[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE P.L. 83-566
WATERSHED PROPOSALS FOR THE
DUNLOUP CREEK WATERSHED AND THE
CAPE COD WATER RESOURCES
RESTORATION PROJECT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
ENERGY, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 30, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-27
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-692 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
Pennsylvania CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff Nicole Scott, Minority Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel Director
April Slayton, Communications
Director
(ii)
?
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Chairman
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking
Dakota Minority Member
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado STEVE KING, Iowa
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JIM COSTA, California BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
Nona Darrell, Subcommittee Staff Director
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
opening statement.............................................. 2
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Rahall II, Nick J., a Representative in Congress from West
Virginia, prepared statement................................... 2
Witnesses
Delahunt, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from West
Massachusetts.................................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
White, Dave, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Submitted Material
Geist, Margaret, Executive Director, Association to Preserve Cape
Cod, submitted statement....................................... 15
Shumate, Mike, Board Member, Dunloup Creek Watershed Association,
submitted statement............................................ 16
HEARING TO REVIEW THE P.L. 83-566
WATERSHED PROPOSALS FOR THE
DUNLOUP CREEK WATERSHED AND THE CAPE COD WATER RESOURCES
RESTORATION PROJECT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim
Holden [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Holden, Boccieri, Massa,
Minnick, Goodlatte, Moran, Neugebauer, and Smith.
Staff present: Christy Birdsong, Nona Darrell, Adam Durand,
John Konya, Merrick Munday, Anne Simmons, April Slayton,
Rebekah Solem, Patricia Barr, Josh Maxwell, Pelham Straughn,
and Jamie Mitchell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research to review the Public
Law 83-566 watershed proposals for the Dunloup Creek Watershed
and the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration project will come
to order.
Small watershed programs authorized under Public Law 83-566
require that proposed watershed projects, with an estimated
Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of $5
million and no single structure exceeding 4,000 feet of total
capacity, be reviewed and approved by this Committee.
The Dunloup Creek Watershed is located in Fayette and
Raleigh Counties of West Virginia. The Cape Cod Water Resources
restoration project is located in 15 towns across Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. The project's sponsors have been working with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service to make sure that
the projects are sound and feasible. Today we will hear from
the gentleman from Massachusetts and NRCS. We hope this
testimony will concretely demonstrate the need for these
projects and the common good that may result upon completion of
the projects.
I have a similar project in Pennsylvania, the Tuplehocken
Watershed, which is actually nearing completion. I think it is
very important that we take care of these watersheds across
rural America and that we also address the backlog in these
projects. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
I recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate your calling today's hearing to review these
watershed proposals. The Committee must approve any watershed
project with construction costs over $5 million and no single
structure exceeding 4,000 acre feet of total capacity. Today we
will be given the opportunity to review two proposals that
exceed that statutory limit.
The last time the Committee was called to authorize a
project was in 2001 when we authorized the Buena Vista
Watershed in my district. This project, along with many others,
has reduced threats from floods, improved the environment,
increased economic development, and helped develop the
infrastructure on which many rural communities depend.
I hope to learn more about how NRCS will prioritize these
watershed projects. The watershed protection and flood
prevention operation currently has a backlog of $1.19 billion
worth of projects. Many of the projects that receive funding do
so through earmarked funds. I have concerns about adding such
high-cost projects without learning more about their objectives
and impacts on rural communities, especially when, by my
estimate, Members of this Committee have over 100 authorized
watershed projects awaiting Federal funding.
I also hope to learn more about the direct impacts that
these projects will have on agriculture and rural communities.
I look forward to hearing from our colleague, Congressman
Delahunt, and the NRCS as we learn more about these projects. I
hope that their testimony will demonstrate the need for the
projects and the common good that will result from their
completion, and I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony and we can ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, a Representative in
Congress from West Virginia
Mr. Chairman,
First, let me start by thanking you for calling this important
hearing today. As you know, this hearing is of great importance to the
Dunloup Creek Watershed Association and the people of southern West
Virginia.
Dunloup Creek is a 16.2 mile long watershed that runs through five
communities in my Congressional District--Kilsyth, Mount Hope, Glen
Jean, Red Star, and Harvey, West Virginia. This watershed has
historically been susceptible to serious flooding causing great
hardship to the West Virginians who live there and the surrounding
communities.
The Dunloup Creek Watershed Association has a long history in West
Virginia. Since its inception in 1964, the Dunloup Creek Watershed
Association has been working to protect the watershed, the surrounding
environment, and all the residents.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Dunloup Creek Watershed Association
is seeking funding for the 2007 National Resource Conservation
Service's Voluntary Buyout Program. Funding for this crucial program
would be a huge step toward helping these residents gain relief from
the serious flooding that occurs in the watershed.
There are 290 homes in the floodplain which represent roughly 1,160
West Virginian citizens. These residents have dealt with the negative
consequences of reoccurring flooding for far too long.
After much work, too much time, and far too much damage from
flooding, many of the residents believe that the best option that they
have to protect themselves and their families is to participate in the
Voluntary Buyout Program. As the name suggests, the program is
voluntary and the Dunloup Creek Watershed Association is going door-to-
door to ensure that every single resident is notified about this
option.
