

that I just talked about. 

For example, it will impact 500 miles of the Columbia River and 

its tributaries in my District alone. It also impacts above Bonneville Dam, 745 miles to the Canadian border. That is far removed 

from the estuary. In that area, there are 11 major Federal and nonFederal dams. There is a national monument. There is the Hanford 

Project that Mr. Blumenauer alluded to, and there are 600,000 

acres of irrigated farmland that is irrigated by the Columbia River. 

So this has a huge impact in my District, but also goes beyond 

that to the Snake River in Washington and Idaho. There is a $10 

billion economic impact from just commerce coming down that part 

of the river, and the tributaries of the Columbia and the Snake 

that goes to Eastern Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, parts of Nevada and Utah. In other words, this goes far beyond the estuary as defined by the group. 

Now, I have to say, this expansion should not be minimized or 

understated. So as we move through on this bill and talk about 

this, I would like to say something that I am very concerned about. 

And that is that I was not contacted by the sponsors of this bill 

until the day before this bill was introduced. 

Now, I regret that because we in the Northwest have worked 

very closely on a lot of pieces of legislation that impact all of us, 

and I would have at least like to have had the courtesy to say, 

okay, this is what is being contemplated. And that simply was not 

the case. 

Now, let me be clear. I would support legislation that focuses on 

the Columbia River estuary. I want to make that absolutely clear. 

I have no problem with that. But when we greatly expand this, we 

ought to see exactly what the consequences of this bill are. For exVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
7 

ample, this bill is silent on litigation that is being involved in the 

whole Columbia River. And I might add, the Columbia River is 

probably the most litigated river in the United States. 

This bill also makes reference, giving EPA the authority to I 

guess have authority over issues that are given to other Federal 

agencies, like NOAA, like the Corps of Engineers, like Bonneville 

Power, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, like the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and like the Department of Energy. 

In other words, the bill as it is written could destroy, from my 

point of view, the collaboration that is going on among these agencies. And I think that is something that needs to be addressed very 

specifically. 

Furthermore, and let me just be very specific, section 123(b) 

would authorize the EPA Administrator to establish, ‘‘a Columbia 

River program team’’ led by a team leader ‘‘designated to coordinate all the functions or several functions, including the Endangered Species Act.’’ 

Now, I am the Ranking Member on the Committee on Natural 

Resources. We have authority on that, and I think that our Committee ought to have the ability to review what potential that 

would have. 

So Madam Chair, I just want to make this point. I support the 

Estuary Program. This bill as written greatly, greatly as it relates 

to the Columbia River, expands that scope, and not only to the Columbia River, but to all the tributaries, as I pointed out. 

And one last point that I think needs to be taken into consideration, because you are hearing two bills today. This bill alone authorizes $40 million, which is more than is authorized for all of the 

Estuary Programs in this Country combined. 

So as this legislation moves forward, if it moves forward, I would 

certainly hope that there is coordination and correspondence and 

talk among those Members that are impacted by this bill. But in 

short, I support the Estuary Program. I do not support the tremendous expansion that this would have on the Columbia River that 

is not defined as the estuary. 

Thank you allowing me to have the opportunity to be here. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman Hastings. 

We have a vote. We have 10 minutes, so we would like to move 

on to Ms. Speier and then we will recess until we take the next 

vote. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Just for 15 seconds. Now I see why my colleague wanted me to go first. I will provide information on this, but 

I want to give the Congressman a copy of the information where 

he was in fact invited. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Fine. Let’s go with Ms. Speier. Thank you. 

Ms. Speier? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Could I ask unanimous consent my full statement 

appear in the record? I don’t think I asked. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. SPEIER. Acting Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

afternoon. Thank you also for your opening comments that recogVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
8 

nize the importance of our 28 national estuaries and the importance they have to enhancing and protecting them in the future. 

San Francisco Bay is an economic engine for the entire world. It 

is a center of world trade and a gateway for goods from around the 

Pacific Rim. The Bay Area is also a beacon for the kind of ingenuity and groundbreaking discoveries that revolutionized the way 

we live, from advancements in medicine and biotechnology, to clean 

energy and environmental sustainability. 

According to recent estimates, the Bay Area generates more than $370 billion in goods and services annually, and is home to 3.5 million jobs, which contribute greatly to our national skilled workforce. 

Underlying the tremendous economic importance of the Bay 

Area, however, is a population of over 7.5 million people, most of 

whom live within five miles of the bay itself. Our progress has 

come at significant cost to the ecosystem upon which we depend. 

Today, much of San Francisco Bay estuary is under threat from 

pollution, invasive species, and habitat losses. Over 90 percent of 

the bay’s wetlands are now gone, and the size of the bay has been 

reduced by over one-third. Infill and development have polluted the 

water and diminished the fish and wildlife in the bay, which is now 

home to over 100 threatened and endangered species. 

Over 40 percent of California drains through the bay into the Pacific Ocean, taking a large amount of toxic runoff with it, contaminating water and air quality, and consequently threatening public 

health, tourism and recreation. 

We also face the urgent need to adapt to climate change, and this 

is particularly critical. San Francisco Bay Area is ground zero for 

the sea level rise that we will see along the coastline. Mid-range 

projections for sea level rise will put San Francisco International 

Airport, shoreline communities, and other development under 

water. The projected cost of such a sea level rise to infrastructure 

and property is estimated at more than $60 billion. 

We in the Bay Area live on the edge. The decisions we make 

today will help the bay flourish, or leave it to the mercy of both 

manmade development and a rapidly changing planet. 

For all these reasons, I have introduced H.R. 5061, the San Francisco Bay Improvement Act, legislation that authorizes $100 million annually for 10 years to the EPA to fund San Francisco Bay 

restoration. 

I believe this legislation provides a responsible roadmap forward 

to preserve and protect the vital natural resource. The important 

needs of the bay have been well documented, but woefully underfunded for many years. Increased Federal funding is crucial to the 

Federal, State and local partnership charged with restoring San 

Francisco Bay, and will build on our strong track record of efficiently leveraging non-Federal resources. 

My bill also gives the EPA direct oversight of the Federal investment and ensures that any new funding is accountable to the master plan Congress set out for the Bay Area over 20 years ago. That 

plan has actually been revisited as of 2007. So the roadmap is 

there. The needs of the Bay have been well defined, and this bill 

moves us in the direction to restore the Bay. 

I thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congresswoman Speier. 

9 

We have about a little over six minutes to get to the Floor to 

vote. I will recess. We have four votes, so we should be back here 

in about a half hour to 45 minutes. It depends on how long the 

votes are. 

So with that, this meeting is recessed. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. This reconvenes the Subcommittee hearing of 

Water Resources and Environment on Protecting and Restoring 

America’s Great Waters, Part II: The Columbia River and the San 

Francisco Bay. 

We will begin with our second panel, our witness from the EPA, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Water and Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Ms. Stoner, welcome. And I have to tell you that in my area in 

Southern California, we have great working relationships with 

EPA. They have done a lot of helpful things for us. And we hope 

that we will continue to have that for the other projects that we 

have. So for all of us here in Congress, thank you very much and 

you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY STONER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. STONER. Thank you. That is wonderful to hear. 

Good afternoon. I am Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on 

two large aquatic ecosystems, the Columbia River Basin and San 

Francisco Bay, and the EPA programs that work to protect and restore them. 

First, I want to reiterate EPA’s commitment to carrying out the 

Clean Water Act. The protection and restoration of America’s waters is essential for our quality of life, economic potential and 

human health. Our water bodies are imperiled as never before from 

a growing number of threats that include excessive nutrient loadings, polluted stormwater runoff, and destructive invasive species. 

The Columbia River Basin Program is an EPA large aquatic ecosystem that covers a major portion of North America, including 

parts of seven U.S. States and British Columbia. The basin provides drainage through an area of more than 260,000 square miles 

into a river nearly 1,200 miles in length. The Columbia River Basin 

provides an important North American backdrop for urban settlement and development, agriculture, transportation, recreation, fisheries and hydropower. 

The Columbia River Basin’s unique ecosystem is home to many 

important plants and animals. Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead runs were once the largest runs in the world, but are 

now threatened and endangered in large part due to habitat and 

water issues, including toxics. 

The tribal people of the Columbia River have depended on these 

salmon for thousands of years for human, spiritual and cultural 

sustenance. Salmon restoration, together with toxics reduction in 

10 

the Columbia River Basin is a key environmental justice issue for 

EPA. 

The Columbia River Basin Program is an EPA large aquatic estuary that has successfully reduced toxics in fish, water and sediment of the Columbia River Basin and implemented a collaborative 

monitoring and research strategy to understand toxic loads, emerging contaminants and overall ecosystem health. 

The Columbia River Basin Program has identified the following 

priorities that need urgent attention: strengthened water quality 

standards to protect tribal members and others who eat a large 

amount of fish from the Columbia River; long-term monitoring for 

the Columbia River Basin with an emphasis on emerging contaminants of concern; integration of Columbia River Basin salmon recovery efforts with toxics reduction; enhanced agricultural partnerships to reduce sediment and pesticide loadings; as well as more 

assistance to farmers in more sustainable practices; and increased 

application of EPA’s Green Chemistry and Design for the Environment Program concepts within the basin to address pollution prevention. 

