[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10571-S10581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. Kaufman):
  S. 1801. A bill to establish the First State National Historical Park 
in the State of Delaware, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am delighted to be joined this afternoon 
by my colleague, Senator Kaufman, from Delaware. Today, he and I are 
going to do something I don't think has ever been done in the Senate in 
the 200 years since this institution has been together. We will be 
introducing legislation which will establish the First State National 
Historic Park within the State of Delaware.
  There are, as we all know, 50 States, and 49 States have national 
parks. In all, there are 58 national parks. There are something like 
more than 300 units of national parks. The first State to ratify the 
Constitution--that would be Delaware--was the entire United States of 
America for 1 week beginning December 7, 1787, and it still has no 
national park--not that we don't have historical and cultural heritage 
that is noteworthy in Delaware.
  Think back roughly 400 years ago when the first settlements in this 
country from Europe were that of the Dutch in what is now Lewes, DE. 
And 372 years ago, the Swedes and Finns sailed across the Atlantic 
Ocean up the Delaware Bay and the Delaware River, took a left turn on 
the river they decided to name after the child queen of Sweden, 
Christina, and established the colony of New Sweden and what is now 
known as Wilmington, DE.
  To the south in Dover, DE, at the Golden Fleece Tavern for roughly 3 
days in December 1787, 25 or so men holed up in the Golden Fleece 
Tavern drinking what I describe as hot chocolate in order to decide 
whether the State of Delaware was going to be the first State to ratify 
the Constitution.
  A few miles south of there is the childhood home of John Dickinson,

[[Page S10572]]

who worked with folks in Connecticut at the Constitutional Convention 
to come up with a grand compromise which says every State will have two 
U.S. Senators and we will apportion the seats in the House of 
Representatives in accordance with the population of the States.
  From one end of the State of Delaware to the other, there are any 
number of things that are important to our Nation's heritage and I 
think certainly to the people of Delaware. Yet we have no national park 
commemorating any of that at all. Roughly 8 years ago, shortly after I 
came to the Senate, we went to work to see whether we could change that 
situation. A lot of good people in my State submitted ideas, from one 
end of the State to the other, what they thought might be reasonable, 
acceptable, appropriate items or places to designate as our national 
park. We created a wonderful citizens group about 3 or 4 years ago. 
They went the length and breadth of the State, led by professor 
emeritus Jim Solis of the University of Delaware. They came back with a 
wonderful group of ideas they collected from people from all over the 
State.
  They said: This is what we think the national park should be--a 
unique concept. If you can imagine four bicycle wheels, each has a hub, 
and from the hubs emanate the spokes. The vision of our working group 
was to have four hubs--one in northern Delaware, Wilmington; one maybe 
in Delaware City; another in Kent County, the central part of our 
State; and another in Lewes, DE, the southern part of our State. From 
each of those hubs--think of the spokes emanating--is a variety of 
attractions to which people could come. Each hub would be a hub 
established with some presence by the National Park Service.
  These were the ideas we submitted to the National Park Service 
roughly 3 years ago. The National Park Service went to work on it. To 
their credit, they came to our State. They covered our State and met 
with all kinds of people from one end of Delaware to the other and came 
up with another idea. They said: We like what you came up with, but 
here is what the National Park Service would like you to do. It is 
this: Create a national park that focuses on Delaware from the early 
settlement of the Dutch, the Swedes and the Finns and the English--a 
national park theme to run from that period of time until first 
statehood, December 7, 1787, roughly 130, 140 years.
  The idea is to place in old New Castle, colonial New Castle, about 10 
miles south of Wilmington, DE, on the Delaware River, a national park 
site that would be colocated and located in an existing structure that 
is suitable for that purpose. That spot will be populated by park 
rangers, who will be there to serve as interpreters and help welcome 
people to the site and help inform them, share with them other ideas 
and places to visit.
  We are excited about what the National Park Service has decided. Is 
it everything we had hoped for? No, it is not. Is it a whole lot better 
than being the only State in the country without a national park? It 
sure is a lot better than that.
  I express great thanks to all the men and women in my State who for 
almost 8 years worked on this concept, created and gathered good ideas 
and suggested those to the Park Service. I thank the Delaware Division 
of Parks and Recreation, the Delaware Division of Historical and 
Cultural Affairs, the National Park Service, former Secretary of the 
Interior Dirk Kempthorne; and certainly our current Secretary of the 
Interior, Ken Salazar, for their steadfast support for this initiative.
  About half a dozen or so years ago, my family and I--my boys are now 
19 and 21, but when they were younger, we liked to travel in the 
summers and visit national parks. We visited national parks from 
Pennsylvania, the second State in the Union, to Illinois, the Lincoln 
sites. We went to Alaska, to Denali, the great one, a huge national 
park that is two to three times the size of Delaware. We loved to visit 
national parks. This summer, our boys took a cross-country tour to the 
west coast for a summer job for one of our boys. They drove all the way 
across the northern part of our country and got to spend time in the 
Badlands, Mount Rushmore and Yellowstone and other sites along the way.
  National parks were described as--I think it was Wallace Stegner who 
said our national parks are America's best ideas. Ken Burns, the 
documentary filmmaker whose series on national parks was on National 
Public Television--beautifully done, beautifully videographed, and the 
story told of our national parks and how the first national park began 
about 140 years ago. Here we are 140 years later. They are a national 
treasure. People come from all over the world.
  When we went on the national park Web site 6 years ago to look for a 
place to go as a family, do you know what we ended up with? Nothing. 
There was a lot of stuff to visit from Alabama to Wyoming, A to W, but 
when we got to Delaware, nothing.
  We have a lot in our State of which we are proud. We have a lot in 
our State of which our country can be proud. We want not only people in 
Delaware to know but people throughout the country and the world. When 
they are looking for a good place to visit for some culture and history 
and, frankly, for a good time, we want them to know that Delaware--
little Delaware--is on the map. We are ready. The doors are open. The 
``welcome'' mat is out. We are ready to receive them.
  I want to say a big thanks to everyone who got us to this point. We 
are delighted to introduce the legislation that will designate and 
establish the first national park in the State of Delaware. 
Fortunately, I am not introducing the bill by myself. I am joined by my 
colleague, Senator Kaufman, and in the House by Congressman Mike 
Castle. This will be a bipartisan, bicameral initiative.
  I yield to Senator Kaufman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, this has been a great journey for me, 
before I came to the Senate, watching my present senior Senator, Tom 
Carper, then junior Senator--I am proud to say one of my greatest 
accomplishments as a Senator was to promote Tom Carper from junior 
Senator to senior Senator--to watch him work on this bill for a 
national park for Delaware for 8 years.
  I think if you were trying to do a case study on what it takes to 
make an accomplishment in the Senate, his efforts would be an excellent 
case study. He has been working for 8 years to bring a national park to 
Delaware. It is the only State in the Nation that does not have a 
national park, and yet it has so many wonderful things to see. I think 
people who visit Delaware will know that.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill that really my senior Senator 
has worked so hard on. He already explained much of the history of how 
we came to this point, so I want to simply say again that I appreciate 
how he has worked with the National Park Service to design a national 
historical park for Delaware.
  Earlier this year, when we were discussing the Travel Promotion Act, 
I discussed many of Delaware's attractions, from the colonial history 
dating back to before it became the first State to ratify the 
Constitution, to the beautiful beaches. We have a wealth of 
opportunities for tourism. However, until this bill is signed into law, 
we will not have a national park.
  No one needs to be told about the value of national parks, the way 
they offer recreational opportunities, support local businesses, and 
protect natural and cultural heritage. What is perhaps most important 
about them, however, is the way they define and preserve our 
relationship with possibility. They speak of a quintessential American 
world view that everyone has a right to share in what is greatest and 
magnificent in our world, in this case our national parks.
  Since the creation of Yellowstone and Yosemite over a century ago, 
millions of Americans have had their eyes opened by breathtaking vistas 
and the rich history of our wonderful country. The park in Delaware 
will play an important role in preserving our colonial history. 
Remember, Delaware was a crossroads for early Dutch, English, and 
Swedish settlers. Our State has a rich endowment of colonial landmarks.
  Bringing these together the way Senator Carper has proposed in a 
national historical park, this bill will allow all Americans to 
appreciate our history leading up to the signing of the Constitution. 
That is why I am glad to join

