<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:96635.wais]
A MODEL FOR SUCCESS? MONITORING, MEASURING AND MANAGING THE HEALTH OF
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 20, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-221
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-635 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Columbia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida ------
------ ------ BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 20, 2004.................................. 1
Statement of:
Bahner, Lowell, director, Chesapeake Bay Office, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..................... 26
Boesch, Donald F., president, Center for Environmental
Science, University of Maryland............................ 87
Hanmer, Rebecca, director, Chesapeake Bay Program............ 6
Hofmann, Eileen, the professor of ocean, Earth and
Atmospheric sciences, Old Dominion University.............. 104
Murphy, W. Tayloe, Jr., Secretary of Natural Resources,
Commonwealth of Virginia................................... 19
Phillips, Scott, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator, U.S. Geological
Survey..................................................... 36
Pierno, Theresa, vice president for environmental protection
& restoration, Chesapeake Bay Foundation................... 76
Porter, Frances W., executive director, Virginia Seafood
Council.................................................... 123
Schaffner, Linda, associate professor, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science............................................. 97
Swanson, Ann Pesiri, executive director, Chesapeake Bay
Commission................................................. 45
Wallace, Mark, Eastern Shore Watermen's Association.......... 128
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bahner, Lowell, director, Chesapeake Bay Office, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, prepared statement
of......................................................... 28
Boesch, Donald F., president, Center for Environmental
Science, University of Maryland, prepared statement of..... 90
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 3
Hanmer, Rebecca, director, Chesapeake Bay Program, prepared
statement of............................................... 9
Hofmann, Eileen, the professor of ocean, Earth and
Atmospheric sciences, Old Dominion University, prepared
statement of............................................... 106
Murphy, W. Tayloe, Jr., Secretary of Natural Resources,
Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement of............ 23
Phillips, Scott, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator, U.S. Geological
Survey, prepared statement of.............................. 38
Pierno, Theresa, vice president for environmental protection
& restoration, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, prepared
statement of............................................... 78
Porter, Frances W., executive director, Virginia Seafood
Council, prepared statement of............................. 125
Schaffner, Linda, associate professor, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, prepared statement of...................... 99
Swanson, Ann Pesiri, executive director, Chesapeake Bay
Commission, prepared statement of.......................... 48
Wallace, Mark, Eastern Shore Watermen's Association, prepared
statement of............................................... 130
A MODEL FOR SUCCESS? MONITORING, MEASURING AND MANAGING THE HEALTH OF
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
----------
FRIDAY, AUGUST 20, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Fort Monroe, VA.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in the
Breeze Community Center, 409 Fenwick Road, Fort Monroe, VA,
Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representative Davis and Schrock.
Staff present: Brien Beattie, professional staff member;
Robert White, press secretary; Teresa Austin, chief clerk;
Allyson Blandford, office manager; and Amy Westmoreland,
legislative assistant.
Chairman Tom Davis. Good morning, the committee will come
to order. We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the
Chesapeake Bay clean up effort.
The Chesapeake Bay is an ecosystem in crisis. All the
witnesses we will hear from today will agree on this point.
Large dead zones, areas of low dissolved oxygen that suffocate
and kill native aquatic life, plague the bay every summer.
These dead zones are caused by massive nutrient pollution from
numerous man-made sources, exacerbated by natural weather
processes. Nitrogen and phosphorous from sewage treatment
plants, agricultural industry and urban sprawl are washed down
the major rivers that feed the bay, fueling the uncontrolled
growth of algae blooms that consume great quantities of
dissolved oxygen, leaving precious little for oysters, crabs
and fish. This algae also blocks out sunlight, killing grasses
and other submerged aquatic vegetation.
This environmental crisis threatens to destroy a bay that
is enjoyed by recreational admirers and upon which industrial
fishermen and their families depend. Indeed, this is a vital
economic interest for the States involved. For example, the
Virginia Seafood Council has estimated that commercial fishing
contributes $450 million annually to the economy of Virginia
alone. Yet seafood harvest from the bay continue to shrink. In
1985, only 18 years ago, Virginia oyster men were able to pull
1 million bushels of oysters from the bay; in 2003 they
harvested less than 15,000. In short, it is a crisis that
concerns all of us, not only in this region--Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania--but across the country as well.
Since its creation in 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program has
been the coordinating agency for the effort to clean up the
bay. The program is a regional partnership that includes the
States of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia, a tri-State legislative body called the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The program has been hailed as a model for both estuarine
research and for regional coordination of local, State and
Federal stakeholders in meeting environmental challenges that
span multiple jurisdictions.
In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program set the water quality
goal of reducing the levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in the
bay by 40 percent by 2000. However, over the years, the program
has been forced to repeatedly lower expectations in the face of
the great challenges it faces in accomplishing this mission.
Using an advance computer model that has been described by one
program spokesman as the Cadillac of watershed models around
the world, the program has reported reductions of 28 percent
for phosphorous and 18 percent for nitrogen since 1985. The
program, also, has many water quality monitoring stations
spread throughout the regions. However, according to recent
media reports using just such water sample data from the U.S.
Geological Survey, there has been little or no improvement in
phosphorous or nitrogen levels.
The recent media attention on apparent inconsistencies
between progress reported and progress made has prompted many
in the scientific and environmental communities to question not
only the effectiveness of the program's computer modeling by
even its fundamental commitment to cleaning up the bay. Some
claim the program's over-reliance on computer modeling and
inadequate use of actual water sample data has created a false
sense of security among policymakers and the public. However,
program officials have strongly denied that they neglect water
sampling in favor of total reliance on a computer model. They
say the program utilizes 100 different indicators to develop an
accurate picture of the bay's health and that only 11 of these
are based entirely on computer models.
The committee hopes to clear the air today, or perhaps the
water, over the Chesapeake Bay Program's modeling and
monitoring procedures. We also want to get a status update from
those on the front lines of the battle to save the bay and
learn what, if anything, Congress can do to help.
I might add that first of all, I was a member of the
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors during the years that we
down zoned the watershed which feeds into the bay as a part of
this program, and had it upheld in court, it has moved its way
through.
I am going to now recognize Mr. Schrock, who is really
responsible for putting this hearing together, for his opening
statements and then move to our first panel. Mr. Schrock.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.002
Mr. Schrock. Well, thank you, and good morning everyone.
Let me begin Mr. Chairman, by expressing my sincere gratitude
to you for allowing the committee to hold this important
hearing not in Washington, DC, but within view of the very body
of water we are here to discuss and have much to be concerned
about.
I want to express my appreciation to Colonel Perry
Allmendinger who was the commanding officer of Fort Monroe, and
these soldiers and civilians here at Fort Monroe, whose support
and hospitality has made today's hearing a reality. Thank you
very much, Perry, we appreciate it.
Welcome, all of you to the Second Congressional District of
Virginia, especially our panel of witnesses who have taken
their time to help us understand how we can effectively monitor
and measure the health of this treasure that we call the
Chesapeake Bay. To many the Chesapeake Bay is a body, whose
water and watershed are a back yard of a business, a beloved
home, a playground. A visit to the eastern shore, or to the
island of Tangier, an observation of the time and energy
invested in the watermen's way of life are true life examples
of communities and people that depend on the bay for their very
livelihood.
That our bay is impaired is of particular concern to me not
only as the representative for the Hampton Roads area, but as a
resident of this area as well. The Chesapeake Bay is the
largest estuary ecosystem in the world and I have no doubt it
is the primary model for ecosystem restoration and regional
partnerships.
The Chesapeake Bay Program serves as an example for dozens
of other estuary restoration efforts nationally, including Long
Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, Tampa Bay, Puget Sound, among
others. I firmly believe that much expectation is placed on our
task and our efforts will be a model for success nationwide.
Without question, we all agree that there is still much
work to be done. Recently, it was called to my attention in
news reports in the Washington Post and in other local papers
exactly how much the Chesapeake Bay cleanup has progressed--is
disputed. And lying at the heart of the debate are the tools
and methods used to measure the bay's health. This is a concern
in that as we have sought to improve the health of the bay, we
have called on States, localities, businesses, and farmers to
change their practices so that they are more environmentally
friendly. These requirements and regulations have cost
taxpayers, business owners, and farmers millions of dollars in
compliance.
As such, it is important for us to know that their
investments are paying off. If they are not, we must understand
why and change course, if necessary. In attempts to deal with
the bay, the Federal and State governments passed laws and
regulations that impact these stakeholders. Policymakers,
before passing such laws and regulations, must know exactly
where we are now and precisely the means necessary to achieve
our goals of healing the bay.