The San Francisco Bay delta estuary is the largest estuary on 

the West Coast of North America. Its 4 million acre watershed covers more than 40 percent of California and includes drainage basins for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco Bay. 

San Francisco Bay is the defining natural feature that makes the 

Bay Area a unique and beautiful place to live. Of national renown, 

the bay is valuable not only for its aesthetic qualities, but also for 

the critical habitat it provides for native and migrating fish and 

waterfowl, and its moderating effect on the local climate, the recreational opportunities it affords, and the tourist trade and fishery 

economies it supports. 

The San Francisco Bay is also confronted by a wide range of 

challenges that include rapid and unplanned urban development 

resulting in greater pollutant loading; legacy pollution; new emerging contaminants like pharmaceuticals; destruction of the bay’s historic wetland habitat; and an aging infrastructure that releases 

sewage and other pollutants. 

To address these challenges, the San Francisco Bay Program is 

strengthening implementation of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s comprehensive conservation and management plan by 

supporting its new strategic plan; reducing urban runoff impacts on 

water quality through more effective stormwater permitting and 

enforcement; creating incentives to utilize low impact development 

techniques; implementing a comprehensive grant program to improve water quality and restore the San Francisco Bay watershed; 

and increasing the effectiveness of regulatory programs to protect 

wetlands and streams, while continuing to support restoration of 

wetlands acreage. 

The two bills that we are discussing today are consistent with 

EPA’s commitment to protect and restore these national treasures. 

EPA is fortunate to have excellent longstanding collaborative relationships with both the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 

and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership through EPA’s National Estuary Program. 

11 

Efforts to expand needed support for these significant large 

aquatic ecosystems should be carefully reviewed to ensure that 

they effectively build on existing efforts. 

So I ask that my full written statement be made part of the 

record of this hearing, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Stoner. And I will start off. 

And I guess maybe because I have dealt with some of the issues 

of water in California, and especially with contaminated waters 

from pollutants such as DDT going into the ocean from outfalls, to 

some of the contaminants in the drinking water from the Farrow 

River and especially water coming down from the delta. So we have 

a great inherent interest in what you are doing in EPA. Both Representative Blumenauer and Representative Speier introduced legislation to create more robust programs for the Columbia River and 

for the San Francisco Bay. But why aren’t the existing programs 

under EPA and the authorities enough? And what else can we, the 

Federal Government, do to help in these large scale restoration efforts? But how do more of these programs help foster EPA’s overall 

goal for the protection and restoration of the rivers? 

We are not doing enough to educate the public. We are not doing 

enough to outreach to the chemical community to come up with 

new or better ways of producing, using, and disposing of pesticides 

and all the other things that end up in the river, even pharmaceuticals, because all of that ultimately translates into our drinking 

water. 

How can we work better? 

Ms. STONER. Thank you. Well, EPA is very proud of its National 

Estuary Partnership Program. And we do think that we are accomplishing a lot with that program and the collaborative effort that 

it represents, and the partners that we have made. 

I think, though, that there are additional needs in both of these 

watersheds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Such as? 

Ms. STONER. Additional work in terms of, as I mentioned, salmon 

restoration and toxics reduction; as you mentioned, education of the 

public; working with pollution sources on various different kinds of 

program. Erosion control, for example, has been one program that 

has been successful. 

There is plenty of additional work that could be done, and the 

two pieces of legislation we are discussing today would build on 

those existing successful efforts, and expand their scope, and provide additional funding. 

So those are all additional needs that could be met. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay, so in essence you are saying to a certain degree that there is not enough funding available to be able 

to do more in-depth research, development, addressing education. 

Ms. STONER. There are lots of additional needs. There is additional monitoring which is needed that is discussed in the legislation. That is always a need; identifying sources; identifying solutions; working with partners to put those in place. 

As you well recognize, there is plenty of work to be done. But 

again, we are proud of what we have done so far and we were deVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
12 

lighted to see that the National Estuary Program is the foundation 

of these bills. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And you do have collaborative programs with 

other Federal agencies? 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely. We work with our Federal partners 

throughout these watersheds. That would strengthen those partnerships and that collaboration and coordination. That is one of the 

elements in the bills. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

I yield to Ranking Member Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Stoner, according to the EPA, the San Francisco Bay and the 

Columbia River are readiness fair. In fiscal year 2010, EPA requested $5 million in funding for San Francisco Bay and received 

$7 million through the annual appropriations process, in addition 

to what it receives from the National Estuary Program. While this 

is an important estuary, of the 28 estuaries in the Program, how 

many are readiness poor and how much funding is provided for 

those estuaries? And in what case would a fair estuary get priority 

funding over a poor estuary? 

Ms. STONER. I am afraid I don’t know the answer to the question 

about how many were rated as poor, so I have to get back to you 

on that information. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. In what case would a fair estuary get priority funding over a poor estuary? 

Ms. STONER. I think it might depend upon the needs of the estuary, the size of the estuary, potentially the development of the 

plan; how well developed the plan is; how well the partnership is 

working; and whether there are additional needs that could be appropriately funded and achieve the most benefits. 

There are always very tough decisions in budget negotiations, as 

I am sure you know, and many important needs and priorities. I 

don’t think there is just one particular scale that is used. To my 

knowledge, I am sure there are lots of factors that are considered. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. According to the National Estuary Program’s bro- chure, NEPs have obtained over $10 for every $1 provided by EPA, 

generating nearly $4 billion for the on the ground effort since 2003. 

Does EPA track what has been accomplished with the $4 billion? 

If so, what benefits have been derived from the $4 billion? And 

what has the $4 billion been spent on? 

Ms. STONER. This is $4 billion from what, Congressman? I am 

sorry. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. The NEPs. 

Ms. STONER. The $4 billion that is the Federal contribution? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No. In other words, they generate $10 for every 

$1 provided by EPA. 

Ms. STONER. Okay. Thank you. We are proud of the fact that one 

of the benefits of the NEP is that it does leverage private contributions as well, through the partnership efforts and the voluntary collaborative efforts that we work on together. We do track the 

progress of the NEP with regular reports on the accomplishments 

and the progress that is being made. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. In the last 10 years, how much EPA funding has been dedicated to the San Francisco Bay? How much EPA 

13 

funding has been dedicated to the Columbia River? And can you 

quantify for us the benefits that have resulted in the investment? 

Ms. STONER. The information that I have is, you are looking for 

the past how many years, Congressman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Five or 10, really whatever you have. 

Ms. STONER. Okay. All right. Well, the total for the NEP from 2000 to 2010 is $243,776,000. And for San Francisco, the funding 

information appears to be $16 million. If I have the Columbia River 

number, I don’t see that in front of me right now, so, I would have 

to get back to you on that. 

We do have a number of accomplishments in the toxics action 

plan and the development of the comprehensive conservation and 

management plans for both watersheds. In the recent update of 

that plan for San Francisco, we have monitoring that has been 

done. We have toxics reduction. We have in fact a delisting in the 

Yakima River due to toxics reduction. We have wetlands restoration numbers that we could give to you in terms of acreage of wetlands that have been restored. 

We feel like these are programs that are very successful in addressing the habitat issues, the toxics issues, the stormwater and 

infrastructure issues. And I would be happy to provide more information for the record on that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Stoner, it is our understanding, and you 

just mentioned you couldn’t find anything for the Columbia River 

large aquatic ecosystem, but it is my information that along with 

the Pacific Islands, it is the only member of the Council of Large 

Aquatic Ecosystems that has not received any dedicated funding. 

Could you verify that? 

Ms. STONER. That is what I will get back to the Committee on, 

yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay. Because that is a question that, of 

course, that deals directly with Mr. Boozman’s question. 

What are the implications of this to the health of the Columbia 

River Basin then? 

Ms. STONER. Again, there are definitely additional needs in the 

Columbia River Basin, and I am sure additional funding could be 

utilized to address those needs. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, but specifically to the health of the 

river itself in so far as the fish, the health of the ecosystem, the 

environment, any of the cities that are alongside that draw water 

from the river, all those things. What would be the implications? 

Ms. STONER. The Columbia River system has a number of impairments associated with it. As we have been discussing, one of 

them is toxics and fish consumption issues associated with it. So 

that is a human health issue. It is an environmental justice issue. 

It is a very significant issue. 

And so those needs are great for the river. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In your testimony, ma’am, you note that salmon restoration is the key environmental justice issue for EPA. 

Would you please explain how you will therefore act on this matter, 

given it has been identified as a key environmental justice issue? 

And I can tell you in Jackie Speier’s area, the salmon fisheries just 

started after, this is the third year that they have not been able 

14 

to do salmon fishing because of the decline of the population. So 

has any of this happened along the Columbia? Along with the other 

question. 