I believe that this program will greatly help these strong and
resourceful West Virginians lead new lives free from the fears of
constant flooding.
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to once again thank you for holding
this hearing and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the Dunloup
Creek Watershed Association here today.
The Chairman. We would like to welcome our first witness to
the table today, the Hon. William D. Delahunt, Member of
Congress from the 10th Congressional District of Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Delahunt. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Goodlatte, and Members of the Committee for inviting me to
speak today on behalf of the Cape Cod Water Resources
Restoration Project, which is critical to the fishing and
shellfishing industries in my district.
As many in Washington are aware, Cape Cod is celebrated
nationally as a thriving tourist destination and retirement
area. It is a special place that is treasured for its beaches,
its quaint character, historic villages and scenic vistas.
However, in contrast to this postcard image, there is a
different reality. It is a Cape Cod with a year-round community
living largely on low wages and fixed incomes that are
struggling to survive.
When you remove the tourism and retirement sectors of the
Cape's economy, what you note is an economy that is driven year
round by the building trades and the fishing and shellfishing
and cranberry industries. It is a largely blue-collar worker
that provides median family incomes well below the state and
national average. Median income for a family of four is about
ten percent below the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
national average. These jobs define the true character of Cape
Cod and they have been the source of income for working
families for generations.
And today, Mr. Chairman, these industries are in serious
difficulty. Cranberry growers now compete with developers for
choice real estate to sustain their crops. Fishermen compete
with much larger and well-financed fleets as well as depleted
fisheries. Shellfishermen are faced with many threats including
red tide, road and fertilizer runoff, and coastal development
that has shut down hundreds of acres of coastal waters.
The current trends are not pretty. Unless we take
aggressive action now, we could very well see these industries
disappear. These problems are not unique to Cape Cod. These
trends are affecting communities along the entire East Coast.
Unless we find ways here in Washington to help these industries
survive, these people will go out of business. Our coastal
areas are on the verge of becoming the exclusive playground of
the rich.
I am quite fortunate as a Congressman to have a dedicated
team of local, state and national officials who understand this
reality and our dedicated to preserving old Cape Cod. We are
also fortunate to have the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service to help these traditional industries
survive in the face of these overwhelming pressures, and to
help us address the direct threats facing the future of our
shellfishing industry on Cape Cod.
The initiative now before this Committee is the result of
many years of hard work and extensive collaboration with
hundreds of officials, agencies and community leaders. NRCS
brought together local officials, state agencies, county
government and nonprofit conservation groups like the
Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, and of course,
shellfishermen. They designed this project to restore the
quality of our coastal waters and bring back shellfish beds
that have been shut down or at the risk of closure.
The initiative identifies 75 water restoration initiatives,
all in individual local communities across the region. The
estimated cost of the project, as you noted, Mr. Goodlatte, is
$30 million. It will produce a much-needed economic boost to
our region and create an estimated 543 jobs, primarily in the
area of construction and engineering. But more importantly,
this will also create thousands of full- and part-time jobs in
the shellfish industry.
The NRCS and the Obama Administration have made this
initiative one of their top priorities. It has broad support
throughout the region. Funding is readily available so that we
can put people to work right away to restore these coastal
waters.
Now, we understand that there are some outstanding
questions that I would like to address for the record.
Questions have been raised about whether Cape Cod is a rural
area and still qualifies for funding. Well, the NRCS has
determined that the area is rural, and I agree with their
assessment and conclusion. The NRCS policy on small watershed
projects defines rural as communities with populations less
than 50,000. All 15 towns on the Cape have populations that
meet this criterion. It may interest you to know that Cape Cod
also receives rural funding from the Department of Education,
the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as other
Federal agencies.
We have also been asked whether the shellfish beds that
would benefit are farmed beds. The project does indeed benefit
farmed or harvested shellfish beds. We expect these areas to be
used by commercial shellfishermen and we have a statement from
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to support this. It is my
understanding that it is part of the record. We can provide
additional documentation and information to the Committee
should it be necessary.
On behalf of the residents of Cape Cod, I would like to
conclude by expressing my hope that you will endorse the Cape
Cod Water Resources Restoration Project. I want to state for
the record how proud I am to have the Department of Agriculture
and the dedicated professionals of the NRCS like Don Kearnan,
who is here today, as partners working with my office and our
communities as we strive to protect the future of Cape Cod and
cranberry and fishing and its shellfish industries.
So on behalf of thousands of hardworking people in my
district who depend on these jobs, I want to thank them and I
want to thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Delahunt, a Representative in Congress
from Massachusetts
Good morning. I want to thank you Chairman Holden, Ranking Member
Goodlatte and Members of the Committee--for inviting me to speak today
on behalf of the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project. I am
here to testify in strong support of this project--which is so critical
to the fishing and shellfishing industries in my district.
As many here in Washington know, Cape Cod is known around the
country as a thriving tourist destination and retirement area. It is a
special place that is treasured for its beaches, its quaint character
historic villages and scenic vistas. However, in contrast to this post
card image, is a far more realistic portrait. It is a Cape Cod, with a
year round community, living largely on low wages and fixed incomes,
that is struggling to survive.