So, in light of the conflicting reports about the health of
the Chesapeake Bay, the purpose of today's hearing is to learn
more about what the actual state of the bay really is, how the
bay has helped to fix our region and how to best reevaluate it.
I firmly believe that before we can legitimately tackle the
huge task of saving the bay, we must establish the necessary
framework before we can implement the right solutions.
Again, thank you all for coming today, I know that I have a
lot to learn and I look forward to our witnesses' testimony.
And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much Mr. Schrock,
and now we turn to our first panel. It is the policy of our
committee that all witnesses be sworn before they testify. Let
me just introduce our panel.
First we have Rebecca Hanmer, who is the director of the
Chesapeake Bay Program; we have Tayloe Murphy, Jr., former
member of the Virginia House of Delegates and now the Secretary
of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
Tayloe Murphy goes with water quality and environment in this
State for more than a generation. Lowell Bahner who is the
Director of the Chesapeake Bay Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Scott Phillips, the Chesapeake Bay
Coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey; and Ann Swanson,
the Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Will you rise with me and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Your entire
statements are in the record. We will base our questions on
reading that last night and, and we will ask you on that. So,
what we would like you to do is keep it to 5 minutes as we go
through. We do have a light up there, when it is working, it
will be green for the first 4 minutes and then it will turn
orange, and when it turns red your 5 are up and you can move to
summary about that time. We will not gavel you or shout at you.
Ms. Hanmer, we will start with you and then we will work
straight on down the row. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA HANMER, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
Ms. Hanmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Davis, and Congressman Schrock, thank you for
inviting me to testify today. My name is Rebecca Hanmer and I
am the Director of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
I am sorry to be the unwitting cause of a controversy over
how progress in implementing the bay cleanup is measured. I am
especially sorry that the controversy has led respected
newspapers and members of the public to conclude that the
Chesapeake Bay Program does not monitor the water quality
conditions of the bay and its tidal tributaries or care what
the monitoring data tell us. We care very much. Curing the
problems of the bay is our profession and our passion,
therefore I welcome the opportunity to take a moment to discuss
both our modeling and our monitoring programs. But, most
importantly I'd like to talk about the additional actions we
need to take to restore the bay.
Annually, we spend about $1 million on modeling. Having
read other witnesses prepared testimony I think you will hear
others say that our watershed model is, for example, one of the
most advanced ecosystem models in the world, as from Ms.
Pierno's testimony. The most comprehensive and powerful models
of the watershed and estuary of their kind, as from Dr. Boesch.
Let me say from my own experience, the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model is world class and we are proud of it. Like all
water pollution control programs, we must rely on modeling to
help us to determine what actions we should take to reduce
pollutants and ultimately to achieve water quality improvement.
We use modeling to help us determine what we can control and
what we cannot--like the rainfall, or tidal resuspension. The
model helps us set goals and develop management strategies.
Last year we concluded a 3-year effort to set new
ecosystem-based water quality criteria for the bay. We then set
basin-wide pollution reduction targets that would be needed to
achieve this new scientific description of restored bay water
quality. We concluded, for example, we should allow no more
then 175 million pounds of nitrogen to enter the bay during an
average hydrologic year. I do not think you will hear a single
witness today dispute that number. It is a consensus goal and
it was based on the use of the bay program's watershed model.
It only makes sense then that we should use the same tool as we
conduct annual progress runs to determine if we are making the
right management decisions to reach those targets.
But that is not the only way we measure the health of the
bay or evaluate the management decisions designed to restore
the bay. While we spent about $1 million in fiscal year 2003 on
modeling, we spent about $3 million on monitoring, with our
partners investing much more than that in our monitoring
program. I think most of the data that will be discussed today
from dissolved oxygen levels to nutrients to bay grasses comes
from the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring System.
So, it is simply not true to say that we do not monitor, we
do and we pay close attention to the results. If you look at
the bay program's Web site you will see a large number of
indicators of the bay including information from both our tidal
and non-tidal water monitoring networks. As you pointed out,
Mr. Chairman, of the 100 indicators we use, about 11 are based
on the watershed model output.
In 2003, as I said, we published new criteria for measuring
the water quality of the bay. Attainment with these criteria
will be measured through water quality monitoring data. That is
the ultimate test of the success of our bay water quality
restoration efforts. So, we clearly need both monitoring and
modeling to be successful. But neither a world class model, nor
robust water quality monitoring alone will restore the bay.
What we need is action, implementation.
Over the past 20 years the bay program has helped bring
about important actions that are making a positive difference
in the health of the bay. For example, 97 wastewater treatment
plants have already installed nutrient removal technology, and
that is about 56 percent of the total flow. Over 3 million
acres of crop land are operated under nutrient management plans
designed to reduce excess nutrients. Over 1,300 stream miles
have or will be open to migratory fish. Over 2,800 miles of
stream side forest buffers have been restored. As important as
these accomplishments have been, they are just the beginning.
We estimate we have only removed a small percentage of the
nitrogen pollution and about half of the phosphorous and
sediment pollution that we need to remove in order to meet our
water quality goals.
So, we have made modest gains in reducing the number of
pollutants flowing to the bay, especially when we are faced
with a 20 percent increase in population growth. But the amount
of work ahead of us is truly daunting. To restore the bay will
take unprecedented of levels of effort meaning that government
at all levels, farmers, food processors, developers,
homeowners, apartment dwellers, everyone alike will be affected
by our tributary strategies and will need to help us clean up
the bay. With their help and with your leadership I think we
can succeed.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, very much. Secretary Murphy.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanmer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.012
STATEMENT OF W. TAYLOE MURPHY, JR., SECRETARY OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Schrock, thank
you very much for the opportunity to be with you today. My
message to you is a simple one. Restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay is both possible, and critical to the future environmental
and economic health of the Commonwealth. However, a clean and
healthy bay will not come without substantial public and
private investment, and the unwavering support of all levels of
government as well as private stakeholders.
There will always be disagreements about water quality data
and its interpretation. On the other hand, I do not doubt for a
moment that the bay program office has been absolutely
forthright with the public about the magnitude of the
challenges involved in restoring the bay, and the difficulties
we face in meeting them.
Our current efforts to improve dissolved oxygen and
chlorophyll, A concentrations and water clarity through
nutrient reduction strategies are fraught with political and
fiscal complications. Simple solutions that make for good press
do not necessarily constitute wise public policy. I want to
take this opportunity to assure you that we are moving
inexorably toward the goals established for a restored bay, but
these are difficult, expensive and complex issues that take
time to resolve.
As chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council, Governor
Warner and his counterparts in the other participating States
and jurisdictions cannot do this alone. The success of the
efforts in which we are now engaged will require the strong
support of conservationists, industry, local government,
members of the State legislatures, and the U.S. Congress, as
well as the President himself. All of us who are charged with
the responsibility of meeting the commitments contained in the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement value the scientific work that is
being done by the Chesapeake Bay Program, under the leadership
of Rebecca Hanmer and her capable staff.
The program has always employed the best available science
and state-of-the-art measures to assess progress. I have been
personally involved in the Chesapeake Bay Program for over 20
years, and I know from my own experience that professionalism
and the use of the best available science have always been the
hallmark of this program. I know that Ms. Hanmer will continue
to administer the program and according to these high standards
so that the public will not be misled as to the state of the
bay.
Regardless of what we may have heard in the press, we have
always based our measures of success on actual water quality
conditions, this will not change. Only monitoring will tell us
whether our waters meet established water quality standards.
Although, we used the bay model as a management tool in-stream
conditions as determined through our monitoring programs will
continue to constitute the basis on which progress and
improving water quality is measured.
On the basis of recent press reports and other sources, the
public may have the impression that they are being misinformed
by the bay program of both the progress that has been made and
the magnitude of the task at hand. The development of new water
quality standards in accordance with the 2003 criteria
promulgated by the bay program office and the strategies now
being drafted to achieve the nutrient reductions necessary to
achieve the new standards is a clear indication that progress
to date in improving water quality in the bay and its
tributaries is insufficient to restore the bay to a truly
healthy condition.
Since becoming Secretary of Natural Resources for Virginia,
I have consistently repeated myself and I will do so again
today. Meeting the water quality objectives set forth in the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement and the subsequent nutrient reduction
commitments agreed to by the bay partners in 2003 constitute
the single most important initiative to restore the bay to a
healthy and productive estuary.
In all candor I must also state that we have no hope of
meeting these ambitious water quality goals without significant
additional financial support from both the public and private
sectors and without significant changes in how we farm, manage
stormwater, convert land, use septic tanks and treat industrial
and municipal waste.