[[Page S10573]]

with my senior Senator, Tom Carper, in cosponsoring this bill. It is 
high time Delaware has a national park, and I believe this bill will 
create one that preserves Delaware's rich pre-Constitution history for 
generations to come.
  I thank my senior Senator for what he is doing, not just for me, not 
just for the people of Delaware, but for the country. This will be a 
great place for people to come from all over the country and all over 
the world to see the glorious history that is in Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in conclusion, I say a special thanks to 
Senator Kaufman. I thank members of our staff who worked on this bill--
not just us--literally for years in Delaware and here as well.
  I want to thank my colleagues who earlier voted with us to authorize 
a study, and to the National Park Service to fund that study, which 
came back to us with the recommendations of the National Park Service 
literally earlier this year.
  I also want to say that in this proposal we give a nod to the fact 
that these are trying fiscal times in which we live, and we don't have 
the ability to spend boatloads of money for a national park anywhere, 
including the First State. The proposal that we have before us is one 
that recognizes that and is, I think, responsible, and fiscally 
responsible, too.
  So with all that having been said, we are delighted to say that while 
this is not the end, this may be the beginning of the end, we hope, of 
the journey that will lead us to a national park, and we are delighted 
to stand here together to get us on the last part of that journey.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Corker):
  S. 1803. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to authorize 
reviews by the Comptroller General of the United States of emergency 
credit facilities established by the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System or any Federal Reserve bank, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and 
I come together to introduce the Federal Reserve Accountability Act. 
Over the course of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has taken 
extraordinary actions to stabilize our financial system. In doing so, 
it has departed significantly from its traditional relationship with 
markets. It is essential, therefore, that we bring greater openness and 
transparency to the Federal Reserve.
  We are introducing the Federal Reserve Accountability Act because we 
believe that it strikes the right balance in making the Federal 
Reserve's new emergency lending activities subject to a robust 
financial audit by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, without 
disturbing the Federal Reserve's monetary policy independence or its 
role as emergency lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve 
Accountability Act would require the GAO to audit the accounting, 
financial reporting, and internal controls of all Federal Reserve 
emergency credit programs that are not already subject to audit. To 
protect against the risk that disclosure of the participation of 
particular institutions could disrupt markets, the GAO would be 
required to redact the names of specific institutions. Names would, 
however, be made available 1 year after each emergency program is no 
longer used. For additional transparency and public accessibility, the 
legislation would also require that the Federal Reserve place these GAO 
audits along with additional audit materials under a new ``Audit'' 
section on its website.
  The many emergency lending programs created over the past year have 
certainly helped bring the financial markets back from the brink of 
collapse. But it is now time to set up a process for each lending 
facility to be fully audited by the GAO and reaffirm our commitment to 
openness and transparency whenever taxpayer dollars are used.
  I am hopeful that we can move quickly to enact this important 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1808. A bill to control Federal spending now; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, fiscal responsibility is a Wisconsin 
tradition and it has been a major priority of mine throughout my years 
in the Senate. In 1992 when I first ran for the job I hold now, I put 
together an 82-point plan to save hundreds of billions of dollars in 
wasteful, inefficient or unneeded government spending. Back then, the 
country was facing huge budget deficits and Americans were 
understandably concerned about the debt we were piling up. Fortunately, 
we took some strong steps in the 1990s to clean up that fiscal mess--
including passing some of the reforms I championed in my 82-point 
plan--and we were able to get the country back on the right track.
  Unfortunately, we face a similar crisis today. In fact, in many ways 
it is worse because the deficits are even bigger while the economy is 
in such bad shape. The reckless fiscal policies of the past eight 
years, combined with the current recession those policies helped 
create, have dug a deep hole, and we need to start filling it in. Some 
may argue that we can't cut government spending now because that would 
make the recession we are in even worse. I don't agree--while we 
shouldn't be slashing, say, unemployment insurance or education 
funding, we should absolutely be targeting the waste and fat in the 
federal budget. That's the message I am consistently hearing as I 
travel around Wisconsin. My constituents are rightly concerned about 
the burden that their children and grandchildren will be forced to 
shoulder.
  That is why I am introducing the Control Spending Now Act. This bill 
consists of dozens of different initiatives that would collectively 
reduce the deficit by over $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. It includes 
procedural reforms that would make it easier to eliminate funding for 
pet projects slipped into larger spending bills, as well as cuts to 
spending that isn't working or needed, from $4 billion for C-17 
aircraft the Department of Defense didn't ask for and doesn't want to 
$30 million for a program that sends a radio and TV signal to Cuba that 
nobody gets. The bill also would save $244 billion by rescinding 
unobligated TARP payments and returning them to the Treasury--I opposed 
the Wall Street bail-out from the start, and it's high time we brought 
it to an end.
  The ideas I am proposing are not all new--for example, I have been 
fighting to end earmark abuses and give the president a line-item veto 
for some time. And not all the ideas were thought up by me--there are a 
lot of good proposals out there, and I have tried to bring them 
together in one comprehensive bill. I have included legislation drafted 
by Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman that would save the Federal 
Government and consumers money by bringing down prescription drug 
prices, as well as biennial budgeting reforms that former Senator Pete 
Domenici championed, and that Senator Johnny Isakson is now seeking to 
advance. I also included provisions crafted by Senators Kit Bond, Jay 
Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein and included in the Senate-passed 
intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2010 that would help 
eliminate wasteful spending in the intelligence budget. I am grateful 
to my colleagues for the work they are doing to return the country to 
the path of fiscal responsibility.
  Not everyone will agree with every one of my proposals--in fact, for 
every proposal, there is probably one or more entrenched group 
committed to preserving the status quo. But the status quo isn't good 
enough--we need to make tough spending choices, which is why I am 
proposing this legislation, and why I will continue working to control 
spending now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. 
        Kaufman):
  S. 1816. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Chesapeake 
Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. I am joined in this effort 
by original cosponsors, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Kaufman. 
Together we are committed to giving our states and

[[Page S10574]]