When you take away the tourism and retirement sectors of the Cape's
economy, what you have is an economy driven year round by the building
trades, and the fishing, shell-fishing and cranberry industries. It is
largely blue collar work that provides median family incomes well below
the state and national average. These jobs define the true character of
Cape Cod, and they have been the source of income for working families
for generations.
Today, these industries are in serious trouble.
Cranberry growers now compete with developers for choice real
estate to sustain their crops. Fishermen compete with much larger well
financed vessels and depleted fish stocks. Shellfishermen are faced
with many threats, including red tide, road and fertilizer run-off, and
coastal development that has shut down hundreds of acres of coastal
waters.
The current trends are not pretty.
Unless we take aggressive action now, we could very well see these
industries disappear. These problems are not unique to Cape Cod, these
trends are affecting communities along the entire East coast. But
unless we find ways here in Washington, to help these industries
survive, these people will go out of business. Our coastal areas are on
the verge of becoming the exclusive playgrounds of the rich.
I am quite fortunate as a Congressman to have a dedicated team of
local, state and regional officials who understand this stark reality
and are dedicated to preventing this from happening. We are also
fortunate to have the USDA, the Soil Conservation Service, and the
Natural Resources Conservation Services--or the ``NRCS'' all pitching
in, to help these traditional industries survive in the face of these
overwhelming pressures and to help us address the direct threats facing
the future of our shellfishing industry on Cape Cod.
The initiative now before this Committee, is the result of many
years of hard work and extensive collaboration with hundreds of
officials, agencies and community leaders. The NRCS brought together
local officials, state agencies, county government and nonprofit
conservation groups--like the Association for the Preservation of Cape
Cod and even shellfishermen. They designed this project to restore the
quality of our coastal waters and bring back shellfish beds that have
been shut down or are at risk of closure.
The initiative identifies seventy five water-restoration
initiatives, all in individual local communities across the Cape Cod
region. The estimated cost of the project is $30 million. It will
produce a much-needed economic boost to our region and create an
estimated 543 jobs primarily in the areas of construction and
engineering, but will also create thousands of full and part time jobs
in the shellfish industry.
The NRCS and the Obama Administration have made this initiative one
of its top priorities. It has broad support throughout my district.
Funding is readily available so that we can put people to work right
away restoring these coastal waters.
We understand that there are a couple of outstanding question that
I would like to address for the record--
Questions have been raised about whether Cape Cod is a ``rural''
area and still qualifies for funding. Let me address this head-on. The
NRCS has determined that the area is rural. I agree with their
assessment.
The NRCS policy on small watershed projects defines rural as
communities with populations less than 50,000. All five towns on the
Cape have populations that meet these criteria. It may interest you to
know that Cape Cod also receives ``rural'' funding from the Departments
of Education, Health and Human Services, and other Federal agencies.
We have also been asked whether the shellfish beds that would
benefit are ``farmed'' beds. The project does benefit farmed or
``harvested'' shellfish beds. We expect these areas to be used by
commercial shellfishermen, and we have a statement from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to back this up. We can provide
additional documentation and information to the Committee, should it be
necessary.
On behalf of the residents of Cape Cod, I would like to conclude by
expressing my hope that you will endorse the Cape Cod Water Resources
Restoration Project. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
before this Committee in strong support for this project. I want to
state for the record how proud I am to have the Department of
Agriculture and the dedicated professionals of the NRCS as partners
working with me and our communities as we strive to protect the future
of our cranberry, fishing and shellfish industries on Cape Cod.
On behalf of the thousands of hardworking people in my district who
depend on these jobs, I want to thank them, and thank you.
Attachment
Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.Mr. Goodlatte. If I might just add a word?
The Chairman. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Goodlatte. My friend from Massachusetts knows that my father
grew up on Cape Cod and graduated from Barnesville High School. I know
well the gentleman's love of Cape Cod and I would be willing to bet,
even though I can't see it from here, that there is a Cape Cod design
on his tie.
Mr. Delahunt. In fact, this is the tie that was presented to me,
Mr. Goodlatte, by the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Smith. I don't know if you were there on that particular occasion, but
it certainly is one of the highlights of my Congressional career.
Mr. Goodlatte. And Mr. Smith is also a lover of the Cape.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. Thank you, Mr.
Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you.
The Chairman. We would now like to welcome our second panel, Mr.
Dave White, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service from the
United States Department of Agriculture. Mr. White, you may begin when
you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DAVE WHITE, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. White. Good morning. It is grand to be here, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Ranking Member, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, to discuss
the Dunloup Creek Watershed and the Cape Cod project. These are both
large-scale watershed projects that are going to provide economic and
environmental benefits to the community should this Committee choose to
authorize them. As the Ranking Member and the Chairman said, the reason
we are here today is because the statutory requirement of the size of
certain watersheds require Congressional authorization.