Ms. STONER. Right. Well, the toxic reduction action plan is designed to address this problem. As I mentioned earlier, one of the 

approaches that we have used and has been working to address 

toxics as it comes from eroded land is through efforts at erosion 

control. That is one of the methods that we are currently doing 

studies on where the sources of toxics come from, and identifying 

those sources is the best way in identifying the collaborative partnerships that we can use to then address toxics. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the potential sources are? 

Ms. STONER. Well, a lot of these are legacy pollutants, so a lot 

of them have been in the water for some time in the sediments and 

so forth. Sometimes they are in the soil. Sometimes you also have 

toxics that come from runoff from the streets; could be stormwater 

pollution; can be air deposition; can be farm runoff. There are lots 

of different potential sources. 

And so figuring out where these are most available and can be 

addressed most effectively is our approach. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I notice that selenium was not mentioned. Is 

that also a problem? 

Ms. STONER. Selenium is often found in soil and definitely can 

be a significant issue. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, ma’am, a couple of things. I guess really 

what I would like to know, and I think the Committee would—we 

have really spent a lot of money—and the idea that things are getting better really doesn’t get it. I guess what I would like to know 

is, and you might not have the specific information now or your 

staff that is with you might not have it, but I think the Committee 

really would like to know some specifics as to exactly what is going 

on, if we are moving in the right direction and how you measure 

that. I think it is important to measure that. 

The other thing is that EPA requested specific line item funding 

in 2010 and 2011 for San Francisco. Again, the Columbia and San 

Francisco are both readiness fair. So I guess what I would like to 

know, and it sounds like you don’t really have the information now 

as to how you make that determination. 

Ms. STONER. No, sir, I was not involved in the budget decisions 

with respect to this. And so I don’t know the criteria that were considered. I can inquire. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Well, again, like I said, so you don’t have 

anything to do with the—they don’t ask you? 

Ms. STONER. I wasn’t involved in the budget decisions last year. 

I actually joined the agency a couple of months ago. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Well, again, and like I said, I understand 

then that you don’t have it, but hopefully somebody has some information laying around somewhere as to how they made that determination. And so if you would send that over for the record, we 

would appreciate that. 

Ms. STONER. Again, yes, I am confident that it was well thought 

through and that a number of factors were considered. I do know 

15 

that those decisions are very difficult and require a lot of discussion. And so I am confident that there were people who were involved in those discussions. It just wasn’t me. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. Stoner. And I may say that 

the San Francisco Bay Area is not in my area, but we treasure it 

deeply, especially because we get a lot of the water from the northern part of California and it is an area that if it affects them, it 

will affect Southern California. So we look at it very, very closely. 

Ms. STONER. Well, these are both beautiful areas of the Country 

and fabulous resources. So it is very important to us, as I am sure 

it is to you, to ensure that they are protected and restored. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very much so. Thank you for your testimony. 

You are dismissed. And we would like to call our third and last 

panel of the afternoon, consisting of additional stakeholders in the 

Columbia River Basin and the San Francisco estuary. 

First, Mr. John Gioia will testify. He is on the Contra Costa 

County Board of Supervisors. Our second witness is Mr. Jim 

Wunderman, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bay 

Area Council. And following will be Ms. Judy Kelly, Executive Director of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. Our fourth witness is Mr. Paul Lumley, Executive Director of the Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, followed by Debrah Marriott, Executive Director of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership; 

and last but certainly not least, Senator Jackie Dingfelder from the 

Oregon State Senate joining us today. 

Welcome to our panel, and your full statements will be placed on 

the record. So we ask that you try to limit your testimony to your 

salient points, to five minutes as a courtesy to the rest of the witnesses. And we will begin with our first witness. Mr. Gioia, you are 

it. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; JIM WUNDERMAN, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAY AREA COUNCIL; JUDY 

KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY 

PARTNERSHIP; PAUL LUMLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION; DEBRAH 

MARRIOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOWER COLUMBIA 

RIVER ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP; SENATOR JACKIE 

DINGFELDER, OREGON STATE SENATE 

Mr. GIOIA. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John 

Gioia. I am here today to testify from the perspective of local governments in the San Francisco Bay Area about the great need for 

increased Federal investment for San Francisco Bay. 

I am the Chair of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and 

serve on a number of Bay Area regional commissions. 

The restoration of San Francisco Bay is of national importance 

and warrants substantial Federal investment. The bay’s health impacts both local and national economies. The bay is home to about 

3.5 million jobs. 

While San Francisco Bay benefits the national economy, local 

governments are increasingly bearing the primary cost of stewardVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
16 

ship of the bay. One of the biggest challenges to maintaining the 

bay’s health is the fact that it is the most urbanized estuary in the 

Nation. Nearly 7.5 million people live in the Bay Area and half of 

this population lives within five miles of the bay. 

The good news is that over the past few decades, local governments in the Bay Area, working with citizen and environmental 

groups, have taken proactive steps to reverse the steady decline in 

the ecological health of the bay. They set in motion a comprehensive planning effort to improve the health and vitality of the bay. 

Local agencies around the bay maintain the highest standards of 

pollution control in the Nation. But today, we find that we are unable to meet our own high standards due to the deterioration of an 

aged infrastructure system in the face of a growing population and 

declining revenues. The cost to improve this system are well beyond the ability of local agencies. 

We face substantial costs to upgrade our wastewater collection 

and treatment systems to ensure prevention of sewage outflows 

that damage the bay. We need to upgrade regional treatment 

plants and build new distribution networks to replace the wasteful 

use of potable water with recycled water. 

An even bigger problem is stormwater runoff, which is the largest contributor to bay pollution and the most difficult to manage. 

In addition to runoff from communities within the Bay Area, urban 

and agricultural runoff from our vast central valley also ultimately 

reaches the bay. 

Bay Area communities are aggressively tackling the problem of 

stormwater runoff, but face a major financing obstacle. Local governments need a two-thirds vote of the people to raise funds for 

stormwater management programs. As a result, management of 

stormwater quality is significantly underfunded. Consequently, our 

region is spending the least amount of money on one of the biggest 

pollution problems. A Federal investment will leverage increased 

local dollars. 

Bay Area agencies are working cooperatively to solve our region’s 

problems. We are tackling transportation, air and water quality, 

and land use issues on a regional level. All of these issues impact 

the health of San Francisco Bay. Federal assistance to support 

these efforts will leverage greater local dollars to sustain these initiatives. 

Bay Area leaders recognize that land use planning has enormous 

impacts on water and air quality. As a result, the Association of 

Bay Area Governments has led a regional effort to focus on infill 

development in areas where there is access to transit, jobs and utility capacity. 

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has established a climate change planning program to identify and report on 

the impacts of climate change on the bay and identify strategies for 

adapting to climate change. Communities around the bay have 

been working collaboratively on a variety of scientific endeavors to 

improve the health of the bay. 

Finally, and probably most exciting, is the establishment of the 

San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, which is a new regional 

government agency charged with restoring San Francisco Bay 

through the raising and granting of funds to restore the bay’s critVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
17 

ical tidal wetlands. Today, over 36,000 acres of restorable bay 

shoreline is in public ownership and proposed for restoration to 

tidal wetlands. Restoring these 36,000 acres will cost up to $1.4 billion. 

While there is identified Federal and State funding available to 

complete some of this work, the Authority’s mission is to formulate 

a strategy for raising local revenues to fill this funding gap. Additional Federal investment in this effort would greatly increase support for local funding. 

In conclusion, the San Francisco Bay Area is on the verge of implementing a successful plan to restore our treasured estuary. We 

have a blueprint for restoring the bay, strong regional leadership 

on this issue, a history of successful collaboration among local and 

State agencies and active citizen groups, and we have the commitment and expertise to carry this out. 

All we need is a strengthened partnership with the Federal Government, along with an increased investment, and we will be able 

to make great strides in improving the health of this critically important estuary for the region, the Nation and the world to enjoy 

for generations to come. 

Thank you for the chance to testify before you today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Supervisor. 

Now, we turn to Mr. Jim Wunderman. 

Mr. WUNDERMAN. Good afternoon and thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is a pleasure and honor to be here today. 

My name is Jim Wunderman. I am the President and CEO of the 

Bay Area Council, which represents 275 of the largest employers 

in the nine county San Francisco, Oakland and Silicon Valley Bay 

Area. Almost all business sectors are represented in our Council, 

and as is the case throughout America, there is tremendous pressure on our region’s as well as our State’s economy. Our unemployment rate exceeds 12 percent and our State government is facing 

a daunting fiscal crisis, which you are aware of. 

I want to thank Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her leadership 

in introducing this important legislation. You have already heard 

about the environmental conditions in the bay and the estuary that 

necessitate Federal action. What I would like to do is focus on the 

economic side of the equation because in our region the environment and the economy are inextricably interlinked. 