Now, I would like to take a moment to report to you on the
actions we have undertaken in Virginia to meet our commitments
to achieve these goals. Under Governor Warner's leadership and
with strong support from the General Assembly, $37 million has
been appropriated for the water quality improvement fund for
this biennium. That fund is the principal source of State
support for both point and non-point nutrient reduction
programs. As a result of the fact that we ended the last fiscal
year with a surplus we hope to receive another $30 million in
appropriations to the fund at the next session of the General
Assembly. It is certainly not all that we need, however, it
represents the first contribution to this fund in 3 years and
it is an important step in the right direction.
In April, I released for public comment draft tributary
strategies for each of the major river basin in Virginia's
portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. These strategies
contain a series of proposed management practices to control
non-point source nutrient pollution and higher levels of
treatment for point source discharges. On the basis of the
public comment that has been received, we are currently
revising these documents and preparing implementation plans. We
will then use the bay program model to determine whether our
final strategies if fully implemented will enable us to achieve
our reduction goals.
However, only consistent widespread monitoring will tell us
whether we have actually met those goals. On the regulatory
front, in June the Virginia Water Control Board released for
public comment draft water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen, chlorophyll A and water clarity. These proposed
standards prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality
will apply to all of Virginia's tidal waters.
In its August 31 meeting, the Board will also consider a
regulation to require technology based nutrient limits in
wastewater discharge permits as well as nutrient loading
allocations for point source facilities in the bay Watershed,
the purpose of which is to reduce and cap point source
loadings. On the non-point source side, we are working to
target more effectively our cost share programs for non-point
sources through the Department of Conservation and Recreation
in partnership with local governments and soil and water
conservation districts.
This department is working closely with the General
Assembly's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission that
is conducting a study of nutrient management planning in
Virginia. We will review JLARC's findings later this year to
determine what additional initiatives we should pursue in the
use of this important nutrient reduction tool for agriculture.
In addition, the Department of Conservation and Recreation,
in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Quality, is
now in the process of implementing the legislation proposed by
the Governor and passed by the 2004 General Assembly that
reorganizes the Commonwealth stormwater management programs and
expands the coverage of those programs Statewide.
With regard to non-point source controls, some practices
can be implemented either through regulation or incentives or a
combination of both. On the other hand, some non-point source
practices can only be achieved through incentive based
programs. Accordingly, our biggest challenge is quite clearly
to find the additional revenue sources necessary to put in
place both our point and non-point source initiatives. If we
are unsuccessful in obtaining additional financial support from
the State and Federal levels, the cost of success will fall
entirely on the localities and their ratepayers and on the
private property owner.
The water quality improvements that we seek benefit all
Virginians and indeed all who live, work, and visit within the
bay watershed. Therefore, the cost of success should be borne
in my judgment by all taxpayers and not just by some of them.
In closing, I would like to share with you my personal
perspective on what the achievement of our present water
quality goals means to Virginia. As some of you know I am a
native of the Northern Neck of Virginia. The peninsula bounded
by the Potomac, and Rappahannock Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay.
I was born there and I have lived nearly all of my life on the
banks of the lower Potomac. During my rather long life I have
witnessed dramatic declines in the living resources of the bay.
And in the last 20 years which coincides with the years of my
public service, these declines have continued unabated. In
1984, oyster harvests in Virginia were over 4.5 million pounds.
In 2003 the harvest of oysters yielded just over 77,000 pounds.
In 1984, there were 200 oyster shucking houses in Virginia; in
2003, there were 20. In 1984, blue crab harvest in Virginia
produced over 50 million pounds; in 2003, the harvest was down
58 percent to just over 21 million pounds. In 1984, there were
75 crab picking houses in the Commonwealth; in 2003, there were
10. When one considers these statistics, there is small wonder
that those engaged in the fishing industry feel that they have
paid the cost of our neglect of their interest in water quality
and habitat protection.
Now, let me say as I began, restoration of the bay is both
possible and critical to the future environmental and economic
health the Commonwealth. Your help is important to the success
of the water quality initiative now underway. I thank you for
providing me with the opportunity to make this plea to you
today, and I hope that this hearing will have the effect of
strengthening your commitment to be an advocate for the bay.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Bahner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.015
STATEMENT OF LOWELL BAHNER, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY OFFICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bahner. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Schrock, I am Lowell
Bahner, director of the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. Thank you
for inviting me to testify regarding NOAA's role in supporting
the Chesapeake Bay Program and the issue of modeling versus
monitoring to evaluate progress in the restoration effort.
NOAA's role in the Chesapeake Bay Program derives from the
agency's mission, the statutory mandate of the NOAA Chesapeake
Bay Program and the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. As a partner in
the Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA works toward several specific
commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. The Chesapeake
Bay Program recently established a set of keystone commitments
for bay restoration. I will discuss NOAA's lead role for four
of those keystones.
First, by 2010, achieve a 10-fold increase in native
oysters. NOAA is the lead Federal agency for Chesapeake Bay
oyster restoration providing funding and technical assistance
to large scale restoration and community efforts, hatchery
infrastructure and applied disease research. The strategy for
native oyster restoration continues to be refined based on
evaluation of projects implemented to date.
In addition to restoration support, oyster disease research
funding from NOAA Sea Grant continues to address disease
management strategies, development of potentially disease
resistant strains of native oysters, and evaluation of the
possible introduction of alternative oyster species.
Second, by 2005, develop multi-species fishery management
plans. Fisheries in Chesapeake Bay contribute significantly to
U.S. catches at national and regional levels. Recent statistics
indicate that an average of 600 million pounds of fish and
shellfish with an estimated value of $156 million are
commercially harvested from Chesapeake Bay each year. NOAA
recently released a guidance document entitled Fishery
Ecosystem Planning for Chesapeake Bay and is also developing an
ecosystem-based fisheries model to support State and regional
fishery managers in the development of new fishery management
plans.
Third, for submerged aquatic vegetation, accelerate
protection and restoration. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
began large scale submerged aquatic vegetation planting and
research in 2003. NOAA awarded grants in fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004 to establish pilot and large scale planting
and restoration techniques for underwater grasses native to the
various salinity regimes of Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries.
Fourth, provide a meaningful bay or stream experience for
all students in the watershed, beginning with the class of
2005. As the lead Federal agency for education in the
Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA coordinated the activities of the
Chesapeake Bay Program education work group. The NOAA Bay
Watershed Education and Training Program [B-WET] established in
2002, provides hands-on watershed education to students and
teachers to foster stewardship of Chesapeake Bay. NOAA
recognizes that environmentally aware citizens with the skills
and knowledge to make well informed environmental choices are
key to sustaining the Nation's ocean and coastal environments.
NOAA-wide investments: In addition to the programs of the
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, NOAA provides a number of
valuable products and services to address a broad range of bay
user needs, including ensuring safe navigation and marine
commerce, restoring habitats, improving the management of
coastal resources, providing citizens with forecasts of wind,
weather and water events, and protecting and restoring the
bay's fisheries. NOAA has also afforded benefits to the
Chesapeake Bay through strong partnerships with State and local
government, academia, and private organizations.
Modeling versus monitoring in reporting progress: NOAA
provides the EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program Office with data
used to run the bay watershed pollutant loading model,
including rainfall and precipitation data, meteorological data
such as wind, temperature, humidity and solar radiation,
remotely sensed chlorophyll information and an air deposition
model. NOAA believes that both modeling and monitoring are
important in reporting progress on bay restoration. Modeling
provides a valuable tool for examining the potential impact of
a given management scheme and looks back to understand what
happened. Monitoring provides an ongoing means of accessing the
net result of management actions, taking into account the
natural variability in the environment and providing real world
data for input back into modeling efforts.
This concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman, I will be happy
to respond to any questions that you or members of the
committee may have.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Phillips.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bahner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.023
STATEMENT OF SCOTT PHILLIPS, CHESAPEAKE BAY COORDINATOR, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Mr. Phillips. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Schrock, thank
you for the opportunity to testify about the progress in
safeguarding the Chesapeake Bay. My name is Scott Phillips, I
am the Chesapeake Bay coordinator for the U.S. Geological
Survey. This morning my testimony will focus on the role of the
USGS in providing science to the bay program, and how the USGS
science is used to report water quality progress.
Since the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Program in 1983,
the USGS has performed a critical role of providing unbiased
scientific information that is used by our bay program partners
to help understand and restore the bay and its watershed. More
recently, findings from the USGS have been used by the bay
program partners to help formulate approaches to meet and
evaluate the restoration goals in the Chesapeake 2000
agreement.
Over 40 USGS scientists located in offices throughout the
bay watershed are involved in conducting studies. These
scientists directly interact with our partners to present and
explain the results of these investigations.