municipalities the tools they need to finally restore water quality in 
the Chesapeake Watershed and return this national treasure to its 
rightful position as one of the world's most important ecological 
regions.
  Yesterday morning I stood on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, near 
Annapolis, Maryland, to outline the provisions of this legislation. I 
was joined by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland and a tireless 
champion of the bay. Standing with him was Preston Bryant, Virginia's 
Secretary of Natural Resources, representing Governor Tim Kaine. Both 
states, which embrace the entirety of the Chesapeake Bay, were there to 
lend their support to this legislative effort. Two of my colleagues 
from the other body, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Congressman Chris 
Van Hollen, also joined us, noting that they intend to introduce a 
companion bill in the House of Representatives today. A powerful 
coalition of more than 100 local watershed organizations was there, 
too, to lend its support. And finally, we were joined by Mr. Luke 
Brubaker, a dairy and poultry farmer from Pennsylvania who is already 
demonstrating how local actions can result in real water quality 
benefits.
  Today we take a major step forward in writing the next chapter in the 
history of one of America's most cherished and celebrated bodies of 
water--the Chesapeake Bay. The original English colony in Jamestown was 
settled on its shores. George Washington built his home overlooking one 
its great rivers. The War of 1812 was fought on its waters, and 
generations of Americans came to live off its bounty of oysters and 
blue crabs and rockfish. Harriet Tubman led a life of slavery and 
heroic freedom among its vast marshes, and James Michener wrote a saga 
celebrating its majesty.
  Today, 17 million people live in its watershed. Its tributaries are 
home to three state capitals as well as America's center of government. 
The bay has been called a ``National Treasure'' by American Presidents 
ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The United Nation's Ramsar 
Convention recognizes the bay as an ecological region of global 
significance. In Maryland it is the economic, environmental, cultural 
and historic heart of the state.
  But, the bay and its watershed are in trouble.
  By every scientific measure, the ecological health of the Chesapeake 
Bay is poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy 
primarily because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering 
the water.
  These pollutants threaten not just the legacy we have inherited but 
also our future. The multi-million seafood industry is suffering from 
chronically small harvests. That is not all. Recreational fishermen, 
duck hunters, sail boat and power boat operators, bird watchers and 
others bring tens of millions of dollars into our economies annually. 
Business leaders and realtors tell us that healthy rivers and a healthy 
bay add immeasurably to their ability to attract a quality workforce 
and add value to homes.
  At least one estimate suggests that the Bay's economic value to the 
region tops $1 trillion. The challenge before us is great, but so is 
the opportunity.
  The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives the 
states strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets 
a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place.
  The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the 
Chesapeake Executive Council's timeline for Chesapeake restoration. 
Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally 
binding part of the Clean Water Act.
  The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake 
Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to 
control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector 
that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed 
organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly 
created or expanded in the legislation. At least 10 percent of State 
implementation grants are set aside for Delaware, New York, and West 
Virginia. These headwater States have never been guaranteed any access 
to these funds in the past.
  At least 20 percent of the implementation grants will go for 
technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm 
Bill funds and implement conservation practices. The bill also requires 
the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the positive 
experiences of Virginia and Pennsylvania by establishing the framework 
for an innovative interstate trading program. As Mr. Brubaker recounted 
for us yesterday, farmers can partner with those who need to reduce the 
amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that they are releasing into the Bay. 
These groups can meet their legal obligation to reduce pollution by 
giving farmers the extra financial support they need to implement 
additional conservation practices on their agricultural lands. It is a 
classic win-win situation, and by 2012 it will be available throughout 
the six state watershed.
  The bill codifies President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, 
which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal 
departments to restore the Bay.
  The basics of this bill are very simple, as most good ideas are. 
Scientists are telling us what the maximum amounts of pollution that 
the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The Chesapeake Clean Water 
and Ecosystem Restoration Act sets a hard cap on pollution, and then we 
give the states until 2025 to reduce their proportional share of the 
pollution load. The states have maximum flexibility to reach these 
goals, but it still won't be easy. In the 25 years since the Chesapeake 
Bay program started, the number of people living in the watershed has 
exploded.
  The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12 
million when the Program started to over 17 million residents today. 
That is a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing 
more pollution. The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened 
landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and 
eventually the Bay, have increased by about 100 percent over the same 
time frame. We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every 
day in the Bay watershed. Simply put, there are millions more of us, 
and the size of our impact on the Bay watershed has grown twice as fast 
as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the 
Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is.
  As I have said before, barely holding our own is not good enough. So 
merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough either. 
Fortunately, Federal, State and local governments, in cooperation with 
community organizations are standing up around our region to help renew 
the region's precious water resources.
  We are focused on three major sources of water pollution: runoff from 
agricultural lands, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and 
polluted stormwater runoff from the developed lands in our cities, 
towns and suburbs.
  Last year we passed a Farm Bill that today is providing Chesapeake 
farmers with unprecedented financial support in putting conservation 
programs into practice. Two years ago we provided our farmers with 
about $8 million in conservation funding. In the past year, that figure 
went up to $23 million. This year it is growing to $43 million and next 
year it reaches $72 million--nearly a ten-fold increase in just 3 
years.
  Eight years of chronic under-funding for wastewater treatment plants 
changed dramatically in January. President Obama and the new Congress 
have teamed up to provide a 350 percent increase in Federal funding 
this year to up-grade and repair sewage treatment plants. The EPA 
funding bill that is now nearing final action will sustain that record 
investment into 2010. We need to make a major investment in our cities 
and towns, too, to combat the growing problem we have with polluted 
stormwater. That is why this bill authorizes $1.5 billion to provide 
the federal funds needed to really attack this problem.
  All of us, States and cities, farmers and foresters, sewage treatment 
plant operators and new home builders, ardent environmentalists and 
average residents, want to do our part to have clean water flowing 
through our streams and rivers. All of us want a healthy Bay.
  The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives all of 
the Bay States a clear and fully enforceable goal to clean up our 
waters

[[Page S10575]]

and restore our Bay by 2025. The bill also gives us the resources to 
get the job done and the tools to do so in a way that is flexible and 
cost effective.
  The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of our region. It is where we work, 
play, farm, and enjoy the beauty and abundance of the natural resources 
that surround us. But as anyone who has experienced the shortage of 
blue crabs and oysters or read about ``dead zones'' in the water knows, 
the Bay continues to be in trouble. We've made great strides in the 
last few decades through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. But we 
remain far from attaining the goals necessary to restore the Bay to a 
healthy state, one that can sustain native fish and wildlife and 
maintain the viability of our farmland and regional economy for the 
near- and long-term future.
  Accomplishing these goals starts with the local implementation of the 
most innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies for 
restoring and protecting water quality and vital habitats within the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to 
see local streams returned to good health and the Chesapeake Bay 
restored to its former glory. People are ready to take action to 
control pollution, restore water quality and see the living resources 
of the Bay return in abundance.
  The Chesapeake is a region steeped in history. Today, we add our own 
contribution to that storied past. With the Chesapeake Clean Water and 
Ecosystem Restoration Act, we are proposing the most sweeping 
legislative effort in the history of the Clean Water Act. With the firm 
commitments and cooperation from the communities across the 64,000 
square mile watershed, we will restore the health, productivity and 
beauty of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come.
  Today marks the beginning of that legislative effort. It will not be 
easy, and we will need all of our best efforts if we are to be 
successful. But we cannot and will not come up short.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1816

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Clean Water and 
     Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Chesapeake Bay and the tributary waters of the 
     Chesapeake Bay are natural resources of outstanding 
     ecological, economic, and cultural importance to the United 
     States;
       (2) for more than 20 years, the Federal Government and the 
     States of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the Chesapeake Bay 
     Commission, and various local government, scientific, and 
     citizen advisory boards have worked through the Chesapeake 
     Bay Program of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop 
     an unparalleled body of scientific information and 
     cooperative partnerships to advance the Chesapeake Bay 
     restoration effort;
       (3) despite significant efforts by Federal, State, and 
     local governments and other interested parties, water 
     pollution in the Chesapeake Bay prevents the attainment of 
     existing State water quality standards and the ecological 
     goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.);
       (4) the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has developed a 
     rich body of environmental data based on an extensive network 
     of monitors, which provide a critical measure of success in 
     attainment of the goals of the restoration effort;
       (5) the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has also 
     developed some of the world's foremost water quality and 
     ecosystem computer models, which are invaluable planning 
     tools for resource managers;
       (6) the major pollutants affecting the water quality of the 
     Chesapeake Bay and related tidal waters are nitrogen, 
     phosphorus, and sediment;
       (7) the largest developed land use in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed, and the largest single-sector source of nitrogen, 
     phosphorus, and sediment pollution, is agriculture;
       (8) conservation practices have resulted in significant 
     reductions in pollution loads from the agricultural sector;
       (9) to speed continued progress in the agricultural sector, 
     the Federal Government and State governments have initiated a 
     number of agricultural conservation programs, including the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed initiative under section 1240Q of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-4);
       (10) atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides and ammonia 
     on the Chesapeake Bay watershed contributes as much as \1/3\ 
     of the nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay;
       (11) for years, a steady stream of technology development 
     and increasingly stringent permit requirements have resulted 
     in a steady decline in the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution 
     derived from wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed;
       (12) suburban and urban development is the fastest growing 
     land use sector in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and 
     stormwater runoff from that sector is the only major source 
     of pollution in the watershed that is increasing;
       (13) during the period beginning in 1990 and ending in 
     2000, impervious cover, the hardened surfaces through which 
     water cannot penetrate, increased by nearly 250,000 acres, 
     about 41 percent, or the size of 5 Districts of Columba;
       (14) during that period, the watershed population of the 
     Chesapeake Bay grew by just 8 percent;
       (15) the population of the watershed is estimated to be 
     growing by about 157,000 people per year;
       (16) continuing at that rate, the population will increase 
     to nearly 20,000,000 by 2030;
       (17) about 58 percent of the watershed of the Chesapeake 
     Bay is undeveloped and mostly forested, but as many as 100 
     hundred acres of forest are lost to development each day;
       (18) States, local governments, developers, and nonprofit 
     organizations have developed numerous low-impact development 
     techniques since the late 1990s, which use natural area 
     protection, infiltration, and pervious surfaces to reduce 
     stormwater runoff and associated sediment and nutrient 
     pollution;
       (19) many of those techniques are less expensive than 
     traditional pollution stormwater control management 
     techniques;
       (20) the decline of key aquatic habitats and species has 
     resulted in a loss of the important water quality benefits 
     that the habitats and species traditionally provided;
       (21) native oysters, the numbers of which have declined 
     precipitously in the Chesapeake Bay in significant part 
     because of diseases brought into the watershed by nonnative 
     oysters, are natural filters that once effectively filtered a 
     volume of water equivalent to that of the entire Chesapeake 
     Bay in a matter of days;
       (22) although less well-understood, menhaden, a species of 
     fish found in the Chesapeake Bay, also provide important 
     filtering capacity as well as a number of other key ecosystem 
     functions;
       (23) wetlands are a vital part of any major ecosystem;
       (24) studies have demonstrated that nontidal wetland near 
     the Chesapeake Bay removed as much as 89 percent of the 
     nitrogen and 80 percent of the phosphorus that entered the 
     wetland through upland runoff, groundwater, and 
     precipitation;
       (25) riparian forests remove as much as 90 percent of 
     nitrogen and phosphorus that would otherwise enter the water;
       (26) the loss of forests and wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay 
     has resulted in diminished water quality, among other 
     effects;
       (27) in certain locations in the Chesapeake Bay, nutria, a 
     nonnative species, has caused extensive destruction of key 
     wetlands; and
       (28) in spite of the achievements of the Chesapeake Bay 
     Program partnership and increasing knowledge about ecosystem 
     functions, the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will require 
     significantly stronger tools to manage pollution levels and 
     other impediments to water quality.

     SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.

       Section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1267) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost' 
     means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in 
     administering a grant under this section.
       ``(2) Asian oyster.--The term `Asian oyster' means the 
     species Crassostrea ariakensis.
       ``(3) Baseline.--The term `baseline' means the basic 
     standard or level used for measuring (as applicable)--
       ``(A) the nutrient control requirements credit sellers must 
     achieve before becoming eligible to generate saleable 
     nutrient credits; or
       ``(B) the nutrient load reductions required of individual 
     sources to meet water quality standards or goals under a TMDL 
     or watershed implementation plan.
       ``(4) Basin commissions.--The term `basin commissions' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 
     established under the interstate compact consented to and 
     approved by Congress under the Joint Resolution of July 11, 
     1940 (54 Stat. 748, chapter 579) and Public Law 91-407 (84 
     Stat. 856); and
       ``(B) the Susquehanna River Basin Commission established 
     under the interstate compact consented to and approved by 
     Congress under Public Law 91-575 (84 Stat. 1509) and Public 
     Law 99-468 (100 Stat. 1193).
       ``(5) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to 
     achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       ``(6) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed.

[[Page S10576]]

       ``(7) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement.
       ``(8) Chesapeake bay state.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     State' means any of--
       ``(A) the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; or
       ``(B) the District of Columbia.
       ``(9) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term `Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed' means the Chesapeake Bay and the area consisting 
     of 19 tributary basins within the Chesapeake Bay States 
     through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(10) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake 
     Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake 
     Bay Agreement.
       ``(11) Cleaning agent.--The term `cleaning agent' means a 
     laundry detergent, dishwashing compound, household cleaner, 
     metal cleaner, degreasing compound, commercial cleaner, 
     industrial cleaner, phosphate compound, or other substance 
     that is intended to be used for cleaning purposes.
       ``(12) Director.--The term `director' means the Director of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       ``(13) Local government.--The term `local government' means 
     any county, city, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State with jurisdiction over land use.
       ``(14) Menhaden.--The term `menhaden' means members of 
     stocks or populations of the species Brevoortia tyrannus.
       ``(15) Nutria.--The term `nutria' means the species 
     Myocaster coypus.
       ``(16) Point-of-regulation.--The term `point-of-regulation' 
     means any entity that--
       ``(A) is subject to a limitation on pollution or other 
     regulation under this Act; and
       ``(B) has sufficient technical capacity and legal authority 
     to meet the obligations of the entity under this Act.
       ``(17) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory 
     jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       ``(18) TMDL.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `TMDL' means the total maximum 
     daily load that the Administrator establishes or approves for 
     nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loading to the waters in 
     the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tidal tributaries identified 
     on the list of a Chesapeake Bay State under section 303(d).
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `TMDL' may include nitrogen, 
     phosphorus, and sediment allocations in temporal units of 
     greater than daily duration if applicable allocations--
       ``(i) are demonstrated to achieve water quality standards; 
     and
       ``(ii) do not lead to exceedances of other applicable water 
     quality standards for local receiving waters.
       ``(19) Tributary basin.--The term `tributary basin' means 
     an area of land or body of water that--
       ``(A) drains into any of the 19 Chesapeake Bay tributaries 
     or tributary segments; and
       ``(B) is managed through watershed implementation plans 
     under this Act.
       ``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the 
     Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       ``(2) Program office.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the 
     Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program 
     Office.
       ``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall 
     provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
       ``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research, 
     modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and 
     other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
       ``(ii) developing and making available, through 
     publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate 
     means, information pertaining to the environmental quality 
     and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local authorities, assisting the signatories to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing 
     specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of 
     the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
       ``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate 
     officials of other Federal agencies and State and local 
     authorities in developing strategies to--

       ``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of 
     the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and

       ``(v) implementing outreach programs for public 
     information, education, and participation to foster 
     stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter 
     into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry 
     out this section.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake 
     Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical 
     assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit 
     organizations, State and local governments, colleges, 
     universities, and interstate agencies to carry out this 
     section, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       ``(2) Federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in 
     accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
       ``(B) Chesapeake bay stewardship grants program.--The 
     Federal share of an assistance grant provided under paragraph 
     (1) to carry out an implementing activity under subsection 
     (h)(2) shall not exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, 
     as determined by the Administrator.
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under 
     paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
     Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project 
     costs, as determined by the Administrator.
       ``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
       ``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--On the request of the chief executive of 
     the Chesapeake Bay State, the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall make an implementation grant to the Chesapeake 
     Bay State, or a designee of a Chesapeake Bay State (such as a 
     soil conservation district, nonprofit organization, local 
     government, college, university, interstate basin commission, 
     or interstate agency), for the purpose of implementing the 
     TMDL plans of the Chesapeake Bay State and achieving the 
     goals established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject 
     to such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers 
     to be appropriate; and
       ``(B) may make a monitoring grant to--
       ``(i) a Chesapeake Bay State, or a designee of a Chesapeake 
     Bay State (such as a soil conservation district, nonprofit 
     organization, local government, college, university, 
     interstate basin commission, or interstate agency), for the 
     purpose of monitoring the ecosystem of freshwater tributaries 
     to the Chesapeake Bay; or
       ``(ii) the States of Delaware, Maryland, or Virginia, the 
     District of Columbia, or a designee (such as a nonprofit 
     organization, local government, college, university, or 
     interstate agency) for the purpose of monitoring the 
     Chesapeake Bay, including the tidal waters of the Chesapeake 
     Bay.
       ``(2) Administration.--In making implementation grants to 
     each of the Chesapeake Bay States for a fiscal year under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall ensure that not less 
     than--
       ``(A) 10 percent of the funds available to make such grants 
     are made to the States of Delaware, New York, and West 
     Virginia; and
       ``(B) 20 percent of the funds available to make such grants 
     are made to States for the sole purpose of providing 
     technical assistance to agricultural producers and foresters 
     to access conservation programs and other resources devoted 
     to improvements in water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and 
     the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(3) Proposals.--
       ``(A) Implementation grants.--
       ``(i) In general.--A Chesapeake Bay State described in 
     paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for 
     a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a 
     comprehensive proposal to implement programs and achieve the 
     goals established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       ``(ii) Implementation grant contents.--A proposal under 
     clause (i) shall include--

       ``(I) a description of proposed actions that the Chesapeake 
     Bay State commits to take within a specified time period that 
     are designed--

       ``(aa) to achieve and maintain all applicable water quality 
     standards, including standards necessary to support the 
     aquatic living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and related 
     tributaries and to protect human health;
       ``(bb) to restore, enhance, and protect the finfish, 
     shellfish, waterfowl, and other living resources, habitats of 
     those species and resources, and ecological relationships to 
     sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem;
       ``(cc) to preserve, protect, and restore those habitats and 
     natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of 
     the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and associated 
     rivers;
       ``(dd) to develop, promote, and achieve sound land use 
     practices that protect and restore watershed resources and 
     water quality, reduce or maintain reduced pollutant loadings 
     for the Chesapeake Bay and related tributaries, and restore 
     and preserve aquatic living resources;
       ``(ee) to promote individual stewardship and assist 
     individuals, community-based organizations, businesses, local 
     governments, and schools to undertake initiatives to achieve 
     the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; or
       ``(ff) to provide technical assistance to agricultural 
     producers, foresters, and other eligible entities, through 
     technical infrastructure, including activities, processes, 
     tools, and agency functions needed to support delivery of 
     technical services, such as technical standards, resource 
     inventories, training, data, technology, monitoring, and 
     effects analyses;

[[Page S10577]]

       ``(II) a commitment to dedicate not less than 20 percent of 
     the grant of the Chesapeake Bay under this subsection to 
     support technical assistance for agricultural and forestry 
     land or nutrient management practices that protect and 
     restore watershed resources and water quality, reduce or 
     maintain reduced pollutant loadings for the Chesapeake Bay 
     and related tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic 
     living resources; and
       ``(III) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be 
     taken during the fiscal year.