San Francisco Bay is very much the centerpiece of our region’s 

environment, but it is also at the center of our region’s economic 

vitality. We should not kid ourselves. The defining feature of our 

region is now under serious threat. The bay itself is under assault 

by sea level rise, serious runoff pollution, changes to water salinity, 

invasive species and trash. 

We need Federal help to address these issues, and we submit 

that it is in the national interest to do so because the San Francisco Bay Area, note that we have named our region after the bay 

itself, is one of the most important and successful economic hubs 

in this increasingly knowledge-driven world. 

Here are just a few facts about the Bay Area’s economy and why 

its continued vibrancy is so important to our Nation. If it were a 

country, our region would place as the 25th largest economy worldwide. We have a huge pool of public and private research instituVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
18 

tions that are among the best in the world. There are more Fortune 

500 companies, 27 of them, than any other region in America other 

than New York. 

We are also an important global center, with the fourth highest 

amount of Forbes Global 1,000 companies, behind only Tokyo, London and New York. Thirty-six percent of all the venture capital invested in America is invested in the Bay Area, which underscores 

why and how innovations, ideas and startups are so prevalent 

there. 

We are the birthplace of the biotech industry and more life 

science companies are headquartered in the region than any other 

place on Earth. 

We strongly believe that the ability to maintain these knowledge 

industries ties directly to the quality of life afforded by the bay. 

In addition to the knowledge-based industry that the Bay Area 

is so well known for, the region’s economy is actually quite diverse, 

and a good portion of it is directly dependent upon a healthy San 

Francisco Bay. The Port of Oakland by itself is the fifth largest 

container shipping port in the United States and a major point of 

exports for agricultural products grown in the central valley and 

other parts of the Country. Through that port, plus eight smaller 

ports and three international airports, the Bay Area handles nearly 

30 percent of West Coast trade. 

Tourism generates over $7 billion each year and is one of the 

largest industries in the region. Whether it is Fisherman’s Wharf 

or the Golden Gate Bridge or Fleet Week or one of the many sailing regattas that take place throughout the year, the Bay Area is 

the destination or the backdrop for the activity. 

Commercial fishing, which is completely dependent on a health 

bay and estuary, remains an important and relied-upon regional industry. And Madam Chair mentioned the problems that we have 

been facing with our salmon these last few years. 

Our bay and therefore our region is under threat, as you have 

heard today. And the point I would like to leave you with is that 

it is not only in our Country’s environmental interest, but also our 

economic interest to take action and begin turning back the chain 

of events which have led to the current situation. 

We recognize that the Federal Government cannot and should 

not be responsible for all the costs associated with what must be 

done. As has been the case with other environmental remediation 

and restoration projects in other key parts of the Country, like 

Chesapeake Bay, the Florida Everglades, the Great Lakes, Congresswoman Speier’s legislation requires that there be local and 

State matching efforts to draw down Federal funds appropriated 

for the purpose. 

We further believe that there will be many instances where private investments, coordinated with public jurisdictions, can contribute mightily to restoration efforts. Such private investments 

can deliver valuable new housing and other public benefits, while 

producing other significant environmental results like reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. These are all 

detailed in my written statement which I have provided for the 

record. 

19 

Today, I would like to specifically urge you to help complete a 

vulnerability assessment of climate change on the estuary, update 

floodplain maps, strengthen response to oil spills in the estuary, 

make good use of public-private partnership opportunities, and to 

make a 10-year commitment to fund priority objectives for the bay 

estuary. 

Thank you again. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. 

We now turn to Ms. Judy Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

good afternoon. 

It is really my honor to talk to you today about the largest estuary on the West Coast, known throughout the world for its breathtaking beauty, the iconic bridges that span its water, and the great 

cities that surround its shore. 

The estuary, despite 150 years of alteration, is still a key engine 

that provides enormous economic and environmental benefits to the 

people of the region, the State and the Nation. 

Cargo ships from all across the Pacific Rim depend on the ports 

and infrastructure of the estuary. The San Francisco Bay Area, as 

has been mentioned, is the United States’ fourth largest exporting 

region, accounting for 36 percent of California’s exports alone. 

In 2008, just the City of San Francisco hosted 15 million visitors, generating some $7 billion into the Bay Area economy and many 

more billions of dollars to our Nation’s wealth. The Bay Area estuary helped power this economic engine and the health of the estuary is vital to keeping it running. 

While over 7.5 million people call the Bay Area home, the San 

Francisco estuary does not belong to the citizens of California 

alone. In 1987, Congress recognized our estuary as one of being nationally significant. And hundreds of citizens, agency staff, business 

representatives, and non-profits came together to do the hard work 

of crafting a master plan for restoring the health of the estuary. 

The partnership between the Federal Government, the State and 

the region on estuary issues has been a very strong one. Over the 

past 10 years, in spite of budget problems, California voters approved a series of bond issues that support both water supply and 

ecosystem restoration efforts. 

In fact, just last year, as Mr. Gioia mentioned, the legislature 

created the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and tasked 

the region with exploring local funding options for restoring some 

of those 36,000 acres of wetlands we currently have in public ownership. 

Also, as a major landowner and stakeholder in the region, the 

Federal Government also has a vested interest in the estuary. The 

Federal Government owns and maintains seven national wildlife 

refuges around the bay. Over 25,000 acres of Federal military 

bases on the shores of the bay and the estuary have been decommissioned over the past 30 years. In many cases, those bases left 

pollutants that have compromised water quality and contaminated 

wildlife habitat. 

The Estuary Partnership’s comprehensive plan completed in 

1993 and revised again in 2007, addresses all aspects of estuary 

restoration, from reducing pollution to conserving wildlife habitat 

20 

to preserving the productivity of the estuary’s commercial enterprises. The plan needs the active support of the Federal Government and Congress, working in cooperation with the State, localities, business and citizen groups to make it happen. 

Clean water and healthy habitats remain stubborn problems due 

to several issues, including the dispersal of toxic substances within 

our watersheds and funding limitations to address all the issues. 

Currently, the region has over 88 water bodies identified by 

USEPA as being impaired. 

Expanded Federal funding alone, with continued State and Federal support, matched by new local funds which would come 

through the Bay Restoration Authority, will help enable us to work 

on critical restoration efforts throughout the estuary system and 

result in multiple ecological and economic benefits. 

New challenges and opportunities create an urgency to act. Restoring our bay wetlands is one of those key opportunities. As I 

mentioned, nearly 36,000 acres of bay lands are currently in public 

ownership waiting for funding to proceed through the restoration 

phase. These lands play a critical role in protecting our bayside 

communities. 

The bay has already risen eight inches over the past 90 years, 

and we expect to see a rise of an additional 16 inches by mid-century. The value of Bay Area shoreline development, buildings, 

roads, airports, parks, at risk is estimated at $62 billion. 

Tidal wetlands are the region’s first line of defense against a rising sea. These marshes form natural levees and act as buffers that 

protect developed areas from flooding at far less cost than building 

engineered barriers. 

Our sense of urgency has led the Estuary Partnership to conduct 

a strategic planning process completed late last year, which identifies key actions on which to focus. Increased Federal assistance will 

not only provide benefits to fish and wildlife, but will also provide 

critically important services to the human community. It will help 

preserve a national icon and a vital economic and environmental 

resource beloved by the Nation and the world. 

I want to thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks also to 

Chairmen Oberstar and Johnson and Ranking Members Mica and 

Mr. Boozman for their dedication in restoring this Country’s great 

water bodies. I would be glad to answer any questions or assist you 

and the Committee in any way. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Kelly. 

And we now will hear from Mr. Paul Lumley. 

Mr. LUMLEY. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and thank 

you to Members of the Committee for the invitation here to testify. 

I am Paul Lumley. I am the Executive Director of the Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and a citizen of the Yakima 

Nation. 

The Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission was formed in 1977 

to ensure a unified voice in the overall management of the fishery 

resource. Our member tribes are the Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands 

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Nez 

Perce Tribe. 

21 

Each of our four tribes have similar treaty language. In those 

four treaties, though, combined we ceded 40 million acres of land 

to the Federal Government in exchange for certain rights. In each 

of those treaties, we reserve the right to fish and hunt in all usual 

and accustomed fishing places. 

Those rights were not granted to the four tribes. Those rights 

were primarily to preserve and protect our first food, which are traditional to our cultural way of life: [word in native language], 

which is water; salmon, the [word in native language]; and elk, 

roots and berries in that order. And that is the way that the Creator has delivered those resources to us and we are entrusted to 

the protection of those resources for seven generations. That is why 

the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission exists. 

I can’t stress enough the importance, though, that when we 

signed our treaties in 1855, implicit in those treaties was the understanding that those fish would be healthy and edible to eat. The 

land that we fish on is not necessarily limited to our reservation 

boundaries. The right to fish and hunt in all usual and accustomed 

fishing places is a place-based right and we cannot move our fishery around to find other fish that are healthier for us to eat. 

I want to bring your attention to some comments regarding the 

state of salmon restoration in the Columbia River Basin. First, I 

want to point out that the Columbia River, or Nch’i-Wana, which 

means Big River, once produced more salmon than any other river 

basin in the world. Now, it produces more electricity. 