Now, let me talk more specifically about the use of USGS
science in the issue of modeling and monitoring to assess water
quality progress. One of the primary goals of the Chesapeake
2000 agreement is to reduce the pollution that enters the bay
to improve conditions by 2010. Each year the bay program
partners monitor the major pollutants--nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment--that are in the rivers and tidal waters. The
monitoring data are used with modeling results to help the bay
program partners assess progress in meeting the water quality
goals of Chesapeake 2000.
USGS, in cooperation with our partners, monitors water
quality at nine principal rivers that enter the tidal portion
of the bay watershed. At each of these nine river input sites
which are shown here on this map, the USGS has monitored the
levels of river flow and nutrient and sediment concentrations
in each of these rivers. This information is used to determine
the amount or loads of nutrients and sediment that enter the
tidal waters. Results show that in 2003, the nutrient loads
were the second highest since monitoring began in 1980's, that
can be seen on this bottom graph. The loads of nutrients at
these sites have been affected by yearly changes in river flows
and changes in nutrient concentrations.
In just the last few years, the river flow and nutrient
loads have varied from near record lows due to drought
conditions in 1999 through 2002 to near record highs in 2003.
The higher nutrient loads in 2003 are related to increased
rainfall and higher nutrient concentrations due to runoff in
this very wet year. The changes in load have a very real impact
on the bay, these increased loads on 2003 contribute to large
areas of low dissolved oxygen levels and a decline in
underwater grasses in the bay. These changes in yearly loads,
which are driven partially by weather conditions, suggest a
lack of progress in reducing pollutants to the bay.
The USGS has developed statistical techniques to compensate
for these natural changes in river flow, so we can better
understand progress related to management actions. Using these
techniques results from the nine river input sites show
improvements in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations at about
half of these sites. There were declines in total nitrogen
concentrations at four rivers including the Susquehanna,
Potomac and James, which comprise almost 90 percent of the
river flow that enters the bay. Total phosphorus concentrations
also declined at two sites, including the Susquehanna and
James.
There has been some question about the use of the
Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model to evaluate progress in
reducing loads to the bay. The model progress runs were not
intended to reflect these annual changes in nutrients and
sediment loads. They focus more on the average river flow
conditions to predict load reductions. When the results of the
model progress runs are compared to the flow adjusted trends in
the rivers, there is general agreement about the progress in
pollution reduction.
In conclusion, the watershed model is a critical tool to
predict load reductions to the bay. The bay program has
utilized new scientific findings on the effectiveness of
management actions to improve these predictions. Further the
bay program partners, including the USGS, are making
enhancements to current models to produce an improved version
that incorporates additional data on river flow, water quality,
and other watershed processes. Ultimately, evaluating progress
will be based primarily on monitoring data. The USGS and the
bay program partners are working to increase the amount of
monitoring and interpretation of water quality conditions in
the bay and its watershed.
Additionally, USGS is working to better document the human
activities and natural factors that impact water quality,
fisheries and migratory birds that depend on the bay. We face a
huge challenge in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. There will be a
critical need for increased monitoring and research to
understand the progress from restoring the Nation's largest
estuary.
Mr. Chairman, the USGS appreciates your continued interest
in the Chesapeake Bay Program. I will be pleased to answer any
questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Swanson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.030
STATEMENT OF ANN PESIRI SWANSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE
BAY COMMISSION
Ms. Swanson. Chairman Davis, Congressman Schrock, thank you
very much for the honor to be here. My name is Ann Pesiri
Swanson, and I have worked for more than two decades on
Chesapeake Bay, having served for the last 16 years as
executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. I would
like to first thank you for recognizing the Commission as a
very different entity than my colleagues.
Your committee has asked us to provide a summary of current
legislation and regional cooperation and the role of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission in bringing those constituent
legislators together. On that note, let me say that we do serve
to represent the legislative branch of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, with the colleagues of course representing the
executive branch.
It is within that rubric of legislation that we have done
most of our work, and I have submitted to you for the record a
summary of the past 20 years of legislative accomplishments. I
hope that you will take as a compendium of our efforts which
have in fact been very substantial. Of course, the question
here is have they been enough. And that is what I would like to
address today. Because at the end of the day despite these two
decades of legislative effort, the restoration does indeed
continue to stall.
Reductions in nutrient loads both above and below the fall
line have yet to translate into measurable increases in the
concentration of dissolved oxygen in the main stem of
Chesapeake Bay. This is not due to lack of effort, it really is
testimony to how much more needs to be done, because of some
very unique characteristics of the Chesapeake itself.
I do not think that it is responsible if I do not began by
recognizing a very significant physical feature of the bay
which makes it worldwide, very unique. And that is its
vulnerability, the land to water ratio in the Chesapeake Bay
region is actually the highest of any water body on Earth. What
that means is that the bay itself is extremely shallow. That is
both its greatest flaw and its greatest attribute. The
attribute because if you are shallow you can allow light to
penetrate and where there is light there is productivity. The
vulnerability lies in the fact that an enormous watershed,
64,000 square miles drains into that extremely shallow body of
water with a mere 18 trillion gallons of water. The result is
that what you do on land is inextricably linked to the water.
The result is when there is high rainfall, lots of non-point
source pollution, lots of nutrients, lots of sediment, come off
that land and are expected to be diluted by a very shallow body
of water, which in fact is impossible.
So, despite the fact that we have enacted just a plethora
of laws at the State and the Federal level they do not seem to
be able to keep pace with the shallowness. Does that say we
give up, no. What it says is we need more laws more regulations
and we need more money coming into the bay to essentially
counter this unique physical feature that makes the bay the
most productive body of water, estuarine water, on Earth.
The second thing I would like to make a point about has to
do with the modeling versus the monitoring. Monitoring has
always been the Chesapeake Bay Commission's determinant of
success and it will continue to be so. But, the models allows
us to predict the potential impact of some of the policies that
we consider. And in fact, the model tells us the good news
which may lie ahead if we take certain strident actions. But
the monitoring essentially tempers us and tells us you better
keep trying.
And so, I just want to make the point that we do in fact
use the predictive capabilities of the model in a very valuable
way. In fact, right now we are using the model combined with a
very serious data bank of cost to look at cost effectiveness,
to determine not only where are the best investments in State
policy but also, where are the best investments and the largest
bang for your buck at the Federal level.
Let me then speak to the Federal level opportunity.
Essentially we know what to do in the Chesapeake Bay Region. We
are unique in that regard, we have already planned the course
and the course is an outstanding one. Complex? Yes. Difficult
to achieve? Yes. Do-able? Yes, but only with the proper
policies and dollars. At the Federal level there are some
extremely significant things that you can do to help. And let
me say right here that while I believe we can protect
Chesapeake Bay and while I believe it is possible I must say
that I do not believe it is possible at simply the State and
local level. I believe that leadership has to come from all
three.
So, in closing let me point out just four areas where I
think the Congress deeply can help. One, is through your
appropriation process. We have outlined through the Chesapeake
Bay agreements some very real opportunities in water quality,
land conservation, living resources and environmental
education. And the dollars that you provide to the bay region
have indeed really provided for much of its success. They are
catalysts for State action, and without them I do not believe
we would have made the progress.
The second thing really has to do with point sources. The
point sources are the more sure fire bet of reducing pollution.
What you get out of the pipe is out the pipe and out of the
pollutant load. And anything that you can do to pump dollars
into those sewage treatment plants to achieve nitrogen removal.
We are one of the few places in the United States, ways to do
that along the Tampa Bay and Long Island Sound, would be most
helpful and I call your attention to Blue Plains. Blue Plains
is the largest sewage treatment plant in the world, and if we
do not pull that up to state-of-the-art, we are missing an
opportunity. The district cannot do it alone.
The third, is the farm bill, please sit down with us on the
2007 farm bill and really analyze those areas of the farm bill
where we can really make a difference in terms of water quality
improvement. They are there, they are profound and with the
agriculture committing a full third of the pollutant load to
the Chesapeake Bay, it is an opportunity that is hanging out
there and if we miss it, we miss the opportunity to protect the
bay.
And finally, it is really you that sit on the Surface
Transportation Act, it is you that then sit on the integration
and the final recognition that stormwater is a component part
of impervious surface. There are opportunities to change the
way we grow in terms of transportation and I deeply encourage
you to look at that.