I want to stress right now my view of NRCS. This is not our
program. These are not our plans. We are the stewards of these
programs. We will try to be faithful stewards and we want to be humble
in how we operate these programs. The plans before you we worked with
closely, over many years, with the local sponsors, but I think both Mr.
Kearnan and Mr. Shumate would agree that these are the local sponsors'
plans that we helped with.
Let us start with Dunloup Creek. This is essentially a floodplain
buyout. This is an area of West Virginia where there have been
continual flooding. In fact, there have been 15 flood events since
1986. There are about 203 acres inside this watershed that constitute
the project area. There are roughly 300 homes, businesses, and churches
that would be eligible for this buyout. We are estimating that about 80
percent would take advantage of it, which is about 238, which is the
number in the testimony. Projected cost is $13.9 million, about $12\1/
2\ million is Federal. The reason the Federal share is high is we do
pay 100 percent of flood control or flood mitigation costs.
A key point here, this is a buyout. The Federal Government will not
own this land. It will be held in fee title by the county and there
will be a deed restriction that would prevent development on this land
in the future.
Cape Cod, Mr. Delahunt's testimony gave a good summary of that.
This is a $30 million project that would impact all of Cape Cod and the
15 communities located there. It is essentially three items really. A
lot of the past roadwork in that area has restricted the flow of the
tides in and out of the tidal marsh. You have a lot of freshwater in
those marshes now. You have big problems with phragmites, which is an
invasive reed. If we can open up those culverts to allow the water to
flow in and out, we can restore those. Mr. Delahunt mentioned a lot of
the closures of the shellfish beds. Part of this project is working on
26 high-priority areas where stormwater is polluting these beds. We are
looking at constructed wetlands, we are looking at sand traps, we are
looking at leach fields that would be similar to a septic system where
the first flush of the water would come in and then infiltrate. We are
also looking at about 24 areas where fish passages would benefit
anadromous fish. These are fish that are born in freshwater, they spend
their life in the saltwater and they come back to spawn, and if they
hit a dam or if there is a culvert that is askew, they just can't get
through, so there would be about 24 of those restored.
This Committee has shown an enthusiasm for these projects. As Mr.
Goodlatte mentioned, the last time we were before you all was in 2001
with Buena Vista. NRCS does enthusiastically support these projects. We
hope that the Committee will join us in that as well, and that would
conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave White, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Dunloup Creek
Watershed project and the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project.
These two projects are large-scale watershed projects that, should they
be implemented, would provide environmental and economic benefits to
the local communities. The plans for these projects were developed by
local sponsors with the help of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).
The local sponsors of the Cape Cod restoration project include the
Commissioners of Barnstable County, Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the Cape Cod Conservation District, and all 15 towns
across the Cape Cod peninsula. The local sponsors of the Dunloup Creek
Watershed project are Fayette County Commission, the City of Mount
Hope, the Southern Conservation District and the West Virginia State
Conservation Committee. In compliance with statute, these sponsors have
requested that their project plans, developed with the assistance of
NRCS, be authorized for funding. The authorizing legislation for the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations program (Watershed
Operations) stipulates that before appropriations can be enacted for
proposed watershed projects with an estimated Federal contribution in
excess of $5,000,000 with no single structure exceeding 4,000 acre feet
of total capacity require approval resolutions by the House and Senate
Committees on Agriculture. These Committees last took action in this
program in 2001 when they approved funding for the Buena Vista
Watershed Project in Virginia.
Both Dunloup Creek and Cape Cod have gone through an exhaustive,
multi-year planning process to examine the scope of the issues and
evaluate a range of alternative courses of action. NRCS supports the
authorization of both projects.
Dunloup Creek Watershed Project
The Dunloup Creek Watershed project is designed to alleviate flood
damage and improve water quality in an area with a population of
approximately 3,000 people in Fayette and Raleigh Counties, West
Virginia. Parts of five communities in the project area have been
impacted by repeated flooding--15 events since 1986. Two particularly
devastating floods occurred in 2001 and 2004. The project plan
determined that traditional structural flood mitigation measures,
including dams, channels, floodwalls, dredging, and flood proofing
would not be effective or cost-efficient in reducing flood damages. All
of these alternatives were evaluated against environmental and economic
considerations in an effort to find a solution to the resource
concerns. Through the planning process, the local sponsors identified a
voluntary floodplain buyout as the most cost-effective and feasible
option for the impacted communities.
The plan consists of a voluntary buyout of 238 threatened
properties currently located within the 100 year floodplain. Buildings
and other facilities would be removed from up to 203 acres to restore
the floodplain to more natural conditions. Property obtained would be
maintained in perpetuity by the local sponsors as natural floodplain.
The estimated total cost of the project is $13.9 million, of which the
Federal share is $12.5 million. The flood mitigation, water quality and
wildlife benefits offered by the Dunloup Creek Watershed project are
significant, and this effort affords USDA an opportunity to make a real
difference in an economically distressed area of the country.
Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project
The Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project would impact 15
different communities in Barnstable County on the Cape Cod peninsula.
Approximately 58% of the project area is composed of cropland,
forestland, grassland, wetlands, and open land. Each of the communities
that are cosponsoring the project has a population of less than 50,000,
meeting the programmatic definition of ``rural communities.'' The total
permanent, year-round population on Cape Cod is approximately 222,200.