Obviously, we have had more problems in the Columbia River 

Basin than we ever expected when we signed our treaties in 1855. 

We have had a major crisis occur in the mid-1990s when several 

species were listed under the Endangered Species Act. There is no 

doubt that our recovery efforts are complicated. We have found 

ways to achieve some level of success with increasing populations. 

However, no salmon species have been de-listed to this point. In 

fact, just a month or so ago, we have had another listing of smelt 

in the Lower Columbia River. 

Another species of extreme concern to the tribes is Pacific Lamprey, which are also declining at an alarming rate. So while we 

have made progress in some areas, we haven’t made enough 

progress to get to full recovery. 

After the listings in the 1990s, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission sponsored a report called Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi WaKish-Wit, which stands for Spirit of the Salmon. That is our gravelto-gravel management plan to restore salmon in the Columbia 

River Basin. 

There is no doubt that there is a major Federal investment in the 

Columbia River Basin to restore salmon. However, one very major 

missing link to the puzzle is a coordinated basin-wide approach to 

addressing toxics in the Columbia River. 

In 1991, we signed a cooperative agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency for a two-phased approach to address 

toxics in the Columbia River. The first phase was to complete this 

study, which is to evaluate the consumption rate of salmon that we 

are eating, and we found out that our members were eating approximately nine times more fish than the general public. 

22 

The second phase was to look at the contaminants that were in 

the fish tissue. And so this was phase two, which was completed 

in 2002. What we found out was that there are significant concerns 

with the criteria to protect our people. The criteria that is currently 

established protects the general public, but not our tribes. These 

findings are referenced in the proposed legislation. 

I would like to turn my attention to the Columbia River Restoration Act. First of all, I want to applaud the efforts for this legislation. It is sorely needed in the Columbia River Basin. Nch’i-Wana 

is a major river. It is a huge river worldwide. It deserves to be protected. 

There has been a significant lack of attention to toxics in the Columbia River Basin, and we stand here ready to assist you and the 

Committee any way we can to improve this legislation to address 

comments that we heard earlier today from the Congressional 

panel. 

We do have three recommendations on the bill. The first is to 

provide that the EPA Regional Administrator be in charge, be the 

primary leader in the bill. We have concerns about the allocation 

of funds and programmatic authority. We want to have a discussion about increasing financial resources in up-river locations. And 

third, we think that a single Columbia River Basin strategic planning document is needed, and we suggest that EPA’s Columbia 

River Basin Toxics Reduction Plan should be that plan. We fully 

support LCREP in their initiatives. They have a wonderful management plan that should be nested there as well. 

I would like to turn my comments, if I could, for a little bit 

longer to address some concerns that were raised by the Congressional panel. Is that all right? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry? 

Mr. LUMLEY. Some concerns that were raised by the Congressional panel? I know I am out of time, but if I could just address 

their concerns real quickly? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly. 

Mr. LUMLEY. Thank you. 

We share the concerns that contaminants in the estuary have 

long been overlooked. However, we cannot ignore the fact that a 

substantial amount of contaminants in the estuary originate from 

sources throughout the Columbia River Basin. We also do not want 

this bill to compromise collaborative efforts or legal positions. The 

bill as drafted did not intend to do that. 

We are prepared to work with you to improve the language. The 

intent of the bill is to add value to collaboration, reduce contamination, and contribute to salmon restoration. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for being brief, and thank you for 

that testimony. 

Ms. Marriott? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Debrah Marriott. I am Executive Director of 

the Estuary Partnership. I would like to thank you and Congressman Blumenauer for your leadership in protecting our estuaries 

and great waters. 

23 

This bill does address the Columbia Basin as a large aquatic ecosystem, a status it shares with the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, 

Everglades and the Gulf of Mexico. It unites the Columbia Basin 

as a whole, including the NEP, the National Estuary Program in 

the lower 146 miles. The Columbia NEP and the large aquatic ecosystem are not the same geography. The NEP is nested within the 

larger basin. 

The Columbia, as you have heard, is the fourth largest river in 

North America; 8 million people, 2,000 species live here and depend on it. It provides 75 percent of the power for the Northwest. 

Sales from farm and ranch exceed $10 billion a year and it carries 

$13 billion worth of cargo a year. 

You have heard today about its degradation. Ninety-two priority 

pollutants have been identified. The entire main stem is impaired. 

Thirteen species of salmonid are listed as threatened or endangered. Legacy toxics are still present in fish, sediment and water 

quality. New contaminants in flame retardants and pharmaceuticals are causing male fish to morph to females within their life 

cycle, and other contaminants have impaired the reproduction of 

male river otters. 

Contaminants that start far up in the basin end up deposited in 

lower river ports, putting our port operations at risk. The loss of 

fish has decimated our commercial fishing industry, dropping from 

$41 million in personal income in 1980 to $4 million by 1998. The 

fish consumption rates of tribal people are high. 

We have conducted many one-time studies that give a very clear 

snapshot of the problems. The planning has been done. We have 

six Federal plans, and our management plan, and the State recovery plans that all call for restoring habitat and reducing toxics. 

The infrastructure is in place. The Estuary Partnership has 15 

years working in the lower river. We have done a lot with restoration; EPA has four years of working with the Toxic Reduction 

Working Group in the upper basin. In the lower river, EPA has invested approximately $4 million in 

the Estuary Partnership since 2000. We have leveraged that to 

bring another $20 million, and with that we have restored 16,000 

acres of habitat, mostly targeted for salmonid fish. It restores less 

than half of what we have lost in settlement. 

There is no sustained monitoring on the main stem Columbia 

and no concerted toxic reduction effort. As we have learned more 

about the problems, we have actually been investing less. We know 

what we need to do. All of these studies tell us that we need to collect and analyze a full suite of contaminants at the same locations 

at regular intervals over time. We need to expand toxic reduction 

collection sites for farmers, mercury collection on tribal lands, and 

pharmaceuticals to keep them out of the water and out of the 

hands of teens. 

The States have increased their investments in the water bodies 

within their States, but the Columbia mainstem lags behind and 

the estuary lags even further behind. Of the $877 million invested 

by Bonneville Power in five years from 2004 to 2009, less than 7 

percent was in the lower river. This needs to be reversed. 

Every threatened and endangered salmonid in the entire basin 

uses the estuary at least twice in their life cycle. They are contamiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
24 

nated and their habitat is contaminated. Fifteen years ago, we 

identified over two dozen toxic hot spots in the lower river. We 

need to clean them up and we need Federal assistance to help us 

do that. 

We would suggest adding language to codify EPA’s current stakeholder process using an NEP model in the whole basin to ensure 

a community-based process. It has been tested and it is trusted in 

the lower river. It ensures all interests are considered. It focuses 

on results and it is completely voluntary. 

This bill recognizes the basin as one geography. The Estuary 

Partnership is part of EPA’s basin efforts. Keeping those linked for 

consistency is critical. Implementation can happen effectively 

through existing entities to keep momentum and recognize local 

needs. The bill sets a unified approach and it begins to reverse the 

lack of investment in the estuary, at least in the initial years. 

Funds targeted to us go out to local partners. We set the regional 

strategic prioritization with them and provide coordination. The 75 

percent cost share is essential to local partners. This secures the 

region. It keeps ports operational. Every $2.5 million in restoration 

creates 55 jobs, from construction laborers for bridge repairs to foresters. It aids farmers and it opens markets for local supplies. 

It is a national priority. The Columbia is an estuary of national 

significance and the entire basin is a great water body, a large 

aquatic ecosystem. Yet unlike the Great Lakes or Chesapeake, we 

receive no funding pursuant to it. These problems have been here 

for a while. They come from many different activities. They can’t 

be corrected in one or two years, and the current investment does 

not match the magnitude of the problem. 

This holds us accountable to our kids and it lets us take action 

now. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Marriott. 

And now, Senator Dingfelder. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DINGFELDER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and 

Members of the Committee. My name is Jackie Dingfelder. I am a 

member of the Oregon State Senate, and I chair the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee back in my State. 

I represent Senate District 23, which includes portions of northeast and southeast Portland and is adjacent to the Columbia River. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010. 

The State of Oregon has made significant investments even in 

these difficult economic times to improve watershed health within 

our State. Most notably during the 2007 legislative session, the legislature increased funding to our Oregon Department of Environmental Quality known as DEQ to institute a statewide Toxics Reduction Program. 

As part of this program, DEQ is working in 18 basins throughout 

the State to monitor for toxic pollutants in water fish and sediment, and the agency is assessing current use of legacy pesticides, 

industrial chemicals, chemical byproducts, pharmaceuticals and 

personal care products. 

In 2008, Oregon targeted the Willamette River basin for toxics 

monitoring and reductions, and the State is currently looking at 

25 

about 20 sites that are sampled twice a year. It costs the State 

about $1 million a year, so we are making those investments. 