       ``(B) Monitoring grants.--
       ``(i) In general.--A Chesapeake Bay State described in 
     paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for 
     a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a 
     comprehensive proposal to monitor freshwater or estuarine 
     ecosystems, including water quality.
       ``(ii) Monitoring grant contents.--A proposal under this 
     subparagraph shall include--

       ``(I) a description of the proposed monitoring system;
       ``(II) certification by the Chesapeake Bay Program Director 
     that such a monitoring system includes such parameters as the 
     Chesapeake Bay Program Director determines to be necessary to 
     assess progress toward achieving the goals of the Chesapeake 
     Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009; and
       ``(III) the estimated cost of the monitoring proposed to be 
     conducted during the fiscal year.

       ``(iii) Concurrences.--The Administrator shall--

       ``(I) obtain the concurrence of the Director of the United 
     States Geological Survey regarding the design and 
     implementation of the freshwater monitoring systems 
     established under this subsection; and
       ``(II) obtain the concurrence of the Director of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration regarding the design and implementation of the 
     estuarine monitoring systems established under this 
     subsection.

       ``(iv) Consultation.--The Administrator shall--

       ``(I) consult with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac 
     River Basin, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the 
     Chesapeake Bay States regarding the design and implementation 
     of the freshwater monitoring systems established under this 
     subsection, giving particular attention to the measurement of 
     the water quality effectiveness of agricultural conservation 
     program implementation (including geospatial agricultural 
     conservation program data), including the Chesapeake Bay 
     Watershed Initiative under section 1240Q of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-4);
       ``(II) consult with Old Dominion University, the Virginia 
     Institute of Marine Science, the University of Maryland 
     Center for Environmental Science, and the Chesapeake Bay 
     States regarding the estuarine monitoring systems established 
     under this subsection;
       ``(III) consult with the Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific 
     and Technical Advisory Committee regarding independent review 
     of monitoring designs giving particular attention to 
     integrated freshwater and estuarine monitoring strategies; 
     and
       ``(IV) consult with Federal departments and agencies 
     regarding cooperation in implementing monitoring programs.

       ``(f) Federal Facilities Coordination.--
       ``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal 
     agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the 
     Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall 
     participate in regional and subwatershed planning and 
     restoration programs.
       ``(2) Compliance with agreements and plans.--The head of 
     each Federal agency that owns or occupies real property in 
     the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, 
     and actions taken by the agency with respect to the property, 
     comply with--
       ``(A) the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
       ``(B) the Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified 
     Plan;
       ``(C) the Chesapeake Bay action plan developed in 
     accordance with subparagraph (g)(1)(A); and
       ``(D) any subsequent agreements and plans.
       ``(g) Federal Annual Action Plan and Progress Report.--The 
     Administrator, in accordance with Executive Order 13508 
     entitled `Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration' and 
     signed on May 12, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 23099), shall--
       ``(1) make available to the public, not later than March 31 
     of each year--
       ``(A) a Chesapeake Bay action plan describing, in the 
     greatest practicable degree of detail, how Federal funding 
     proposed in the annual budget of the United States submitted 
     by the President to Congress will be used to protect and 
     restore the Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(B) an annual progress report that--
       ``(i) assesses the key ecological attributes that reflect 
     the health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(ii) reviews indicators of environmental conditions in 
     the Chesapeake Bay;
       ``(iii) distinguishes between the health of the Chesapeake 
     Bay ecosystem and the results of management measures;
       ``(iv) assesses implementation of the action plan during 
     the preceding fiscal year;
       ``(v) recommends steps to improve progress in restoring and 
     protecting the Chesapeake Bay; and
       ``(vi) describes how Federal funding and actions will be 
     coordinated with the actions of States, basin commissions, 
     and others;
       ``(2) create and maintain, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, a Chesapeake Bay-wide database 
     containing comprehensive data on implementation of 
     conservation management practices in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed that --
       ``(A) includes baseline conservation management practice 
     implementation data as of the effective date of the 
     Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009;
       ``(B) includes data on subsequent conservation management 
     practice implementation projects funded by or reported to the 
     Agency or the Department;
       ``(C) presents the required data in statistical or 
     aggregate form without identifying any--
       ``(i) individual owner, operator, or producer; or
       ``(ii) specific data gathering site; and
       ``(D) is made available to the public not later than 
     December 31, 2010.
       ``(h) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
       ``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in 
     coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive 
     Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and 
     implemented by Chesapeake Bay States to achieve and 
     maintain--
       ``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the 
     Chesapeake Bay and the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay;
       ``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore 
     living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and 
     Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input 
     of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to 
     levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on 
     the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on 
     human health;
       ``(D) habitat restoration, protection, creation, and 
     enhancement goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     signatories for wetland, riparian forests, and other types of 
     habitat associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(E) the restoration, protection, creation, and 
     enhancement goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
     signatories for living resources associated with the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
       ``(2) Chesapeake bay stewardship grants program.--The 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive 
     Council, shall--
       ``(A) establish a Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Grants 
     Program; and
       ``(B) in carrying out that program--
       ``(i) offer technical assistance and assistance grants 
     under subsection (d) to local governments, soil conservation 
     districts, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations 
     in the Chesapeake Bay region to implement--

       ``(I) cooperative watershed strategies that address the 
     water quality, habitat, and living resource needs in the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
       ``(II) locally based protection and restoration programs or 
     projects within a watershed that complement the State 
     watershed implementation plans, including the creation, 
     restoration, or enhancement of habitat associated with the 
     Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       ``(III) innovative nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment 
     reduction efforts; and

       ``(ii) give preference to cooperative projects that involve 
     local governments.
       ``(i) Total Maximum Daily Load.--
       ``(1) TMDL.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the 
     Administrator shall establish a Chesapeake Bay-wide TMDL.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The Administrator shall not establish 
     or approve a TMDL described in subparagraph (A) unless the 
     TMDL includes--
       ``(i) wasteload allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and 
     sediment necessary to implement the applicable water quality 
     standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and achieve those 
     standards in the Chesapeake Bay and the tidal tributaries of 
     the Chesapeake Bay;
       ``(ii) enforceable or otherwise binding load allocations 
     for all nonpoint sources, including atmospheric deposition, 
     agricultural runoff, and stormwater sources for which a 
     permit under section 402 is not required;
       ``(iii) a margin of safety so as to ensure that the TMDL 
     does not exceed any applicable water quality standard; and
       ``(iv) a requirement for no net increase of nitrogen, 
     phosphorus, and sediment loads above the pollution 
     limitations necessary to meet water quality standards for the 
     Chesapeake Bay, including no net projected increased 
     pollutant loads from--

       ``(I) new or increased impervious surfaces;
       ``(II) concentrated animal feeding operations;
       ``(III) transportation systems; and
       ``(IV) septic systems.

       ``(2) Permits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Effective beginning on January 1, 2011, 
     a new or reissued permit issued by the Administrator under 
     section 402(a) or a State authorized to administer a permit 
     program under section 402(b) shall include limits consistent 
     with all applicable wasteload allocations in the Chesapeake 
     Bay TMDL.

[[Page S10578]]

       ``(B) Permits.--
       ``(i) In general.--Effective beginning on January 1, 2011, 
     each Chesapeake Bay State shall submit to the Administrator 
     copies of any permit for discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, 
     or sediment into the Chesapeake Bay watershed that is allowed 
     to continue beyond 5 years pursuant to a State law analogous 
     to section 558(c) of title 5, United States Code, not later 
     than 60 days after the expiration date of the permit.
       ``(ii) Review.--The Administrator shall have the 
     opportunity to review and object to the continuance of the 
     permit in accordance with the process described in section 
     402(d) for permits proposed to be issued by a State.
       ``(j) Actions by States.--
       ``(1) Watershed implementation plans.--
       ``(A) Plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than May 12, 2011, each 
     Chesapeake Bay State shall, after providing for reasonable 
     notice and 1 or more public hearings, adopt and submit to the 
     Administrator for approval a watershed implementation plan 
     for the portion of each of the 92 tidal water segments that 
     is subject to the jurisdiction of the Chesapeake Bay State 
     that together comprise the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(ii) Targets.--The watershed implementation plan shall 
     establish reduction targets, key actions, and schedules for 
     reducing, to levels that will attain water quality standards, 
     the loads, of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, including 
     pollution from--

       ``(I) agricultural runoff;
       ``(II) point sources, including point source stormwater 
     discharges;
       ``(III) nonpoint source stormwater runoff; and
       ``(IV) septic systems and other onsite sewage disposal 
     systems.