The watershed restoration project would address several significant
problems across the Cape, including degraded salt marshes, restricted
anadromous fish runs, and declining water quality of shellfish areas.
The project plan indicates that pollutants in stormwater runoff are
negatively impacting water quality, particularly as it relates to
shellfish beds. The project would also directly address fish migration
barriers. In addition, tidal wetland restoration called for in the
project plan will improve ecosystem function, provide improved fish and
wildlife habitat, and help control the spread of invasive plant
species.
The project plan recommends the following restoration actions:
1. Restoration of salt marshes and anadromous fish runs through
structural measures. Examples of these structural measures
include water control structures, fish ladders, and culvert
enlargement for tidally restricted salt marshes.
2. Restore and protect shellfish beds by treating stormwater
runoff. Examples of improvements include constructed wetlands,
infiltration basins or trenches, dry wells and sand filters,
and vegetative filters.
The project plan recommends carrying out 26 priority salt marsh
restoration projects, 24 priority fish passage obstruction remediation
projects, and 26 priority stormwater remediation projects. The
estimated total cost of the Cape Cod project is $30 million, with the
Federal share being $24 million. Implementation of the Cape Cod Water
Resources Restoration Project would lead to the resolution of
significant land and water management problems for rural communities
across Cape Cod, provide benefits to fish and wildlife, and improve the
health and economic viability of the Cape's shellfish beds.
I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present these
projects and request their authorization. We believe that the vision
and needs of the local communities have been well crafted and
articulated in both proposals, and that the local sponsors have worked
hard to define their goals and hopes for the future of their
communities in both West Virginia and Massachusetts. This concludes my
statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions the
Subcommittee might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. White.
Can you please describe how these two projects compare in
cost to other watershed proposals that have been authorized by
the Committee?
Mr. White. Oh, there are a variety of costs. Cape Cod would
be at the higher end, $30 million is a lot. Dunloup would be
midrange. There are also several projects that are
significantly less. In fact, when I became Chief, Mr. Chairman,
I became Chief the day before you had me up here earlier this
year on the financial audit hearing, there were six watershed
plans at USDA, at NRCS. Two of them we are dealing with right
now, Dunloup and Cape Cod. There were four others that were
less than $5 million. Some were significantly less, which the
Chief is allowed to authorize. So I would say Dunloup is
midrange, Cape Cod is higher range and there are a bunch in the
lower end.
The Chairman. How does current backlog of applications
compare to the current funding level, and how much stimulus
money did you receive and did that really make a dent in the
backlog?
Mr. White. Yes, it did. We were very fortunate, got $145
million for watershed operations. We also had other funds for
different accounts, we were actually able to use merit-based
selection criteria, and we were able to fund some of
Tuplehocken Creek out of that funding. The track record of the
small watershed program is that it is heavily, heavily
earmarked. It is almost exclusively earmarked. It makes it
difficult for the agency to select projects that we feel are of
the highest environmental and economic good. We were able to do
that with the stimulus funding, though. But you are right, we
do have a large $1.2 billion backlog, but as for how we can
ever meet that--the program is heavily earmarked.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. White, and welcome. We are
delighted to have you with us. Can you tell us what the basic
criteria are for projects to be accepted and what are the
agricultural rural criteria?
Mr. White. Well, they have to meet the statutory
requirements, which is primarily flood control. They all have
to have water quality. We have options for municipal industrial
water. If you look at Buena Vista, that was pretty much--you
are very familiar with that. That was the flood wall and those
basins to catch the water coming down. So these are the
criteria that we go through. Every project also has to have at
least 20 percent ag benefits in it. That was part of the
authorizing legislation so you wouldn't see NRCS doing projects
in downtown St. Louis or something like that. The statute does
say 20 percent ag benefits including rural communities, so for
about 20 years the agency, at least that I know of for 20
years, has interpreted that phrase rural communities meaning
that we could assist areas that have a population of less than
50,000. In fact, I still have the original letter that uses the
old Farmers Home Administration definition on that.
Mr. Goodlatte. And do you feel that the Cape Cod proposal
fits into those?
Mr. White. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. All 15 communities
are less than 50,000. It meets that criteria. And actually----
Mr. Goodlatte. What about the flood control and the 20
percent agricultural benefit?
Mr. White. Well, the nonpoint source addresses that part of
Cape Cod. The 20 percent, actually if you look at the U.S.
Census of agriculture, 47 percent of the benefits of this
project do accrue to agriculture because they do include
shellfish harvesting and fisheries in that.
Mr. Goodlatte. And how do the cost share ratios for this
project compare to other authorized projects?
Mr. White. The statutory requirement, Mr. Goodlatte, is, we
use the cost share ratio that is the prevailing rate of the
national cost share program. When this authorizing language--
when the program was signed into law, that would have been the
old ACP program, Agriculture Conservation Program. Today we
would use the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, kind of
the prevailing national program, and that is about 75 percent.
Now, for pure flood control, we go up to 100 percent and that
is where you see most of Dunloup Creek.