So, in closing let me say you began by saying let us clear
the air and clear the water. The Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act are two pieces of law that really do affect the
Chesapeake Bay Region. They present very real congressional
opportunities to make a difference, and I offer the Commission
and the Commission's staff to you and to your staff to try and
make improvements to those bodies of law. Thank you very much
for this opportunity to testify.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Swanson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.158
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Schrock. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
Before we go with questioning, I want to recognize two
members of the legislature, the Virginia Legislature, who are
with us today. From northern Virginia, is Virginia State
Senator Jean Marie Debalites, who I believe who on June 26th
became Senator Jean Marie Debalites Davis, the wife of the
chairman, she is here with us today.
Chairman Tom Davis. I was afraid of the primaries.
Mr. Schrock. His words not mine. And from Chesapeake is
House delegate John Cosgrove and both of their districts impact
the tributaries of the Chesapeake and I am delighted that they
are here today. So, Jean Marie and John welcome. Thank you very
much for being with us.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Swanson, let me start with you.
Yours was stimulating testimony. Dollars fill a huge component
of this. Do you feel right now--and I will ask everybody--that
the amount of money coming in to here from the Federal, State
and local is adequate or does it need to be stepped up
significantly or how you characterize it?
Ms. Swanson. I think it needs to be stepped up and the
reason is because in our analysis, basically right now the
Federal Government contributes just shy of 20 percent, 18
percent of the amount of money coming into the bay region for
restoration. However, if we are going to step up the total
dollars invested to implement the bay agreement, then that
proportion of money, just to keep pace with your current level
of partnership, would need to grow. And according to our
calculations, that means that your investment would have to
about triple on par with the tripling with State and local
dollars as well. So, the answer is clearly, yes. And in truth
if you wanted a $500,000 house and you were only going to
invest $90,000, your realtor would say let us readjust, lets
have a different dream house. If the dream is a Chesapeake Bay
that is truly clean, then we need to put the cash in that will
make that a reality.
Chairman Tom Davis. We are uniquely situated to do
something about some of the other issues. We have three
appropriators in the House on the Virginia side. We have--the
Blue Plains sewage treatment plant lies directly under our
committee jurisdiction. We have done some things to try to help
it. We have had a lot of management issues up there as you can
imagine.
Ms. Swanson. Right.
Chairman Tom Davis. But we can come back and look at that
and we would be happy to have further discussions with you on
what we really need to do to reduce the nitrogen levels coming
out of there.
The farm bill, Representative Goodlatte now chairs that
committee and I hope that we can open that dialog, because what
happens to the bay really affects the whole Commonwealth.
I am concerned of the fishing numbers, Mr. Murphy. You
talked about that, and the fishing numbers have depleted
rapidly and I do not know that you need to define success just
by the number of fish, I think it is a larger issue than that.
But, long term strategy, how do you get those numbers back up?
You put more claims in, do you introduce new species? Mr.
Bahner, had something to say about that as well. What is the
long term strategy for getting the number of oysters and crabs
up?
Mr. Murphy. Well let me say that I believe that the measure
of success is partly measured by the living resources of the
bay. How healthy are our fisheries, we have the food fish, we
have the thin fish species, we have menhaden as opposed to food
fish, we have crabs, oysters. And the health of those
populations is I think a significant criteria of determining
success in restoring the bay. But I do not think that is the
only measure of success.
Chairman Tom Davis. You are saying first they have to be
healthy.
Mr. Murphy. I think in order for those fisheries to be
healthy and to be able to restore the populations in those
various species, we need to make sure that we have both fishery
management tools in place to regulate the harvest of those
species. But we also need to improve the quality of the water
of the habitat in which they survive. You cannot have a healthy
fish or crab population, for example, without having healthy
sea grass beds. And that is one of the major problems we face
in the bay today, that is the restoration of sea grasses. That
was one of the three problems that the EPA report back in 1982
identified--nutrient, toxics and the loss of submerging
vegetation. Our water clarity, our new water quality standard
for water clarity will be measured by the increases in
submerged aquatic vegetation acreage. That is vitally important
to our fishery resources.
So, I think that the measure of success in restoring the
bay is partly based on the improvements in our living resources
and also in water quality. There are other uses of the bay--
swimming, boating. We are seeing areas that were formally off
limit to water contact. The Potomac, for example, in
Washington, 30 years ago you could not have water contact
because of the pollution that existed there. Today, the river
at Washington is being used by boaters and in Richmond the
James River is being used to a far greater extent than it was
in the past years, for recreational use.
So, I think we measure success by different factors but I
think that fisheries are one of the main ones. And that's been
one of the great commercial benefits. The Virginia Marine
Resources Commission is the oldest agency in the State of
Virginia. It was created back in the 19th century, and it was
originally known as the Oyster Commission, because that
industry was so vitally important to Virginia's economy that a
commission was necessary to regulate the oyster industry.
Today, we face problems with oysters that perhaps are not
necessarily related to pollution. Diseases have been a major
factor in the reduced population of the native oysters.
Again, I think one of the program issues that we face today
is the use of non-native species. That is a controversial issue
but it is one that we are going to have to look at and address,
both from the standpoint of water quality and from the
standpoint of restoring that particular fishery.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Bahner, speaking on the non-native,
I know one of the controversies is the Asian oysters coming
into the bay. Could you bring me up to date? I have read
different accounts on what this will do.
Mr. Bahner. Certainly. The States of Maryland and Virginia
petitioned to bring in a non-native oyster to Chesapeake Bay.
That began a process called an environmental impact statement.
There is a process that EPA, NOAA, and Fish and Wildlife are
cooperating agencies with the Corps of Engineers and the States
to examine this request to introduce this non-native species.
NOAA's role in this process is to provide money for research to
understand the potential impact and benefits of this
introduction. We have funded through the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science a program to examine and provide data for this
introduction. The data will be generated over some period of
time, 1 to 3 years as is necessary. Those data then will become
part of the public process to make a determination whether or
not it is an intelligent decision to bring in that Asian oyster
or not to introduce that organism.
So, our role is to make sure that the science is there so
that a good public decision can be made at the appropriate
point in time.
Chairman Tom Davis. When is that time going to come, do you
know?
Mr. Bahner. That is somewhat difficult to decide, but at
this point based on recommendations from the National Research
Council and through the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program, both of those have
recommended the need for studying this issue for about a 5-year
period. I would say at this point the States are more
aggressive in their schedule, wishing to have a decision in the
1\1/2\ to 2 year timeframe. But, I believe everyone is agreed
that we need to make sure we have adequate data, so that the
public can make the right decision. So, probably in the order
of 2 to 5 years is the best projection I can give you today.
Chairman Tom Davis. What about the role of over-fishing, do
you have any comments on that?
Mr. Bahner. On the native oyster?
Chairman Tom Davis. I would expand that to other areas too,
because we have seen that the volume that is harvested each
year has declined sharply. I think that is partly of because
the population has declined.
Mr. Bahner. Absolutely. I think the general consensus is
that the stock of native oysters over the last 200 years was
pretty seriously over-fished. In the 1960's, there was still a
population, I am estimating at probably 20 percent of the
historical highs when the diseases set in. Since then we have
seen an increase in disease and we are struggling against that
disease. As Mr. Murphy pointed out, if we can get the stock of
native oyster back to a healthy state then we have some
opportunity to bring that native population back, which is
certainly a position that we hold along with other Federal
agencies and State agencies. At this point I cannot tell you
whether that strategy will be successful.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Phillips, in your testimony you
referred to this study by the Geological Survey conducted
joining with the CBP between 1997 and 2000 using the water
quality model to assist in interpreting water quality changes
at your river input monitoring site. As expected the manmade
factors played a role in these changes. But the study also
acknowledges the role natural factors, such as weather
variations, have. In your conclusions, you reported the
existence of a so-called lag time between the implementation of
management practices that were designed to reduce nutrient and
sediments sources and the verifiable results of your actions.
How much of a lag time are we talking about and what kind of
negative impact will this have on your ability to make both
actual management decisions and a reliable report of concrete
progress made? It seems to me that a sufficiently severe lag
time could jeopardize the CBP's ability to meet the 2010
deadline.
Mr. Phillips. Yes, that study we looked principally at
nitrogen which is major pollutant going in the bay, and we saw
that about half the nitrogen once it is on the land surface
actually slowly infiltrates down into the shallow ground water
and then seeps back into the streams. When it is in this ground
water, it can take 1 to 50 years to move, but on average about
a decade. So, you can have a delay of up to about 10 years in
some of these river basins between when you implement practices
to reduce non-point sources of nitrogen, and when you finally
see an improvement in the rivers to the bay.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Hanmer, the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation testified that its projection for nitrogen flows
into the bay between 1998 and 2002 are 16 percent higher than
your projections. Then you also testified that the EPA has not
done enough to institute permitting for sewage treatment plants
in the region. How do you respond to these criticisms? What is
your assessment of improvements that need to be made to point
sources of pollution like sewage treatment plants to decrease
pollution in the bay?