       ``(iii) Pollution limitations.--

       ``(I) In general.--The tributary pollution limitations 
     shall be the nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment cap loads 
     identified in the tributary cap load agreement numbered EPA 
     903-R-03-007, date December 2003, and entitled `Setting and 
     Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment 
     Loads: The Collaborative Process, Technical Tools and 
     Innovative Approaches,' or a Chesapeake Bay TMDL established 
     by the Administrator.
       ``(II) Stringency.--A watershed implementation plan shall 
     be designed to attain, at a minimum, the pollution 
     limitations described in subclause (I).

       ``(iv) Plan requirements.--Each watershed implementation 
     plan shall--

       ``(I) include State-adopted management measures, including 
     rules or regulations, permits, consent decrees, and other 
     enforceable or otherwise binding measures, to require and 
     achieve reductions from pollution sources;
       ``(II) include programs to achieve voluntary reductions 
     from pollution sources, including funding commitments 
     necessary to implement those programs;
       ``(III) include any additional requirements or actions that 
     the Chesapeake Bay State determines to be necessary to attain 
     the pollution limitations by the deadline established in this 
     paragraph;
       ``(IV) provide for enforcement mechanisms, including a 
     penalty structure for failures, such as fees or forfeiture of 
     State funds, including Federal funds distributed or otherwise 
     awarded by the State to the extent the State is authorized to 
     exercise independent discretion in amounts of such 
     distributions or awards, for use in case a permittee, local 
     jurisdictions, or any other party fails to adhere to assigned 
     pollutant limitations, implementation schedules, or permit 
     terms;
       ``(V) include a schedule for implementation divided into 2-
     year periods, along with computer modeling to demonstrate the 
     projected reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment 
     loads associated with each 2-year period;
       ``(VI) include the stipulation of alternate actions as 
     contingencies;
       ``(VII) account for how the Chesapeake Bay State will 
     address additional loadings from growth through offsets or 
     other actions; and
       ``(VIII) provide assurances that--

       ``(aa) if compared to an estimated 2008 baseline based on 
     modeled loads, the initial plan shall be designed to achieve, 
     not later than May 31, 2017, at least 60 percent of the 
     nutrient and sediment limitations described in clause 
     (iii)(I);
       ``(bb) the management measures required to achieve a 50-
     percent reduction of nutrient and sediment limitations shall 
     be in effect upon submission of the plan;
       ``(cc) the Chesapeake Bay State will have adequate 
     personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as 
     appropriate, local) law to carry out the implementation plan, 
     and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State 
     law from carrying out the implementation plan; and
       ``(dd) in a case in which a Chesapeake Bay State has relied 
     on a local government for the implementation of any plan 
     provision, the Chesapeake Bay State has the responsibility 
     for ensuring adequate implementation of the provision.
       ``(B) Implementation.--
       ``(i) In general.--In implementing a watershed 
     implementation plan, each Chesapeake Bay State shall follow a 
     strategy developed by the Administrator for the 
     implementation of adaptive management principles to ensure 
     full implementation of all plan elements by not later than 
     May 12, 2025, including --

       ``(I) biennial evaluations of State actions;
       ``(II) progress made toward implementation;
       ``(III) determinations of necessary modifications to future 
     actions in order to achieve objectives; and
       ``(IV) appropriate provisions to adapt to climate changes.

       ``(ii) Deadline.--Not later than May 12, 2025, each 
     Chesapeake Bay State shall--

       ``(I) fully implement the watershed implementation plan of 
     the State; and
       ``(II) have in place all the mechanisms outlined in the 
     plan that are necessary to attain the applicable pollutant 
     limitations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments.

       ``(C) Progress reports.--Not later than May 12, 2014, and 
     biennially thereafter, each Chesapeake Bay State shall submit 
     to the Administrator a progress report that, with respect to 
     the 2-year period covered by the report--
       ``(i) includes a listing of all management measures that 
     were to be implemented in accordance with the approved 
     watershed implementation plan of the Chesapeake Bay State, 
     including a description of the extent to which those measures 
     have been fully implemented;
       ``(ii) includes a listing of all the management measures 
     described in clause (i) that the Chesapeake Bay State has 
     failed to fully implement in accordance with the approved 
     watershed implementation plan of the Chesapeake Bay State;
       ``(iii) includes monitored and collected water quality 
     data;
       ``(iv) includes Chesapeake Bay Program computer modeling 
     data that detail the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment load 
     reductions projected to be achieved as a result of the 
     implementation of the management measures and mechanisms 
     carried out by the Chesapeake Bay State;
       ``(v) includes, for the subsequent 2-year period, 
     implementation goals and Chesapeake Bay Program computer 
     modeling data detailing the projected pollution reductions to 
     be achieved if the Chesapeake Bay State fully implements the 
     subsequent round of management measures;
       ``(vi) identifies compliance information, including 
     violations, actions taken by the Chesapeake Bay State to 
     address the violations, and dates, if any, on which 
     compliance was achieved; and
       ``(vii) specifies any revisions to the watershed 
     implementation plan submitted under this paragraph that the 
     Chesapeake Bay State determines are necessary to attain the 
     applicable pollutant limitations for nitrogen, phosphorus, 
     and sediments.
       ``(2) Issuance of permits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act (including any exclusion or exception contained in a 
     definition under section 502), for the purpose of achieving 
     the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions required 
     under a watershed implementation plan, a Chesapeake Bay State 
     may issue a permit in accordance with section 402 for any 
     pollution source the Chesapeake Bay State determines to be 
     necessary.
       ``(B) Enforcement.--The Administrator shall enforce any 
     permits issued in accordance with the watershed 
     implementation plan in the same manner as other permits 
     issued under section 402 are enforced.
       ``(3) Stormwater permits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Effective beginning January 1, 2013, the 
     Chesapeake Bay State shall provide assurances to the 
     Administrator that--
       ``(i) the owner or operator of any development or 
     redevelopment project possessing an impervious footprint that 
     exceeds a threshold to be determined by the Administrator 
     through rulemaking, will use site planning, design, 
     construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to 
     maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically 
     feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with 
     regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of 
     flow; and
       ``(ii) as a further condition of permitting such a 
     development or redevelopment, the owner or operator of any 
     development or redevelopment project possessing an impervious 
     footprint that exceeds a threshold to be determined by the 
     Administrator through rulemaking will compensate for any 
     unavoidable impacts to the predevelopment hydrology of the 
     property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and 
     duration of flow, such that--

       ``(I) the compensation within the jurisdictional boundaries 
     of the local government shall provide in-kind mitigation of 
     function at a ratio to be determined by the Administrator 
     through rulemaking; and
       ``(II) the compensation outside the jurisdictional 
     boundaries of the local government shall provide in-kind 
     mitigation, at a ratio to be determined by the Administrator 
     through rulemaking , within the tributary watershed in which 
     the project is located.

       ``(B) Administration.--Not later than December 31, 2012, 
     the Administrator shall promulgate regulations that--
       ``(i) define the term `predevelopment hydrology' in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) establish the thresholds under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(iii) establish the compensation ratios under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(4) Phosphate ban.--
       ``(A) Phosphorus in cleaning agents.--Each Chesapeake Bay 
     State shall provide to the Administrator, not later than 3 
     years after the date of enactment of the Chesapeake Clean 
     Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, assurances that 
     within the