Mr. Goodlatte. Obviously with a $1.2 billion backlog of
projects like this, many of us are interested in where the
various projects that are going to be undertaken are going to
be ranked. I would like to ask you how you anticipate these two
proposals being ranked amidst all the other projects that are
already authorized.
Mr. White. I know. I struggled with this, Mr. Goodlatte. I
knew this question was going to be coming, why are you adding
another $42 million to something that has already got a huge
backlog, and that is a valid, honorable, decent question. I am
going to try and respond to it.
First, when we talk about this $1.2 billion backlog, I have
asked NRCS staff to go back and review these backlog projects.
Some of these projects, as you know, sir, have been on the
books for decades, and they just haven't been funded because we
can't break through that earmark barrier. So how many of these
have old NEPA things? What has changed in the intervening
years? What kind of technology--if we look at this with fresh
eyes, would we change something on these projects? And what I
would like is for a bit of time so I can come back to this
Committee and say okay, of this $1.2 billion we think we have
$600 million really great and we have to work on these others.
So please accept that caveat when we talk about the $1.2
billion.
The other thing is, I am going to carry out the law. There
were six projects that went through the entire process when I
became Chief. There had been a policy decision made that says
don't send any more projects in here. I didn't think that as a
bureaucrat, a middle-aged, somewhat paunchy bureaucrat, that I
should sit there and say well, Dunloup can go and Cape Cod can
stay and this one can go. I went ahead and authorized the ones
I could, and I have put these other two before this Committee
for your consideration and you can make that assessment on
whether or not to put them in there, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, since my time is running low, let me
ask you, what kind of sources of funding you are expecting in
the immediate future? Did you get any stimulus funds? If so,
how much? How much of that $1.2 billion that currently exists
do you think you can address this coming year?
Mr. White. We received $145 million from the stimulus and
it is all gone. It is out there. We used merit-based criteria
to address that. The funding methodology we use for the
watershed program is: first, any funds Congress provides we use
for technical assistance on projects that are underway. So, if
Buena Vista was funded last year, we are going to make sure
that they have the engineering staff to continue ongoing
projects. Second criterion would be, is there a problem, was
there a design flaw, did something come out, is there a human
safety issue, and we would use funds to do that. So that would
be the second criterion. The third criterion of funding is
earmarks. If by some unbelievable change we would get past
that, that brings us to the criteria where Dunloup and Cape Cod
and every other project would be. At the fourth level after we
work through existing projects, repair needs, earmarks and so
Dunloup and the other $1.2 billion would be in the fourth
category.
Mr. Goodlatte. And what do you anticipate having available
to you next year as you see it right now? And I know you don't
get to make that decision but just to get a ballpark picture.
Of $1.2 billion, how much of that will you have funds to
address?
Mr. White. I think the 2010 projection is around $40
million.
Mr. Goodlatte. So----
Mr. White. I am sorry. I was exuberantly overconfident. It
is $20 to $25 million.
Mr. Goodlatte. So we are talking about less than two
percent of what you need to address being available to you?
Mr. White. Yes, and that is probably all earmarked.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I certainly
don't object to the desires and the projects that other people
want to add. I just want to point out the difficult
circumstances we already find ourselves in in trying to address
what is on the books.
So I thank you. I thank Congressman Delahunt. This is
definitely something that needs attention and I appreciate your
input.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Massa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chief
White, for your service in the field. I would like to associate
myself with the comments from the honorable gentleman from Cape
Cod. In my youth, I had the privilege of vacationing in that
area and can testify firsthand as to the merits of the projects
put before us today. I would also like to add, knowing very
well the backlog that has just been discussed, there is
somewhat of a sense of urgency with respect to restoration of
freshwater-saltwater interchange marshes. This is not something
that can go on for decades. They can get to a point of
marginality where restoration can still happen, but dropping
below that you will not be able to restore them. There has to
be a certain amount of freshwater-saltwater interchange stock
from which you can then derive the replenishment, and Chief
White, I hope that I am accurate in that assumption.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. Massa. Having spent some time in the field of coastal
biology--I am going way back now but nonetheless, it is
something that I know a little bit of. I would urge you to
place these particular projects with some measure of priority,
even considering the exceptional limited funding and the
overall fiscal environment in which we all operate under today.
I would also like to add a word in support of a relatively
unheralded industry that, frankly, goes largely unrecognized
except for a few TV advertisements, and that is the cranberry
industry. As a cancer survivor, I can tell you today that that
particular industry is pretty much at the forefront of high-
oxidant nutrient supplements. It is getting a great deal of
attention in both the holistic medicine and the conventional
medicine field for cranberry derivatives, and I would,
understanding the concentration of the cranberry industry in
one particular state, frankly in almost one particular
Congressional district, we are looking at about 80 percent of
the production in one area. I would be very concerned to see
that farm--and we often don't think of it as a farming product
but it is--left unattended and, no pun intended, withering on
the vine. So I would like to associate myself with the remarks
of the two witnesses today and offer any and all assistance
that I can make as we move forward on this.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief White, has the NRCS ever done a full buyout through
the watershed operations?