Ms. Hanmer. If I could start with the first question of the
different methods, I believe the CBF used a different time
period than that used in our model, and because of that, got
some different results. But both of the methods I think show a
slight improving trend, they do show the reduction of nitrogen
and phosphorus. I studied the method but I am not a scientist
and so I am not able to tell you exactly what the differences
are. But it has to do, I believe, with the years chosen and the
method that was used.
As far as sewage treatment plants are concerned, as I
pointed out, about 50 percent of the reductions that have been
made so far in nitrogen and more then 50 percent of the
reductions that have been made in phosphorous are attributable
to wastewater treatment plant improvements. About 56 percent of
the flow from wastewater treatment plants in the basin is
receiving some advanced nutrient removal technology. That is
using a different method.
We are basing our statement on the total amount of flow
whereas I think the CBF statement talks about the number of
individual plants. So, there is a difference there in how we
report it. But we look at flow because we are interested in
total flow.
Most of that advance to date has occurred because of the
voluntary cooperative program with the Chesapeake Bay, and
especially when there was incentive funding available from the
States. We recognize that we need to use our regulatory
authorities under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES program. In
the Chesapeake 2000 agreement specifically the executive
council said that we were to marry the two programs, the
cooperative approach of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the more
regulatory approaches of the Clean Water Act. The regulatory
basis in the Clean Water Act for regulating sewage treatment
plants is to have good water quality standards. It is extremely
difficult, it is almost impossible to enforce water quality
standards that are not scientifically based.
So, what we had to with great urgency was to change the
water quality criteria to adopt a scientific basis for both the
designated uses and also the criteria themselves--chlorophyll
A, dissolved oxygen and clarity--so that we could provide the
basis for the States to change their water quality standards.
That is our base regulatory mechanism.
We spent a while doing that with a collaborative process in
order to get the States to all buy into the same numbers we
were buying into. This speeds the standards adoption process,
which can frequently take 5 to 8 years from the time the EPA
issues a criteria document until the time it is adopted by the
States. In this case we published the criteria document in
April 2003. Delaware has already completed the process of
changing its standards. The District of Columbia is near
completion. Maryland is going out for the pre-publication
review of its standards today, and Virginia has gone before its
Water Control Board. So we are moving as quickly as we can to
establish the water quality standards, proper regulatory base
that is both scientifically sound and extremely useful for the
regulatory process, and we will move quickly.
The EPA published a permitting strategy for comment that
also represents not just EPA's point of view, but is a document
covering 64,000 square miles in six States and the District of
Columbia. So, we have a pretty good consensus on where we go
with permitting.
The final thing I would say is that we are promoting
watershed permitting, which is a much faster method of
permitting than re-opening individual sewage treatment plant by
sewage treatment plant permits. I think in a couple of years we
will have solved the problem that we have of having the right
water quality standards and that we will be in the permitting
mode. The Maryland water quality standards, because of the way
we operate our allocations, will actually drive permit limits
in virtually the entire bay region. From New York and West
Virginia through Pennsylvania through Maryland through the
District of Columbia, and northern Virginia, it will be the
Maryland water quality standards that will be the regulatory
basis for our allocations and our permitting.
Chairman Tom Davis. From a congressional point of view,
what is the most important thing we can do. Ms. Swanson, talked
about we have an opportunity in the transportation bill to
review pieces of that on the impervious surfaces. On the
agriculture bill obviously we can look at things like Blue
Plains sewage treatment plant, specifically noted, sending
dollars, from your perspective how would you rank the
priorities in terms of what we do at the national level?
Ms. Hanmer. Well, I would have to agree. A lot of the cost
numbers came from the study that the EPA did to support the new
water quality criteria. And it is a prodigious total of many
billions of dollars. Based on our economic analysis, there are
going to be areas where financial support will be absolutely
necessary or the people who have to take the actions will not
be able to take them. I think that the issue of stormwater
controls, both in terms of public policy and public funding is
also important in this rapidly growing region. This is our
growing problem. We had an 8-percent increase in population in
the decade of 1990 to 2000, but we had a 41 percent increase in
impervious surface. Which means we are changing the hydrology,
making it much more difficult; so the steps that Virginia has
taken to strengthen its stormwater program are important. But
stormwater enforcement and the stormwater program in general
need attention throughout the basin, so that is a priority.
The funding support I think for the agriculture sector is
extremely important for a lot of reasons. The farming community
is an essential part of the Chesapeake Bay region, but ours is
a farming community of small farms and generally lacking in the
financial capability to meet all the bay cleanup requirements
with their private incomes.
Chairman Tom Davis. I guess my question was a lot of this
is State and local governments, zoning laws and the like. At
the Federal level, we have our role too. And I think I will ask
you and also Mr. Murphy, when we sat down to build a new road
out to Dulles, put rail out to Dulles, the Governor sat down
everybody and said here is what we think the State can do, here
is what we need the locals to do, here is what we need the feds
to do, we kind of all agreed. Do we really have an agreed
partnership about this is a Federal, we need to do a, b, c, d.
This is what the States need to do, this is what the locals, is
it that well defined at this point, or are we still sitting
around with general goals and guidelines?
Mr. Murphy. I do not think it is well defined as to the
share that each level of government should bear. In response to
the question that you addressed to Ms. Hanmer, you get the
quickest reduction for nitrogen and phosphorous through the
point source side. Our limits of technology will allow sewage
treatment plants to reduce their discharges to 3 milligrams per
liter. And if you place the money that is necessary to achieve
those retro fittings that would enable these sewage treatment
plants to reach the limits of technology, you would make a
quicker reduction in nutrients. Virginia, for example, over 32
percent of the nitrogen entering Virginia's portion of the bay
comes from point sources.
Chairman Tom Davis. Does the Blue Plains study meet that
criteria?
Mr. Murphy. It does not, it has not reached that level of
treatment at this point. And so, you could--if you put the
money in this effort, it seems to me that you can get a larger
bang for your buck initially. That does not mean that you do
not continue to try to fund the non-point sources as well. But,
if you place a greater burden on the point sources, for
example, then you have the political problem of asking the
sewage treatment plants to do more than they are contributing.
And unless you give them the financial support to upgrade, it
becomes a political and legislative problem.
So, I would say that the funding is absolutely critical and
we do need to try to refine the agreement between the Federal
Government and the participating States and the District of
Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay Program, through an executive
council directive that was issued last December, created a blue
ribbon financing panel that is being staffed by Ms. Hanmer's
office. Former Governor Bliley of Virginia chairs that panel
and it will make a report in October with regard to the funding
that is required to achieve the goals that we have set for
ourselves and the objectives that we hope to achieve. And I
would suspect that report is going to outline and I think
recommend some type of sharing responsibility and that perhaps
will fall on the basis for a more specific agreement as to each
level of government's responsibility.
Chairman Tom Davis. And this falls across all different
jurisdictional lines in the Congress? I mean although our
committee can referee them. Do you want to add anything?
Ms. Hanmer. I was going to make the point that in order to
clarify what the funding responsibilities should be and any
innovative methods anyone can find, we are staffing the blue
ribbon panel and they should make their report by the end of
October.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I have my figures right, I believe when John Smith came
into the Chesapeake Bay in 1607, he could see down to 70 feet
and they said that there were so many fish and oysters in the
bay that it was a hazard to navigation. A lot has happened in
400 years, has not it--it has. Let me follow along with what
the chairman was talking about, about what Congress could do
and this is for all of you. In your opinions, what are the
three most important things that would accelerate the rate of
progress in cleaning up the bay, money we know that, Ms.
Swanson, you said more laws, is it more laws or is it just
enforcing the laws we already have on the books?
Ms. Swanson. Well, if I were to answer the question I would
say certainly enforce the laws that we have on the books. We
have an extraordinary set of laws on the books. In terms of new
laws, they need to be very targeted laws that fill the gaps in
the areas that we have not addressed. When I look at the
difference between the Federal and the State and the local I
think to some degree we have defined different
responsibilities. We have not written a paper on it per se but
some of it ends up aligning with tradition. For example, at the
Federal level certainly in the past you have been a catalyst in
many of the point source upgrades. And so we look to you for
that continued assistance.
Let me also, say that the scientists who came before our
commission specifically told us that, for example, nitrogen is
an excellent thing to work on from an ecological point of view,
but also from a political point of view because if you get the
nitrogen out of the water there is fairly quick response. Now,
for non-point, you are dealing with lag time, but for point
sources you can get it out of the water and within a year or
two, according to the scientists, you can see a response in the
water. So, I would say point sources at the Federal levels is
an excellent example and it gets some of the political heat off
the State legislators as well.