[[Page S10579]]

     jurisdiction, except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     person may not use, sell, manufacture, or distribute for use 
     or sale any cleaning agent that contains more than 0.0 
     percent phosphorus by weight, expressed as elemental 
     phosphorus, except for a quantity not exceeding 0.5 percent 
     phosphorus that is incidental to the manufacture of the 
     cleaning agent.
       ``(B) Prohibited quantities of phosphorus.--Each Chesapeake 
     Bay State shall provide to the Administrator, not later than 
     3 years after the date of enactment of the Chesapeake Clean 
     Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, assurances that, 
     within the jurisdiction, a person may use, sell, manufacture, 
     or distribute for use or sale a cleaning agent that contains 
     greater than 0.0 percent phosphorus by weight, but does not 
     exceed 8.7 percent phosphorus by weight, if the cleaning 
     agent is a substance that the Administrator, by regulation, 
     excludes from the limitation under subparagraph (A), based on 
     a finding that compliance with that subparagraph would--
       ``(i) create a significant hardship on the users of the 
     cleaning agent; or
       ``(ii) be unreasonable because of the lack of an adequate 
     substitute cleaning agent.
       ``(k) Action by Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem 
     Restoration Act of 2009, the Administrator shall establish 
     minimum criteria that any proposed watershed implementation 
     plan must meet before the Administrator may approve such a 
     plan.
       ``(2) Completeness finding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the Administrator receives a new or revised proposed 
     watershed implementation plan from a Chesapeake Bay State, 
     the Administrator shall determine whether the minimum 
     criteria for the plan established under paragraph (1) have 
     been met.
       ``(B) Effect of finding of incompleteness.--If the 
     Administrator determines under subparagraph (A) that all or 
     any portion of a submitted watershed implementation plan does 
     not meet the minimum criteria established under paragraph 
     (1), the Chesapeake Bay State submitting the plan shall be 
     treated as not having made the submission.
       ``(3) Approval and disapproval.--
       ``(A) Deadline.--Not later than 90 days after determining 
     that a watershed implementation plan meets minimum criteria 
     in accordance with paragraph (2)(A), the Administrator shall 
     approve or disapprove the plan.
       ``(B) Full and partial approval and disapproval.--In 
     carrying out this paragraph, the Administrator--
       ``(i) shall approve a watershed implementation plan if the 
     plan meets all applicable requirements under this section; 
     and
       ``(ii) may approve the plan in part and disapprove the plan 
     in part if only a portion of the plan meets those 
     requirements.
       ``(C) Conditional approval.--The Administrator--
       ``(i) may conditionally approve a revised watershed 
     implementation plan based on a commitment of the Chesapeake 
     Bay State submitting the plan to adopt specific enforceable 
     management measures by not later than 1 year after the date 
     of approval of the plan revision; but
       ``(ii) shall treat a conditional approval as a disapproval 
     under this paragraph if the Chesapeake Bay State fails to 
     comply with the commitment of the Chesapeake Bay State.
       ``(D) Full approval required.--A new or revised watershed 
     implementation plan shall not be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of this section until the Administrator approves 
     the entire new or revised plan.
       ``(E) Corrections.--In any case in which the Administrator 
     determines that the action of the Administrator approving, 
     disapproving, conditionally approving, or promulgating any 
     new or revised watershed implementation plan was in error, 
     the Administrator--
       ``(i) may, in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, 
     conditional approval, or promulgation, revise the action of 
     the Administrator, as appropriate, without requiring any 
     further submission from the Chesapeake Bay State; and
       ``(ii) shall make the determination of the Administrator, 
     and the basis for that determination, available to the 
     public.
       ``(F) Effective date.--The provisions of a State watershed 
     implementation plan shall take effect upon the date of 
     approval of the plan.
       ``(4) Calls for plan revision.--In any case in which the 
     Administrator determines that watershed implementation plan 
     for any area is inadequate to attain or maintain applicable 
     pollution limitations, the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall notify the Chesapeake Bay State of, and require 
     the Chesapeake Bay State to revise the plan to correct, the 
     inadequacies;
       ``(B) may establish reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 180 
     days after the date on which the Administrator provides the 
     notification) for the submission of a revised watershed 
     implementation plan;
       ``(C) make the findings of the Administrator under 
     paragraph (3) and notice provided under subparagraph (A) 
     public; and
       ``(D) require the Chesapeake Bay State to comply with the 
     requirements applicable under the initial watershed 
     implementation plan, except that the Administrator may adjust 
     any dates (other than attainment dates) applicable under 
     those requirements, as appropriate.
       ``(5) Federal implementation.--If a Chesapeake Bay State 
     fails to submit a watershed implementation plan, to submit a 
     biennial report, or to correct a previously missed 2-year 
     commitment made in a watershed implementation plan, the 
     Administrator shall, after issuing a notice to the State and 
     providing a 90-day period in which the failure may be 
     corrected--
       ``(A) withhold all funds otherwise available to the 
     Chesapeake Bay State under this Act;
       ``(B) develop and administer a watershed implementation 
     plan for that Chesapeake Bay State until such time as the 
     Chesapeake Bay State has remedied the plan, reports, or 
     achievements to the satisfaction of the Administrator;
       ``(C) require that all permits issued under section 402 for 
     new or expanding discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, or 
     sediments acquire offsets that exceed by 100 percent an 
     amount that would otherwise be required, taking into account 
     attenuation, equivalency, and uncertainty; and
       ``(D) for the purposes of developing and implementing a 
     watershed implementation plan under subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) notwithstanding any other provision of this Act 
     (including any exclusion or exception contained in a 
     definition under section 502), promulgate such regulations or 
     issue such permits as the Administrator determines to be 
     necessary to control pollution sufficient to meet the water 
     quality goals defined in the watershed implementation plan; 
     and
       ``(ii) enforce any permits issued in accordance with the 
     watershed implementation plan in the same manner as other 
     permits issued under section 402 are enforced.
       ``(6) Nitrogen and phosphorus trading program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than May 12, 2012, the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with each Chesapeake Bay State, 
     shall establish an interstate nitrogen and phosphorus trading 
     program for the Chesapeake Bay for the generation, trading, 
     and use of nitrogen and phosphorus credits to facilitate the 
     attainment and maintenance of the Chesapeake Bay-wide TMDL 
     for nitrogen and phosphorus.
       ``(B) Trading system.--The trading program established 
     under this subsection shall, at a minimum--
       ``(i) define and standardize nitrogen and phosphorus 
     credits and establish procedures or standards for ensuring 
     equivalent water quality benefits for all credits;
       ``(ii) establish procedures or standards for certifying and 
     verifying nitrogen and phosphorus credits to ensure that 
     credit-generating practices from both point sources and 
     nonpoint sources are achieving actual reductions in nitrogen 
     and phosphorus;
       ``(iii) establish procedures or standards for generating, 
     quantifying, trading, and applying credits to meet regulatory 
     requirements and allow for trading to occur between and 
     across point source or nonpoint sources;
       ``(iv) establish baseline requirements that a credit seller 
     must meet before becoming eligible to generate saleable 
     credits;
       ``(v) establish points-of-regulation at the sub-State level 
     to facilitate trading and promote water quality goals under 
     which--

       ``(I) States may designate point sources as points-of-
     regulation;
       ``(II) States may aggregate multiple sources to serve as 
     points-of-regulation; and
       ``(III) the Administrator shall establish guidelines or 
     standards to ensure that points-of-regulation shall be 
     generally consistent across States;

       ``(vi) ensure that credits are used in accordance with 
     permit requirements under the national pollutant discharge 
     elimination system established under section 402 and trade 
     requirements have been adequately incorporated into the 
     permits;
       ``(vii) ensure that private contracts between credit buyers 
     and credit sellers contain adequate provisions to ensure 
     enforceability under applicable law;
       ``(viii) establish procedures or standards for providing 
     public transparency on nutrient trading activity;
       ``(ix) ensure that, if the local receiving water is 
     impaired for the nutrient being traded but a TMDL has not yet 
     been implemented for the impairment--

       ``(I) trades are required to result in progress toward or 
     the attainment of water quality standards in the local 
     receiving water; and
       ``(II) sources in the watershed may not rely on credits 
     produced outside of the watershed;

       ``(x) require that the application of credits to meet 
     regulatory requirements under this section not cause or 
     contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, total 
     maximum daily loads, or wasteload or load allocations for 
     affected receiving waters, including avoidance of localized 
     impacts;
       ``(xi) except as part of a consent agreement, prohibit the 
     purchase of credits from any entity that is in significant 
     noncompliance with an enforceable permit issued under section 
     402;
       ``(xii) consider and incorporate, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, elements of State trading programs in existence 
     as of the date of enactment of the Chesapeake Clean Water and 
     Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009; and
       ``(xiii) allow for, as appropriate, the aggregation and 
     banking of credits by third parties.