Mr. White. We actually have a couple underway. One that
comes to my mind is Neshaminy Creek, Pennsylvania. It is
underway right now in the floodplain, wherein this particular
area individuals can choose a buyout or they also have the
option of elevation to kind of put the house on stilts, so yes,
sir, we do. I think that was around $16 million. I could be way
off on that, though.
Mr. Smith. And then how successful do you anticipate the
Dunloup Creek voluntary buyout to be? Could you maybe describe
what you see happening or what might happen?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. Mr. Shumate is here from Dunloup and
we were visiting ahead of time. The universe is like around 300
homes, businesses, churches, and we were hoping for maybe 230,
somewhere around 80 percent of that. He told me right now there
are over 112 that have signed up for it. So, 50 percent of that
goal is already met and people are going door to door to make
sure every person knows that they have this option, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. And how many projects in the last 2 years have
gone on to the list by the approval of the NRCS Chief?
Mr. White. In the last 2 years, exactly four, which have
occurred since March of this year when I approved four smaller
projects--I am sorry--authorized four smaller projects. We are
actually not talking about funding here. We are talking about
authorization. The funding would occur in those other
committees.
Mr. Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. White, and thank you, Mr.
Delahunt, for your testimony today.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement of Margaret Geist, Executive Director, Association
to Preserve Cape Cod
July 30, 2009
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the
Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project (the Project). The
Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the largest environmental
advocacy group on Cape Cod, is the founder and coordinator of the
Coalition for the Cape Cod Watershed Project. The coalition includes
the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce and 25 other organizations. APCC also
holds two seats on the Coastal Resources Committee, a committee
appointed by the Barnstable County Commissioners to address coastal
issues.
The Project will result in the restoration of 7,300 acres of
shellfish beds, 4,200 acres of migratory fish runs and 1,500 acres of
degraded salt marshes on Cape Cod, all of which are critical to the
economic vitality and ecological integrity of the region.
The proposed Project will bring much needed economic benefits to
Barnstable County, which has the second highest unemployment rate in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of
Unemployment Assistance, seasonally unadjusted unemployment for
Barnstable County in March 2009 was 10.9 percent, compared to 6.8
percent in March of 2008.
Full Project funding will generate an estimated 543 person years of
employment. Approximately $18 million will go toward direct
construction and $10 million toward engineering and construction. As
the building and construction trades have been particularly hard-hit by
the current recession, this project will provide a crucial boost to the
region's workforce.
Commercial and recreational shellfishing are important components
of the Cape's economy. In 2004, the estimated value of commercial and
recreational shellfish landings was $8.57 million. This value does not
include the price of permits, licenses, shellfishing equipment and all
the revenue attributable to the restaurant trade and visitor
accommodations. Funding for the Project will result in the protection
and restoration of 7,300 acres of shellfish habitat. This large
addition to the area of shellfish beds will substantially increase the
contribution of shellfishing to the region's economy.
A study by the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce in the 1990s found that
coastal tourism accounted for $1.2 billion of the total annual economy
of Cape Cod and that beaches and coastal recreation were the number one
tourist attraction in the region. It is expected that the Project will
benefit coastal tourism in a number of ways. For example, improving
water quality for shellfish beds through storm drain remediation
projects will enhance water quality for other recreational uses.
Restoring migratory fish runs will provide additional opportunities for
residents and visitors to witness the spring herring runs on Cape Cod,
a seasonal experience that already attracts many people.
Numerous environmental benefits will also accrue from the Project.
Salt marshes create the foundation of a coastal food web that supports
a large variety of coastal fish and bird species. They also provide
vital nesting and breeding habitats for migratory waterfowl along the
Atlantic Flyway. Coastal wetlands serve as important nursery and
spawning grounds for many commercially and recreationally important
fish and shellfish species. Running through many salt marshes are
streams and rivers that provide passageways for migratory fish,
including smelt, American shad, herring, eels and trout as they travel
to and from spawning grounds. These species are targeted by active
fisheries but also serve as an important food source for high-ranking
predators such as striped bass and bluefish.
Seaward of the marshes in the shallow coastal waters are acres of
shellfish beds from which oysters, bay scallops, clams, and the like
provide food for many species.
Restoration of salt marshes will assist in buffering coastal
storms, thereby helping to protect public and private properties. Salt
marsh restoration may enhance our ability to adapt to sea level rise,
as new culverts facilitate the natural flow of tidal water into the
marsh and reduce flooding on the seaward side of the culvert.
Salt marshes also absorb pollutants and nutrients. The nutrient
issue is particularly important for Cape Cod, where communities are
only just beginning to address the extraordinary costs of wastewater
infrastructure.
Restoration of fish runs and passages, and to some extent,
restoration of salt marshes, increases the viability of migrating fish
species, many of which have experienced severely declining populations,
in recent years.
The Project will offer tangible economic and societal benefits to
individuals and communities on Cape Cod. There are real people behind
the numbers and dollars of projects such as this one. For example, the
restoration and subsequent reopening of a coastal pond to shellfishing
provided my son with funds to help pay for his college education. Today
my son teaches history at a local high school. There are numerous
studies such as the above where the availability of abundant and
healthy natural resources provides substantial contributions to
individuals and to the overall wellbeing of communities.