The second thing is agriculture, its tradition at the
Federal level nationwide and many of the practices that we are
seeing as the biggest investment for your dollar are not right
now cost shared at the Federal level, are not on the research
agenda, and if they win in the Chesapeake Bay region, they win
nationwide. So, I would say that is an area of Federal
concentration.
And the third is air. Whenever we try to address air
issues, we are often told no, no, no, the Federal Government is
dealing with that. And of course in the bay region about a
third of the nitrogen is coming in through atmospheric
deposition, a piece of which comes from of course within the
region. But another significant piece comes from outside, so in
a way I counsel the--and then of course stormwater which is the
forgotten stepchild of everyone. And so, to me, it would be
fortuitous at this point to put our blinders on and say we are
going for these sources, and we are going for enhancement over
what we do now.
Mr. Schrock. Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. The Congress has appropriated money to the
Chesapeake Bay Program and other partner agencies to help
monitor the improvements of water quality within the bay and
its watershed. And at this time we have been working with all
the States in the bay watershed to enhance the amount of
monitoring throughout the bay watershed. We are about to sign a
memorandum of understanding between the six States, District of
Columbia, the EPA and the USGS to enhance that monitoring.
Right now, we will be able to implement about 100 sites using
various sources of funding. It is felt that at least 200 sites
in the bay watershed are needed to help local governments
understand their water quality improvements, as they put in
point source and non-point source actions.
So, more Federal support for monitoring within the
watershed will be very beneficial and also, within the bay
itself. The time schedule for monitoring does not allow for all
the monitoring to assess the water quality criteria for the bay
by 2010 at this time. So, Federal support for monitoring within
the bay especially the shallow waters of the bay would be a
huge help.
Mr. Schrock. Mr. Bahner.
Mr. Bahner. Yes, sir. The living resources that NOAA works
with the States to protect and restore are highly dependent
upon the water quality. So, as has been discussed here, water
quality is absolutely the highest priority. In conjunction with
that the restoration programs can contribute to that improving
water quality. At one point, the discussion was that when all
the oysters were there in the early 1600's the entire bay water
was filtered somewhere in 1 to 3 days. Today the estimate is on
the order of 1\1/2\ years. Any engineer that could filter the
bay in 1 to 3 days would probably be able to take most of the
pollutants out of the water in addition to the sediments.
So, the restoration of oysters who are natural filters,
biological filters, could go a tremendously long way to
improving water quality. One of the issues with that is that
probably 90 percent of the natural oyster habitat has been
covered over by sediment from our clearing land and erosion
upstream as well as shoreline erosion.
Sediments have never really been addressed very strongly in
this region, yet they have been talked about for 25 years. And
it is my belief that a stronger sediment protection/restoration
program is needed. Part of that is based on our public policy
that we grew up protecting the land from being eroded by the
water. But, if you take the other perspective that we are
trying to protect the water of Chesapeake Bay we should be
protecting the water from the land. If we change that policy,
then we could use public money to do soft shoreline
restoration/protection programs that would limit the shoreline
erosion within the bay which contributes to the sediment load
that ultimately smothers oyster beds.
Mr. Schrock. Soft shorelines, rip-rap put down.
Mr. Bahner. We would prefer not to use rip-rap right up
against the shore. It would be better to have the breakwater
offshore--well, the difficulty is that we have this continual
erosion offshore by waves. If we had a breakwater off shore--
this is just one example of a technique--the waves would hit
that, behind that we could use restoration techniques such as
dredged material from a port. A small amount could be placed
behind the breakwater as a beneficial use of that dredged
material. So, it is not just waste material, you are actually
using it for restoration. That site, the part that is under
water could then be used to also rebuild submerged aquatic
vegetation beds.
The SAV restoration is also a critical part of this for a
number of reasons. One that the grasses slow down the action of
the water allowing sediment to deposit out, improving water
quality, which strengthens the SAV. So, it is a cycle. You can
also put emergent plants on land so that when you have a larger
event, such as a hurricane, those grasses protect the higher
shoreline from erosion. And from the hurricane last fall, where
we had soft shoreline protected areas, those areas survived
very well in the hurricane, whereas you had hardened shoreline,
the water came over and washed out from behind it, and there
was a lot of damage.
So, I think there is a big opportunity for us to look at
large scale shoreline restoration/protection programs. From
NOAA's perspective, we collectively are at the point where we
can go from small scale pilot studies that we have been doing,
we have the knowledge and confidence to move to the large scale
that is needed for this size of water body.
Mr. Schrock. Mr. Phillips, do you have anything to add to
that?
Mr. Phillips. Well, it is a very interesting comment,
because I have at my own residence in West Moreland County,
about 3/4 mile of shoreline, and we have done some shoreline
erosion control using the off water--the break waters. And I
will have to say it has worked. Before we did our own shoreline
management plan, I had a straight shoreline, it ran in a
straight line. Now, it is a crescent shaped shoreline because
we have these chevron shaped off water break waters, and the
sand has built up behind them and we have planted grasses on
that sandy area. And I will have to agree that during Hurricane
Hazel that plan worked very, very well for us--Isabel, excuse
me.
Mr. Schrock. Isabel--I thought you said Hazel, I say whoa.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Phillips. I remember it though. I was in the U.S. Navy,
stationed in Norfolk.
Mr. Schrock. You said you have been here a long time I
believe it.
Mr. Phillips. That is true I was an officer in the U.S.
Navy at the time of Hurricane Hazel stationed here in Norfolk.
Mr. Schrock. It destroyed this place.
Mr. Phillips. That is right.
Mr. Schrock. Ms. Hanmer.
Ms. Hanmer. To make a point, a really quick point about
trees, trees are our best BMP. You have heard about sewage
treatment plants, you have heard about farms, but the riparian
forest buffer program was pioneered in the Chesapeake Bay
Program by the Forest Service, that one of our most cost
effective ways to meet the challenges is a vigorous program for
riparian forest restoration. The tributary strategies contain a
number of specifics like this. All the States have taken our
allocations and our water quality criteria and they have
developed a very specific plan for what needs to be done.
So, the first thing we need is the funding to achieve the
goals that the States have put in those tributaries strategies,
and we need political will and public support. Visibility, like
this is important. Even though we think we are doing a lot and
we are writing tributaries strategies and we are doing
standards, I do not think we have been able successfully to
penetrate the minds of all the people in the watershed that
this is not a problem that some big industry will solve. This
is a problem that needs us all, and so political will and
support. We have to enforce Federal, State and local laws
especially for stormwater and sewage treatment plants with
great vigor. And I think at the end of the day we really need
this understanding and visibility that the bay is in trouble,
and the bay needs to be cleaned up. It can be cleaned up and in
fact if we do not act now it will only get worse.
Mr. Schrock. This may be cruel and unusual punishment, but
maybe every person who faces the bay needs to be forced to read
your testimony.
Ms. Hanmer. Sorry.
Mr. Schrock. Now, I did, and it is amazing what I learned
from that, that I did not know anything about. I assumed a lot
and by reading your testimony you would be amazed how I am
coming at this from a different perspective, I really am.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has been around for what a
couple of decades. Why all of a sudden the recent surge in
criticism, any of you? Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanmer. I would say it is exactly what you said that is
what people will ask. They expect the government or the
Chesapeake Bay Program to clean up the bay and it has been 20
years. And especially the rainy weather in 2003, the unusual
wetness led to dissolved oxygen problems in the bay that people
had not seen for awhile and they were very shocked about it.
Certainly, through our Web site you can follow those water
quality monitoring results every 2 weeks, and so you ask
yourself why is something not being done. I think that is the
criticism.
In our case, we can answer from a standpoint of the program
activities what we are doing, but as you see it is not nearly
enough. I do not believe that the Chesapeake Bay Program, those
of us who are the bureaucrats and the State agencies can do
this job by ourselves. I think we have the right plan and the
right standards, and the right allocations, but we need help in
mobilizing the actions on the ground.
Mr. Schrock. That is a good segue to ask the Secretary the
other question I was going to ask him. Overall do you believe
that there is a constituency across State agencies regarding
programs that deal with the Chesapeake Bay, and is there a
fluid coordination among agencies as well as a coordination
with other Chesapeake Bay States?
Mr. Murphy. That is a difficult question, Congressman
Schrock, because I think there is good news and bad. There is
cross agency cooperation at the State level, but it is not
perhaps as effective as it should be. The natural resources
secretariat do not include all of the agencies that have an
impact on water quality.
Mr. Schrock. The DEQ for instance.
Mr. Murphy. Well, DEQ is within the secretariat, but
outside of the secretariat.