[[Page S10580]]

       ``(C) Facilitation of trading.--In order to attract market 
     participants and facilitate the cost-effective achievement of 
     water-quality goals, the Administrator shall ensure that the 
     trading program established under this paragraph--
       ``(i) includes measures to mitigate credit buyer risk;
       ``(ii) makes use of the best available science in order to 
     minimize uncertainty and related transaction costs to 
     traders, including the Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, supporting research and other 
     activities that increase the scientific understanding of 
     nonpoint nutrient pollutant loading and the ability of 
     various structural and nonstructural alternatives to reduce 
     the loads;
       ``(iii) eliminates unnecessary or duplicative 
     administrative processes; and
       ``(iv) incorporates a permitting approach under the 
     national pollutant discharge elimination system established 
     under section 402 that allows trading to occur without 
     requiring the reopening or reissuance of permits to 
     incorporate individual trades.
       ``(7) Authority relating to development.--The Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(A) establish, for projects resulting in impervious 
     development, guidance relating to site planning, design, 
     construction, and maintenance strategies to ensure that the 
     land maintains predevelopment hydrology with regard to the 
     temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow;
       ``(B) establish model ordinances and guidelines with 
     respect to the construction of low-impact development 
     infrastructure and nonstructural low-impact development 
     techniques for use by States, local governments, and private 
     entities; and
       ``(C) not later than 180 days after promulgation of the 
     regulations under subsection (j)(3)(B), issue such guidance, 
     model ordinances, and guidelines as are necessary to carry 
     out this paragraph.
       ``(8) Assistance with respect to stormwater discharges.--
       ``(A) Grant program.--The Administrator may provide grants 
     to any local government within the Chesapeake Bay watershed 
     that adopts the guidance, ordinances, and guidelines issued 
     under paragraph (7).
       ``(B) Use of funds.--A grant provided under subparagraph 
     (A) may be used by a local government to pay costs associated 
     with--
       ``(i) developing, implementing, and enforcing the guidance, 
     ordinances, and guidelines issued under paragraph (7); and
       ``(ii) implementing projects designed to reduce stormwater 
     discharges.
       ``(9) Consumer and commercial product report.--Not later 
     than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Chesapeake 
     Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Chesapeake Executive 
     Council, shall--
       ``(A) review consumer and commercial products, the use of 
     which may affect the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed or associated tributaries, to determine whether 
     further product nutrient content restrictions are necessary 
     to restore or maintain water quality in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed and those tributaries; and
       ``(B) submit to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a product nutrient report detailing the 
     findings of the review under subparagraph (A).
       ``(l) Prohibition on Introduction of Asian Oysters.--Not 
     later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the 
     Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, 
     the Administrator shall promulgate regulations--
       ``(1) to designate the Asian oyster as a `biological 
     pollutant' in the Chesapeake Bay and tidal waters pursuant to 
     section 502;
       ``(2) to prohibit the issuance of permits under sections 
     402 and 404 for the discharge of the Asian oyster into the 
     Chesapeake Bay and tidal waters; and
       ``(3) to specify conditions under which scientific research 
     on Asian oysters may be conducted within the Chesapeake Bay 
     and tidal waters.
       ``(m) Chesapeake Nutria Eradication Program.--
       ``(1) Grant authority.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in 
     this subsection as the `Secretary'), may provide financial 
     assistance to the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia 
     to carry out a program to implement measures--
       ``(A) to eradicate or control nutria; and
       ``(B) to restore marshland damaged by nutria.
       ``(2) Goals.--The continuing goals of the program shall 
     be--
       ``(A) to eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; 
     and
       ``(B) to restore marshland damaged by nutria.
       ``(3) Activities.--In the States of Delaware, Maryland, and 
     Virginia, the Secretary shall require that the program under 
     this subsection consist of management, research, and public 
     education activities carried out in accordance with the 
     document published by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service entitled `Eradication Strategies for Nutria in the 
     Chesapeake and Delaware Bay Watersheds', dated March 2002, or 
     any updates to the document.
       ``(n) Study on the Impacts of the Commercial Harvesting of 
     Menhaden on the Water Quality of the Chesapeake Bay.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Fisheries commission.--The term `Fisheries 
     Commission' means the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
     Commission established under the interstate compact consented 
     to and approved by pursuant to the Act of May 4, 1942 (56 
     Stat. 267, chapter 283) and the Act of May 19, 1949 (63 Stat. 
     70, chapter 238).
       ``(B) Fishing.--Except as otherwise provided, the term 
     `fishing'--
       ``(i) means--

       ``(I) the commercial catching, taking, or harvesting of 
     menhaden, except when incidental to harvesting that occurs in 
     the course of commercial or recreational fish-catching 
     activities directed at a species other than menhaden;
       ``(II) the attempted commercial catching, taking, or 
     harvesting of menhaden; or
       ``(III) any operation at sea in support of, or in 
     preparation for, any activity described in subclause (I) or 
     (II); and

       ``(ii) does not include any scientific research authorized 
     by the Federal Government or by any State Government.
       ``(2) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem 
     Restoration Act of 2009, building on the research underway or 
     conducted under the oversight of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, the Administrator, in cooperation 
     and consultation with the Administrator of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fisheries 
     Commission, shall conduct and submit to Congress a study for 
     the purposes of determining--
       ``(A) progress toward understanding the structure of the 
     menhaden population of the Atlantic Coast of the United 
     States and of the Chesapeake Bay;
       ``(B) the role of the population as filter feeders, 
     including the role of the population with respect to 
     impacting water clarity, dissolved oxygen levels, and other 
     ecosystem functions;
       ``(C) the role of the population as prey species for 
     predatory fish in the Chesapeake Bay and in coastal 
     ecosystems;
       ``(D) the impact on the Atlantic coastal and Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystems of fishing for menhaden;
       ``(E) the impact on attainment of the water quality goals 
     of this Act of commercial fishing for menhaden; and
       ``(F) the recommendations of the Administrator, if any, for 
     future sustainable management of such fishing and additional 
     research needed to fully address the progress, roles, and 
     impacts described in this paragraph.
       ``(o) Effect on Other Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section removes or 
     otherwise affects any other obligation for a point source to 
     comply with other applicable requirements under this Act.
       ``(2) Violations by states.--The failure of a State to 
     submit a watershed implementation plan or biennial report, or 
     to correct a previously missed 2-year commitment made in a 
     watershed implementation plan, by the applicable deadline 
     established under this section shall--
       ``(A) constitute a violation of this Act; and
       ``(B) subject the State to--
       ``(i) enforcement action by the Administrator; and
       ``(ii) civil actions commenced pursuant to section 505.
       ``(3) Failure of administrator to act.--The failure of the 
     Administrator to act under this section shall subject the 
     Administrator to civil actions commenced pursuant to section 
     505.
       ``(p) Evaluation by the Inspector General.--The Inspector 
     General of the Environmental Protection Agency shall evaluate 
     the implementation of this section on a periodic basis of not 
     less than once every 3 years.
       ``(q) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Implementation and monitoring grants.--
       ``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to carry out this section, there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Administrator--
       ``(i) to provide implementation grants under subsection 
     (e)(3)(A), $80,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2015, to remain available until expended;
       ``(ii) to carry out a freshwater monitoring program under 
     subsection (e)(3)(B), $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2010 through 2015; and
       ``(iii) to carry out a Chesapeake Bay and tidal water 
     monitoring program under subsection (e)(3)(B), $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
       ``(B) Cost sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     program carried out using funds from a grant provided--
       ``(i) under subparagraph (A)(i) shall not exceed 50 
     percent; and
       ``(ii) under clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall 
     not exceed 80 percent.
       ``(2) Chesapeake stewardship grants.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (h)(2) $15,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       ``(3) Storm water pollution planning and implementation 
     grants.--
       ``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized or otherwise made available to carry out 
     this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator--
       ``(i) to carry out subsection (k)(8)(B)(i), $10,000,000; 
     and

[[Page S10581]]

       ``(ii) to carry out subsection (k)(8)(B)(ii), 
     $1,500,000,000.
       ``(B) Cost-sharing.--A grant provided for a project under--
       ``(i) subsection (k)(8)(B)(i) may not be used to cover more 
     than 80 percent of the cost of the project; and
       ``(ii) subsection (k)(8)(B)(ii) may not be used to cover 
     more than 75 percent of the cost of the project.
       ``(4) Nutria eradication grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial 
     assistance in the Chesapeake Bay watershed under subsection 
     (m) $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
       ``(B) Cost-sharing.--
       ``(i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out the program under subsection (m) may not exceed 
     75 percent of the total costs of the program.
       ``(ii) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of carrying out the program under subsection (m) may be 
     provided in the form of in-kind contributions of materials or 
     services.
       ``(5) Limitation on administrative expenses.--Not more than 
     10 percent of the annual amount of any grant provided by the 
     Administrator or Secretary under any program described in 
     paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) may be used for 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(6) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under this subsection shall remain available until 
     expended.''.

                          ____________________