There is overwhelming support for this project in the region, from
the fifteen towns that participated in the development of the plan, to
the state agencies charged with protecting salt marshes, fish runs and
shellfish beds, to the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce and the other
member organizations of the Coalition for the Cape Cod Watershed
Project. This is truly a locally led project that has broad public and
state support.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the
Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project.
Sincerely,
______
Submitted Statement of Mike Shumate, Board Member, Dunloup Creek
Watershed Association
29 July 2009
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Agriculture
Committee, my name is Mike Shumate and as a Board Member of the Dunloup
Creek Watershed Association, I'm here today representing our officers,
members, and homeowners who reside in the floodplain seeking relief
from the ongoing floods. Dunloup Creek is a 16.2 mile long watershed
which trails through five communities before emptying into the New
River. These communities are Kilsyth, Mount Hope, Glen Jean, Red Star,
and Harvey. The relief we seek is funding for the 2007 NRCS Voluntary
Buyout Program.
Our association is one of the oldest active groups in West Virginia
dating back to 1964. We are the stewards of our watershed and take
great pride in our efforts to protect our environment and our friends
and neighbors. We are the ones that wade into the stream to remove
everything from kitchen appliances, exercise equipment, hot water
tanks, cement piers, tires, 50 gallon drums, and carpet. We have been
seeking relief from the ravages of flooding for forty-five years which
encompasses three Watershed Plans dated 1976-1998--and May 2007.
The first study dated in 1976 was to construct a channel around the
communities of Glen Jean and Mount Hope. However, the efforts to fund
were de-authorized in 1984. This was followed by a second study that
produced a Local Implementation Plan published in 1998 which proposed
the construction of two earthen dams above the community of Kilsyth on
Dunloup Creek and another on Mill Creek. However, this plan lacked the
necessary assessment of all hydraulic, environmental, economic, and
cultural concerns needed to proceed toward a funding request.
Therefore, two studies and twenty-two years passed without resolution
to our flooding and its impact upon our homes and properties.
You must understand the frustration felt by our officers, members,
and homeowners over these many years that we couldn't get to a funded
solution. Our watershed association has seen seven Chairmen come and go
over the last forty-five years but we continued on in our efforts. Our
motto being ``Willing to help ourselves but will enjoy your helpful
company.''
Then along came the floods of 2001 and 2004, the two 2001 floods
occurred within 10 days of each other. Floods that were deemed 30 year
floods and with that penned identity we all became alarmed at what must
a 100 year flood entail. It became apparent to us that this would be
loss of lives and homes. We now fully understand the urgency of getting
out of this floodplain.
We understand with the many years of sedimentation buildup in our
stream beds that 1 to 2 inch rainstorms cause the stream to overflow
its banks. The storm of 2001 was a rain event of eleven inches in less
than 4 hours. The water rose quickly and rushed through our yards,
automobiles, and homes. Those two floods alone cost $29.5 million
dollars in damages and those figures come directly from the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Risk Assessment report by the Fayette County Office
of Emergency Services.
The 290 homes that reside within the floodplain represent about
1,160 family members. These residents, within the five communities,
have seen their homes devalued due to these floods. Every rain event
makes us nervous as we continually check the rising water. We're all
used to having lime spread over our lawns to kill the bacteria left in
the aftermath of flood waters. This is extremely unhealthy for our
children and other family members.
Our renewed efforts following the 2001 and 2004 floods made us
realize we had to form partnerships with our county, state, and Federal
agencies. We needed sponsors and our watershed needed to become more
active and communicate with our members and everyone that agreed to
partner with us toward a common goal of getting a viable plan to get us
out of the floodplain. We worked with everyone from our Governor, state
delegates, state senators, Senators and Congressmen, agency heads
representing the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Southern
Conservation District, WV Conservation Agency, Fayette County
Commission, Office of Emergency Services, and the New River Gorge
National Park Service.
This Voluntary Buyout Plan offers the best option of any before us.
We have the support of our residents and beginning on 15 June through 1
September 2009 we are taking applications for those who wish to be
considered for buyout option. Again, this is a voluntary program and we
are going door-to-door to make sure 100% notification of all the
residents. Response to date has been overwhelming. We have a special
``Question & Answers'' session scheduled for 6 August followed by a
``housing fair'' on 9 August 2009. We are working hard, along with our
sponsors, to insure the best outcome for everyone.
Our watershed motto, ``Willing to help ourselves but will enjoy
your helpful company'' is at the point where we need the support of
each and every Member of this Agriculture Committee. We have worked
extremely hard to get this project to this Committee room here in the
Longworth House Office Building. I will be seated in the Agriculture
Committee room on Thursday 30 July 2009 and will carry back my
experiences to my fellow West Virginians.
Make my travels home be one with a message that we now have a new
sponsor and that being the House Agriculture Committee. Thanks for this
opportunity.
Mike Shumate,
Board Member,
Dunloup Creek Watershed Association.