Some of the findings so far include high levels of herbicides, 

which was the most frequently detected class of pesticides in surface water. Pharmaceuticals were detected at low concentrations; 

heavy metals such as copper, lead, arsenic, silver and zinc; levels 

of polychlorinated biphenyls, and these were measured in composites of fish fileted offsite; and also combined mixture of dioxins and 

purons in fish. And last but not least, we found pesticides that 

were detected at above the EPA screening levels. And this is of 

great concern to us. 

Mercury concentrations in fish tissue has significantly increased 

from 2002 to 2008 when it was found at concentrations that exceeded screening levels established by the EPA for subsistence fishers and often exceeded the threshold value used by the Oregon Department of Human Services to issue fish consumption advisories. 

Although these are findings from the Willamette River, it eventually flows into the Columbia River. Thus, we are concerned about 

contaminants that are also entering the Columbia River system. 

The State of Washington shares many of Oregon’s concerns regarding the Columbia River and in fact Washington is making its 

own investments in improved water quality. Yet, the State simply 

cannot provide all the needed resources that are required to protect 

this most important river system. The Columbia River is, after all, 

as I am sure you are well aware, a shared water body, a Federal 

navigable waterway, a major U.S. transportation port, and a national treasure. 

Federal investments in the lower river and estuary are considerably less than what has been made in the remainder of the basin. 

Currently, the Bonneville Power Administration is a major funder 

through the Biological Opinion, and their investments have been 

focused for decades above the Bonneville Dam. In fact, EPA began 

investing in lower river only as recently as 2003, and has targeted 

less than 7 percent of its entire funding source to that area. 

The unfortunate reality is that the Lower Columbia River and 

estuary are significantly impaired. And this impairment is due to 

contaminants entering the river below Bonneville, notably from the 

Willamette River and from runoff from the 31 towns in the lower 

river, but also from contaminants that start far up in the basin and 

ended up deposited in lower river sites. 

As you have already heard, every ESA listed threatened and endangered salmonid migrates through the estuary at least twice in 

their life cycle, and I am also sure that you are very aware of the 

economic challenges facing States. Oregon has one of the highest 

unemployment rates in the Nation. Washington is not far behind. 

This bill will provide a major investment in reducing toxics and 

cleaning up the Lower Columbia River, but this bill will also be a 

central component to our economic recovery. As we work to improve the Columbia, we can provide immediate jobs through work 

as monitoring, analysis and other cleanup activities. Plus, this bill 

secures our region’s long-term economic advantages; cleans up the 

sediment and water quality to bring back fish and keep ports operational; and provides cleanup assistance to farmers to keep them 

producing and shipping products to international markets. 

26 

We need to act now to improve the Lower Columbia River and 

estuary. Our region has developed many plans over the past 10 

years and they all say the same thing: restore habitat and reduce 

toxics. I am confident that the Columbia River Restoration Act of 

2010 will greatly assist us in reaching this goal, and I urge support 

of this bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. I am very interested in 

what your State legislature has done in the past to go after the potentially responsible parties for pollution, and also whether or not 

the potentially responsible parties are part of the solution, as well 

as provide training for the agricultural folks in terms of use of pesticides and fertilizers, and then on to educating the general public 

as to what they can do to not flush stuff down the toilet or to be 

able to be more careful about things that are polluting our waters. 

Are you embarking on that? Are you including the business community? Are you doing outreach to the general public to begin to 

tell them how vital your river is to the health and welfare and your 

economic well being? 

Ms. DINGFELDER. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the 

Committee. Again, State Senator Jackie Dingfelder and thank you 

for that question. 

The State of Oregon has made great investments in watershed 

health in both protecting and upgrading our watersheds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am not talking about the investments. I am 

talking about the outreach. 

Ms. DINGFELDER. As part of those investments, we have funded 

grassroots Watershed Councils. We have over 90 Watershed Councils in the State of Oregon. I will say that Washington also does 

a lot of grassroots work. 

And one of the main themes that these grassroots organizations 

are doing is outreach in education with the business community, 

with the farming community, with the forestry industry, basically 

all the stakeholders that operate within these watersheds. 

I myself served as a Watershed Coordinator for several years 

prior to joining the State Senate, so I know first-hand about the 

work that is being done. 

Certainly, more can be done. Always, prevention is the best investment because it is a lot less expensive than cleaning up afterwards and restoring our rivers and stream sites. 

So we have 15 percent of our lottery funds in the State are dedicated towards this purpose currently. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But are you going after the potential polluters 

is my question. 

Ms. DINGFELDER. Madam Chair and Committee Members, absolutely. We have a very aggressive program through our Department of Environmental Quality. We have a voluntary cleanup program and of course work very closely with USEPA in our Superfund program. We have a very aggressive Portland Harbor cleanup 

as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I would ask the same question of the Supervisor and of any of the others who care to answer that, the 

cleanup part of the solution would be the potential responsible parVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
27 

ties for that pollution. And sometimes they disappear because it is 

years down the road. However, there still has to be made an effort 

to be able to have that funding so EPA can do a better job. 

Anybody? 

Mr. GIOIA. Just a note. There is always an aggressive goal of 

going after those who are the responsible parties. As you know, 

sometimes Federal law dictates how far local agencies can go. 

Sometimes it is State law. 

In the case of the oil spill that occurred in San Francisco Bay 

within the last couple of years, there is a lot of effort by a number 

of agencies to go after responsible parties. So that is always part 

of it. 

And in California, when the Regional Boards find polluters, that 

money gets used as well for restoration or public education or outreach of creek cleanups. So I know that one funding source we use 

for restoration are the fines that are levied against those who actually do the polluting. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Supervisor Gioia, you mentioned in your testimony the Bay Area’s Regional Water Quality Control Board recently issued a regional stormwater permit for Bay Area counties. 

Could you elaborate some more on this permit and explain what 

the benefits of this approach are? And is there a way to incorporate 

the approach into the San Francisco Bay Area Estuary Program? 

Mr. GIOIA. Yes, thank you for the question. 

I think we have been very progressive in the Bay Area about 

looking at how this development occurs in ways that have the least 

impact on the bay. And the Regional Water Quality Control Board 

came up with a permit which mandates that a number of actions 

be taken by local cities and counties when development gets approved. 

The positive part of that is the steps that must be taken will improve runoff and reduce pollution into the bay. The challenge is 

that it costs a significant amount of money to implement that rule. 

And so that burden is falling on local agencies, and any help from 

a Federal investment will allow all of us to achieve that goal 

quicker. 

For example, requirements with regard to impervious surfaces, 

that has been incorporated so that we don’t have as much runoff 

into the bay. But again, because the Bay Area is also looking at 

having more infill development, what we have is a situation where 

the cost of these new regulations, which we all want to see, we are 

all looking at the best way to raise funds to implement those so 

that good development happens. 

And probably the most promising thing that has happened in the 

Bay Area there is the establishment of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. A couple of years ago, Save San Francisco Bay 

Association did a study and basically recommended and sponsored 

this legislation that sets up one regional government agency in the 

Bay Area to work on wetland restoration and most importantly to 

raise local dollars to do that. 

I serve as Vice Chair of that and we are currently looking at polling to put a measure on the ballot in the Bay Area where local residents will participate in the funding of wetland restoration and any 

Federal investment will greatly, greatly increase the likelihood of 

28 

local voters putting up local dollars, so the leverage factor is really 

important. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But do you have the ability to enforce? 

Mr. GIOIA. We do. Yes. And the great work has already been 

done. The Estuary Partnerships plan. So we have done all the 

planning. We have done all the work. We just need some additional 

investment. And we are fully willing to have our local communities 

help foot the bill. We are not shying away from that. But the Federal investment will just be the third leg to the stool: Federal, 

State and local investment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Many years ago, I remember going into San 

Francisco and seeing on the sidewalks in some areas the little fish 

stencil right on the drainage areas. I thought what a great idea, 

because people don’t realize that that goes into the ocean and the 

rivers. 

Mr. GIOIA. Right. And that has been one of the stormwater management policies, to educate the public to understand that what 

goes on the roadways into the storm drain system ends up in the 

bay. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Gioia, in your testimony, you said it takes a two-thirds vote 

from property owners in the Bay Area to increase fees or rates in 

order to provide improvements to stormwater. I guess we sit here 

week after week listening to testimony from all over the Country 

with areas like this. And I am from Arkansas, and we are blessed. 

We have a number of not estuaries, but we have a number of areas 

that are in need of this or that. 

And I guess our concern is that it is so difficult for you all to participate. It almost seems like we want Federal funding. 

Mr. GIOIA. No, that is not what we are saying. I think first of 

all, as you know in many States, it is elected officials at the State 

and local level that can actually raise the fees to run stormwater 

programs. We are unique in California. It is just harder to raise 

those funds. 

We are not saying that we don’t want to do that and the public 

wouldn’t support that. We are just saying it takes a little more effort. And in fact, the effort to set up the Restoration Authority is 

a perfect example of where our local voters want to step forward 

and fund restoration activities themselves. 

