Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the status of shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac River, and the effects of the discharge of sediment and pollutants from the Washington Aqueduct on its population and habitat.

Background

The shortnose sturgeon is anadromous, which means that it lives in slow moving river waters or nearshore marine waters, but migrates periodically to fresher water to spawn. The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act on March 11, 1967, and subsequently listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. NMFS has sole jurisdiction for protecting shortnose sturgeon under the ESA. The Chesapeake Bay population segment includes any shortnose sturgeon that inhabits rivers that flow into the Bay, including the Potomac River. There is no population estimate available for this population segment.

Occurrence in Potomac River

Prior to 1996, the most recent documented evidence of shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac was from 1899, and the best available information suggested that the species was extirpated from the Potomac River. Between 1996 and 2000, four shortnose sturgeon were captured in the lower and middle tidal Potomac River during a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reward program for Atlantic sturgeon. These shortnose sturgeon were captured in pound nets in the Potomac River, between 55 and 123 miles downstream of the Washington Aqueduct discharge site near Little Falls. As of April 2001, an additional 42 shortnose sturgeon were captured via the reward program in other areas of the Chesapeake Bay, but not near the Potomac River.

In addition to the reward program for Atlantic sturgeon, the USFWS conducted two sampling studies between 1998 and 2000 in the Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed to determine the occurrence of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in areas of proposed dredge-fill operations. One of these studies was a Potomac River sampling study for a Section 7 consultation on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Potomac River Federal Navigation Project. Specific concerns about this project included the potential effects of proposed open water disposal of dredged material in the lower Potomac River on shortnose sturgeon. This study included a total of 4,590 fishing hours conducted at 5 sites in the middle Potomac River. These sites ranged from approximately 30 to 74 miles downstream of the Washington Aqueduct discharge site. During this study, no shortnose sturgeon were captured at any of the 5 sites.

As part of the Potomac River sampling study, at NMFS' request, the USFWS also conducted an additional 77 hours of sampling at two other areas in the upper tidal Potomac River. This area, in the vicinity of Little Falls, Virginia, is near the best potential spawning habitat for shortnose sturgeon and the Aqueduct discharge site. No shortnose sturgeon were captured during 1998 and 1999 spring sampling in the vicinity of Little Falls.

Taken altogether, the evidence does not conclusively demonstrate that shortnose sturgeon are present in any area that conceivably could be adversely affected by the discharges. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to show that it is at least a possibility. Since the standard for determining whether ESA consultation is necessary is whether an agency's action "may affect" a listed species, NMFS believes that it is in the best interest of the species to consider the evidence as showing that shortnose sturgeon are present in the Potomac River basin, and may be present in the action area. This is based on the documentation of shortnose sturgeon in the lower and middle tidal reaches of the Potomac River as well as the suitable habitat in this river system. Because sampling for shortnose sturgeon has been limited in the upper tidal reaches, NMFS does not have sufficient evidence to conclusively state that shortnose sturgeon are present or absent in this area. While we have no documented evidence of shortnose sturgeon spawning in the Potomac River, the habitat in the upper tidal Potomac River at Little Falls is consistent with the preferred shortnose sturgeon spawning habitat in other river systems.

Interagency Cooperation

In 1998, NMFS worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other Federal and State agencies to develop measures that would minimize the impacts of the sediment discharges to spawning anadromous and resident fish in the short term. The agencies reviewed scientific literature and provided specific recommendations for the operation of the Washington Aqueduct to minimize the adverse effects of sediment discharges on the spawning activities of anadromous fish and their habitat.

Washington Aqueduct Section 7 Consultation History

While concerns about the effect of the Washington Aqueduct's discharge on water quality, fish, and other aquatic life existed prior to 1996, the impacts to shortnose sturgeon specifically were not considered. The capture of shortnose sturgeon in 1996 during the USFWS reward program represented new scientific information that had to be considered in ESA section 7 consultations.

EPA and NMFS are in informal consultation regarding the effects of the Washington Aqueduct. This is based on the recent documentation of shortnose sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, the possibility of the Little Falls area as a spawning site, and our inability at this time to conclusively state whether a spawning population of shortnose sturgeon is present or absent in this area.

The Army Corps of Engineers, operator of the Washington Aqueduct, funded a three-year water quality study to assess the discharge and its effects. We understand that a final report of this study has been issued but we have not yet received the final document. EPA will use the discharge study results and other relevant data to develop a biological assessment on the potential impacts of the Washington Aqueduct on shortnose sturgeon. Once NMFS receives this evaluation, NMFS will determine whether the proposed federal action is likely to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon and other listed species. If so, formal consultation will be necessary and NMFS will prepare a biological opinion.

To conclude, I look forward to working closely with Congress and other agencies for the protection of this species. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.