It is just that there is a greater challenge, and what we are saying is we would be able to raise even more local dollars with the 

leverage of Federal investments. Because in many States, you don’t 

need to go to the voters. You can get the leverage by having an 

elected official vote to increase fees, and then attract Federal dollars. 

We are just saying we have to show the public. It is a little higher threshold and we are prepared to do it, but we want to partner 

with the Federal agencies. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Of course, what is going to happen eventually, the 

EPA is going to make you do it. 

Mr. GIOIA. On stormwater? You are talking now about the 

stormwater control issues? We already have requirements now 

29 

with the regional permit to implement a higher standard. And local 

agencies are paying for it currently. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I am sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt. 

Mr. GIOIA. Yes, sure. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, I understand what you are saying. Again, 

in Arkansas the City Council can vote and raise the other. Do you 

have any alternative financing schemes that you have looked at in 

lieu of maybe not doing it in the conventional way? 

Mr. GIOIA. There has been foundations and private businesses. 

And foundations have stepped forward to partially fund restoration 

projects around San Francisco Bay. They have also said we are 

willing to leverage our dollars with State, local and Federal dollars. 

We have issued bonds. 

So I think we are probably the only metropolitan area in the 

Country that has established this new mechanism to place one 

measure on the ballot in all nine counties among all 7.5 million 

residents to be able to vote on this issue. So again, we are willing 

to step forward. That is new as well, but yes, we are being as creative as we can. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. I think Ms. Kelly testified that there were 

$7 billion worth of economic benefits. Is that correct? 

Ms. KELLY. As I recall that part of my testimony, I think I was 

referring to something specific relative to the visitors impact. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, exactly. 

Ms. KELLY. Just the visitors impact. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So I guess what I am saying is it is a tremendous 

resource that is generating a tremendous amount of money. And it 

is a challenge. I mean, we have to take care of it, but it is a tremendous revenue generator also for the area. 

Mr. Lumley, changes in the operation of some of the dams in the 

Columbia River Basin has led to progress in salmon recovery. How 

has this affected some of the other activities in the basin? For instance, has this led to loss of hydropower generation? And if so, 

how to residents in the basin now get their power? 

Mr. LUMLEY. I don’t believe that there is a limitation on the 

amount of power that is being provided to the residents. There are 

alternative sources. I don’t know if you have driven through the 

Columbia River in recent times. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, if we could get on the stick and have a trip 

to check things out. 

Mr. GIOIA. You have to come to San Francisco Bay as well. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I agree. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And put it to the Chair. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. And there truly is no substitute for actually getting out and seeing the areas that you are talking about. I agree 

totally. 

Mr. LUMLEY. And I would welcome a field hearing. I would be 

happy to do whatever I can to assist you in that endeavor. 

If you drive through the Columbia River, you will see a series of 

dams and you will also see on the hilltops a series of wind turbines 

that produce wind power. So we have a plentiful source of renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest. 

There were changes to the way the hydropower system was managed, and it was a result of the listings of salmon under the EnVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56290.0 KAYLA
30 

dangered Species Act, but it hasn’t provided any kind of dramatic 

downfall of the amount of electricity that is being provided to the 

public in the Northwest. 

So we found ways to manage the Columbia River in a manner 

that is more protective of salmon, at the same time providing 

enough funds for a mitigation program to help keep the salmon 

from going extinct and to rebuild salmon runs. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Final question. Ms. Marriott, 40 percent of the funds are to go 

to the Estuary Partnership in the bill to manage implementation 

of the plan. Can you tell us a little bit more what that means? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I 

would be happy to. The bill as it is currently drafted would set 40 

percent of the future appropriations to the lower river. That is in 

part because the lower river through the National Estuary Program is a little bit further ahead in knowing where we need to invest those funds than the upper basin effort that EPA has been 

working on in the past four years. We are a little bit more ready 

to go, essentially. 

Where it would go, the first ask that we would make through an 

appropriations would request several million dollars to establish a 

network of monitoring at 26 sites for a full suite of contaminants. 

We would invest also with Oregon DEQ and Washington Department of Ecology in hosting take-back programs for farmers, pesticide take-back programs, pharmaceutical take-back programs. 

We would do consumer education, Madam Chair, to help people 

understand how to dispose of these materials and then also talk 

about some of the impacts of our daily activities on stormwater 

runoff and some of those problems associated with that. 

That is where we would make our initial investment with these 

resources. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So would Oregon DEQ, would they help decide 

that and EPA? Or would that just be the pretty much at your all’s 

discretion? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, the 

Estuary Partnership management plan was developed by a large 

stakeholder group. Our governing body is a stakeholder group that 

is comprised of Federal, State, local and tribal officials, as well as 

other public and private interests. 

We are accountable to EPA. That management plan is reviewed 

by them periodically to ensure that we are consistent with the 

Clean Water Act in helping them implement aspects of the Clean 

Water Act. 

The monitoring program in particular has been developed by a 

subset of our management group, our Science Work Group, which 

is comprised of over 40 scientists from our region, again from the 

public and private sectors. They are the ones who have looked at 

the data, looked at where the problems are, and put together a 

monitoring strategy for us. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

I would like to then ask a couple of questions of Mr. Lumley, if 

you wouldn’t mind. 

31 

In your testimony on page four, you write that water quality 

standards for toxics are traditionally based on consumption rates 

for non-Indians. Could you elaborate a little more on that and provide some kind of explanation of what you mean and what the public health implications are for the tribal members that you represent? 

I know there are a lot of contaminants. Have there been any assessments to review the health and welfare of the tribes and how 

they have been able to determine that? 

Mr. LUMLEY. Thank you for the question. Excellent question. 

Thank you. 

The criteria are established by Federal and State standards. It 

is for the general public. But there are certain subsets anywhere 

in the public that tend to consume natural resources more than 

others. The Columbia River Basin tribes are not the only group of 

individuals out there who consume large amounts of salmon. There 

are other ethnic groups that also consume large amounts. However, 

the tribes consume more than any other group that we are aware 

of, between 6 percent and 11 times more. 

So the criteria that was established for the general public is not 

sufficient for protection of the tribes. The Umatilla Tribe in particular has been working with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to change the State standards, and it looks like 

that will be increased by about 10 times, and that will be more protective for the tribal population. 

Salmon are a healthy source of omega 3 fatty acids, and I do not 

recommend to our members to stop eating fish. There might be different ways to consume them, but the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission is not a public health agency and I would defer any 

specific comments on public health to the tribes to get back to you 

through the process of having an open record on this hearing. 

But there are concerns about certain populations in specific areas 

where there is a high consumption in areas that are known to have 

high contaminants, and that is a public health concern for some of 

our tribes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Has the BIA or any of the tribal entities had 

any reviews of the health effects that the contaminants might have 

on the tribes, especially the ones that consume more salmon than 

others? 

Mr. LUMLEY. I am not aware of any comprehensive study that 

looks at the salmon as a cause for, say, higher cancer rates. Perhaps we should be conducting more studies like that, but you have 

to look at the entire lifestyle and food that is consumed by tribes. 

You have to separate out salmon, which should be a very difficult 

study. 

There was talk about a phase three approach with the Environmental Protection Agency, but there didn’t appear to be any funding to take it to that level. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And you also mentioned in your statement it 

is beginning to affect the smelt. 

Mr. LUMLEY. Contamination, not necessarily. Well, it may or 

may not be affecting smelt. My point, though, is that even though 

we are making progress for recovering salmon populations, our 

work isn’t done yet for protecting all fishes in the Columbia River 

32 

Basin. In fact, some are being still listed. The smelt is a population 

of fish that have just recently been listed by the Endangered Species Act. I fear that the Pacific lamprey, a traditional food of the 

tribes, might be listed next. So there is still quite a bit of work to 

do to recover fish in general. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. My mind is slipping. The Bay Delta issue with 

the water pump up north of Sacramento has involved the endangered species of Delta smelt that has been diminishing rapidly and 

furiously. At first, it was thought that it was only the pumping 

that was killing the fish because they loved the cold water near the 

pump. 

It is now more evident that there are many other effects that are 

causing the decline of the Delta smelt. Part of it is the toxins, 

whether it is the different things that we have already mentioned; 

also, the warming of the waters; as well as the invasive species 

that have been introduced into the rivers. 

So many of those things have been found already in our area. 

You might want to maybe compare notes to see what might be the 

cause of some of the effects of the decline of the smelt in your area. 

But it is a problem and we need to get to the bottom of it and 

begin to look for whether it is the contaminants, the pesticides and 

the fertilizers, or the other toxins that are discharged into the 

river; whether it is untreated sewage, waste and many other things 

that we look at. 

So Ms. Kelly, in earlier testimony, EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator stated that Federal efforts to improve water quality in 

the San Francisco Bay are ongoing, but serious environmental challenges still remain. And from your organization’s perspective, why 

are ongoing State and Federal efforts not currently sufficient to address these impairments? 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairwoman. 

There are a couple of aspects to the question I just want to touch 

upon. One of the things that I think it is healthy for us to remember, in the program we sometimes feel like we are Sisyphus rolling 

the stone up the hill. But we are in an estuary that has had incredibly rapid development for the last 20 years. 

And the fact that we actually have had improvements in a lot of 

areas, and yet had millions of more people within the watershed 

develop homes there and businesses there, and roads and networks, is actually I think something of a testament to how well we 

are actually doing in the face of some of these assaults on the environment. So that was one point I just wanted to stress. 

I think your question is more towards what are the things that 

we would do continuing now with new Federal funds. We mentioned, as the panel has mentioned, a couple of opportunities, especially relative to the 36,000 acres that are currently being held in 

public ownership are just waiting. They are permitted. They are 

waiting for funding to actually be restored, which will help with 

water quality. It will help in our efforts to protect our communities 

against a rising tide. And of course, it does wonderful things for the 

fish and critters that live in those environments, to restore those 

habitats. So that is a priority for us. 

We also have areas around the bay and the watershed where we 

know that there are toxic hot spots. I was mentioning earlier to 

33 

someone there is an entire watershed, the Guadalupe Watershed in 

the southern part of San Francisco Bay had a historic mercury 

mine in the upper watershed of that bay. In fact, it is written in 

a wonderful book by Wallace Stegner, Angle of Repose. 

The beginning of that book actually takes place in this mercury 

mine, which is one of the largest we had in the Nation. During the 

gold mining, they needed mercury to extract the gold and it is part 

of the area that they got the mercury from. 

So we have this incredible legacy pollutant system, if you will, 

around the bay. And we know where some of those toxic hot spots 

are. We would like to get those sediments out of our rivers that are 

continuing to contribute sources even as we speak into the bay 

proper. 

So we have an opportunity to take action along those lines. And 

as Mr. Gioia mentioned, we do have this new regional permit. We 

are working. The Partnership is working with 101 bay cities on 

looking for ways to reduce the trash impact. In fact, we have a 

whole process right now and a project working with the bay cities 

to put trash capture devices around many of the cities to try to address that. 

So we are working in a number of fronts. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. 

And now for last questions, and thank you for bearing with me. 

Ms. Marriott, you mention in your testimony that the Columbia 

River watershed lies within the largest urban area in the State of 

Oregon, and the second largest urban area in the State of Washington. 

What is the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership currently doing to address the impacts of polluted stormwater runoff 

from these urbanized areas? And how do you envision a more robust program will aid in the effort to address stormwater runoff? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, 

thank you very much. 

One of our partners is the City of Portland, and another is Clark 

County and Vancouver on the Washington side of the river. We are 

working with them to I guess celebrate is a word we like to use, 

celebrate the development that is occurring that is what we call 

water quality friendly, where they are retaining stormwater onsite, 

preventing runoff, eliminating runoff of contaminated water into 

the streams that feed into the Columbia and the Columbia main 

stem. 

We do a lot of what we call peer to peer workshops so we will 

meet with developers and have developers that are aware of these 

and using these techniques, talk to their colleagues who aren’t 

using them, to share how you do it, how it is cost-effective, et 

cetera. 

The City of Portland is actually known nationally for its work in 

sustainability and green infrastructure, with eco-roofs and rain collection sites. Green Streets is a huge program as well. 

So we are trying to take those lessons and share them through 

our entire study area, both electronically using the Web to do that, 

as well as in our workshops throughout our city area. 

34 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much for answering that 

last question because to me the important question is how do we 

partner, what do we do? 

But to all the witnesses and to everybody here who have been 

so patient, thank you for your testimony. There will be an open period, I believe it is 10 business days, for any additional testimony 

and anybody who is of the Committee, of the panel, or of the general public who wishes to add to this hearing can submit it in writing to this Committee within 10 business working days. 

So with that, thank you so very much everybody, and this hearing is now concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

35 


Insert offset folio 15 here 56290.015
36 


Insert offset folio 16 here 56290.016
37 


Insert offset folio 17 here 56290.017
38 


Insert offset folio 18 here 56290.018
39 


Insert offset folio 19 here 56290.019
40 


Insert offset folio 20 here 56290.020
41 


Insert offset folio 12 here 56290.012
42 


Insert offset folio 13 here 56290.013
43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 56290.014
44 


Insert offset folio 21 here 56290.021
45 


Insert offset folio 22 here 56290.022
46 


Insert offset folio 23 here 56290.023
47 


Insert offset folio 24 here 56290.024
48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 56290.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 56290.026
50 


Insert offset folio 27 here 56290.027
51 


Insert offset folio 28 here 56290.028
52 


Insert offset folio 29 here 56290.029
53 


Insert offset folio 30 here 56290.030
54 


Insert offset folio 31 here 56290.031
55 


Insert offset folio 32 here 56290.032
56 


Insert offset folio 33 here 56290.033
57 


Insert offset folio 34 here 56290.034
58 


Insert offset folio 35 here 56290.035
59 


Insert offset folio 36 here 56290.036
60 


Insert offset folio 37 here 56290.037
61 


Insert offset folio 38 here 56290.038
62 


Insert offset folio 39 here 56290.039
63 


Insert offset folio 40 here 56290.040
64 


Insert offset folio 41 here 56290.041
65 


Insert offset folio 42 here 56290.042
66 


Insert offset folio 43 here 56290.043
67 


Insert offset folio 44 here 56290.044
68 


Insert offset folio 45 here 56290.045
69 


Insert offset folio 46 here 56290.046
70 


Insert offset folio 47 here 56290.047
71 


Insert offset folio 48 here 56290.048
72 


Insert offset folio 49 here 56290.049
73 


Insert offset folio 50 here 56290.050
74 


Insert offset folio 51 here 56290.051
75 


Insert offset folio 52 here 56290.052
76 


Insert offset folio 53 here 56290.053
77 


Insert offset folio 54 here 56290.054
78 


Insert offset folio 55 here 56290.055
79 


Insert offset folio 56 here 56290.056
80 


Insert offset folio 57 here 56290.057
81 


Insert offset folio 58 here 56290.058
82 


Insert offset folio 59 here 56290.059
83 


Insert offset folio 60 here 56290.060
84 


Insert offset folio 61 here 56290.061
85 


Insert offset folio 62 here 56290.062
86 


Insert offset folio 63 here 56290.063
87 


Insert offset folio 64 here 56290.064
88 


Insert offset folio 65 here 56290.065
89 


Insert offset folio 66 here 56290.066
90 


Insert offset folio 67 here 56290.067
91 


Insert offset folio 68 here 56290.068
92 


Insert offset folio 69 here 56290.069
93 


Insert offset folio 70 here 56290.070
94 


Insert offset folio 71 here 56290.071
95 


Insert offset folio 72 here 56290.072
96 


Insert offset folio 73 here 56290.073
97 


Insert offset folio 74 here 56290.074
98 


Insert offset folio 75 here 56290.075
99 


Insert offset folio 76 here 56290.076
100 


Insert offset folio 77 here 56290.077
101 


Insert offset folio 78 here 56290.078
102 


Insert offset folio 79 here 56290.079
103 


Insert offset folio 80 here 56290.080
104 


Insert offset folio 81 here 56290.081
105 


Insert offset folio 82 here 56290.082
106 


Insert offset folio 83 here 56290.083
107 


Insert offset folio 84 here 56290.084
108 


Insert offset folio 85 here 56290.085
109 


Insert offset folio 86 here 56290.086
110 


Insert offset folio 87 here 56290.087
111 


Insert offset folio 88 here 56290.088
112 


Insert offset folio 89 here 56290.089
113 


Insert offset folio 90 here 56290.090
114 


Insert offset folio 91 here 56290.091
115 


Insert offset folio 92 here 56290.092
116 


Insert offset folio 93 here 56290.093
117 


Insert offset folio 94 here 56290.094
118 


Insert offset folio 95 here 56290.095
119 


Insert offset folio 96 here 56290.096
120 


Insert offset folio 97 here 56290.097
121 


Insert offset folio 98 here 56290.098
122 


Insert offset folio 99 here 56290.099
123 


Insert offset folio 100 here 56290.100
124 


Insert offset folio 101 here 56290.101
125 


Insert offset folio 102 here 56290.102
126 


Insert offset folio 103 here 56290.103
127 


Insert offset folio 104 here 56290.104
128 


Insert offset folio 105 here 56290.105
129 


Insert offset folio 106 here 56290.106
130 


Insert offset folio 107 here 56290.107
131 


Insert offset folio 108 here 56290.108
132 


Insert offset folio 109 here 56290.109
133 


Insert offset folio 110 here 56290.110
134 


Insert offset folio 111 here 56290.111
135 


Insert offset folio 112 here 56290.112
136 


Insert offset folio 113 here 56290.113
137 


Insert offset folio 114 here 56290.114
138 


Insert offset folio 115 here 56290.115
139 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 116 here 56290.116