Mr. Schrock. Outside, OK.
Mr. Murphy. Under the Secretary of Commerce and Trade for
example, there is the Department of Agriculture, and the
Department of Forestry. These areas have a direct impact and
yet there are in a different secretariat, so that the
coordination between the agencies within the secretariat of
Natural Resources and the agencies outside of the secretariat
are not as strong as they should be. The Virginia Highway
Transportation Commission, for example, the Department of
Transportation, has a tremendous impact on water quality
through its construction projects, and while there is
coordination and cooperation between the agencies I think it
could stand to be strengthened.
Across inter-jurisdiction lines, yes, and Ms. Swanson as
the executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, can
speak to that as well. There has been over the 20 years that I
have been involved strong dialog and cooperation between the
jurisdictions. On the other hand, there is a perception that
some have acted more quickly and more effectively than others.
And we need I think to continue to promote the cooperation,
rather then pointing fingers and blame, we really need to try
to--
Mr. Schrock. Let me ask you and Ms. Swanson, how do our
efforts compare with the efforts of other Chesapeake Bay
States, somebody gave some figures a few minutes ago, I think
it was you.
Ms. Swanson. You mean Virginia's efforts.
Mr. Schrock. Virginia's efforts compare with the other
States we were talking about here.
Ms. Swanson. Well, right off the bat, one of the things--
even before I answer that question, I think, you know in my
time with the Commission if I have learned one thing it is
never expect sameness.
Mr. Schrock. Right.
Ms. Swanson. And never believe that all the States are the
same culturally, ecologically, socially, economically, by any
measure. And never forget that the Chesapeake Bay region spans
the Mason Dixon line. And as a result, there are entirely
different forms of government. It is north meeting the south
with town rule, meeting this broad swath, and so, the No. 1, is
to immediately compare is an immediate error.
Mr. Schrock. Good point.
Ms. Swanson. Instead what I would say is that there are
certain things that each State has led on. Virginia, clearly is
in the lead on native oyster restoration efforts, for example.
Virginia when it comes to point source changes. Maryland took
an entirely incentive-based approach with this recent
surcharge, you know, to essentially with money, incentivize the
installation of nitrogen removal. Virginia is taking an
entirely different tack. Obviously it will take considerably
longer, but it is a regulatory approach. And so, if it works,
you know, it stands to endure because it is not based on the
availability of money.
So, I could go on and on depending on the subject, whether
it is crabs, oysters, and I would say that Virginia has indeed
done a great deal to protect the Chesapeake Bay. Is it enough?
No. That is why we are here.
Mr. Schrock. Are you ready to go back to 1607.
Ms. Swanson. No, I do not think question ultimately is
monitoring versus monitoring or who is telling the truth or why
did it all just now come to fruition, you know, this question
of how far we have gone. I think the issue at the end of the
day is by any measure modeling, monitoring, body of law, money
availability, you measure it, and basically we are not far
enough. And so, we need to address that. When you look
nationwide, at other programs with multiple States, we are
farther along than that.
Mr. Murphy. May I Congressman?
Mr. Schrock. Sure.
Mr. Murphy. In response to Ann's comments regarding the
different approaches that Virginia and Maryland have taken with
regard to nitrogen and phosphorous reduction. The fact that we
do have these regulatory programs underway, that does not mean
that I feel or that I would not recommend that the State
appropriate funds to assist the localities in meeting those
regulatory funds. I do not mean by instituting the regulatory
programs to indicate that I feel that the cost of implementing
those regulations should be borne solely by the ratepayer and
the private land owner. I think that there is an appropriate
role for the Federal and State governments to make in assisting
the localities in achieving compliance with those regulations.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much. I think that
is all the questions we have for this panel, it has been great
testimony. We appreciate it, hopefully we can take some action.
So, I will dismiss this panel we will do a 5-minute recess
and then convene the next panel.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We are going to move to our second
panel. Theresa Pierno, who is the vice president for
Environmental Protection and Restoration, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation. Donald Boesch, who is the president, Center for
Environmental Science, University of Maryland. Linda Schaffner,
associate professor, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. We
have Eileen Hofmann, the professor of ocean, Earth and
atmospheric sciences, Old Dominion University. Frances Porter,
executive director, Virginia Seafood Council, and Mark Wallace,
Eastern Shore Watermen's Association.
It is our policy that we swear you in before you testify.
So if you rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Your entire statements are in the
record you do not need to use your full 5 minutes, but we have
a light here in the middle that has green for your first 4
minutes and then it turns orange after 4, and when you see it
turn red, if you try to move to summary, we can move through
this crisply. We have everybodys testimony read and digested
here that is in writing so, you can emphasize the main points
in your oral testimony. We will not gavel should you go over
though.
Thank you very much for being with us.
STATEMENT OF THERESA PIERNO, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION & RESTORATION, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
Ms. Pierno. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and thank you
Representative Schrock for having me here today. It is a
pleasure to speak on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
It is really our hope that the additional attention that
the news and certainly unfortunately, a lot of the effects of
water quality have brought on this issue will really help to
guide additional resources and efforts and leadership so that
we can really see the changes and the progress that we need to
see in order to really have a restored bay. My fear is that in
my lifetime if we continue at the same rate of progress that we
have been going the last 20 years, then I will not live to see
a restored bay. And in fact, with the additional growth as
projected and the changes in land use it is very possible that
it might even be a further deteriorated Chesapeake Bay and
tributaries.
So, I really do appreciate the attention and certainly your
leadership to this issue. I think that one of the things I want
to talk about right away and get out of the way is really the
modeling and monitoring issue. You know, in our opinion the
model is an excellent tool and we say that in our testimony.
But, we think it really has been used in a way that has not
been as beneficial and has been used really as an expectation
far more then it is capable of. And so, therefore, I think the
public in general and even our leadership and our legislators
are really under a false premise that the Chesapeake Bay is
really improving, and a lot of the attention and communication
over the last several years has been very positive. In fact,
recently I had a reporter say to me that it was not until the
Washington Post article recently that they were given the
approval to cover this story because their editor said, why
should we talk about the Chesapeake Bay, it is doing well. And
so, I think it is really critical if we are going to be calling
for the kinds of resources that are going to be necessary to
turn and the tide on this and really see the improvements we
need, it is going to take a little bit public understanding and
education as well as our leadership to really understand the
critical need here.
Certainly, the debate is not about whether we have seen
progress or not. Certainly there has been some progress, but
part of the problem is due unfortunately to the increase in
population that and an ever-increasing loss of forest and
wetlands that continue to make it more difficult. And that is
just going to require more and more effort. In fact, what we
have found and we have given you a copy of our manure report as
well as our sewage report along with the state of the bay that
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation does.
And what we found is there are some things that we can be
doing and that we need to do very quickly. We cannot afford to
continue to take an approach that allows for a lengthy time
period to take place before we see action. We know with sewage
treatment plants there is technology today. Ms. Hanmer
basically suggested that about 96 wastewater treatment plants
were using BNR and have been upgraded and that is correct. But,
unfortunately that is not the latest and best technology that
has been out for many years now, and the reality is about 98
percent of the wastewater treatment plants in the watershed are
not using the best technology and have not upgraded to what is
considered 3 milligrams per liter.
So, I think the reality is we need resources and we need
attention to this and quite frankly we need EPA to enforce the
Clean Water Act and to require permit limits that do address
nitrogen and phosphorous limits in wastewater treatment plants.
And in fact, more recently in December of last year, we
petitioned EPA requesting that they do just that and we have
still not gotten a formal response from EPA. So, you know what
we are saying is certainly nothing new and nothing you have not
heard. Agriculture is a major impact, we need further support
and there are things that you can do. I concur with Ms.
Swanson, when she went through her list related to the farm
bill, that is also in our testimony, as well as the action for
the sewage treatment plants. Stormwater, through the Federal
transportation bill, and safety. There is an opportunity to add
additional support for urban stormwater reductions. As well as
air and if we do not take action and I mean action we talked
about tripling the needed resources. It is very difficult for
our agencies, our Federal agencies, to stand up here and say
that sorry we are not getting the resources we need. And if we
continue to get a lack of resources, we are not going to be
able to do the job that we have all committed to.
That is the reality at the State and Federal level, and I
am here to say please understand the critical need and that we
certainly support the efforts and the work that has been done
and we have been part of a lot of that work. And we are not
here to criticize that. But, we are here to ask you and I think
from what I have heard, your really very thoughtful questions,
that you do understand the critical need. And that we would ask
you to do whatever you can to get those resources flowing to
the Chesapeake Bay watershed so that we can really see the
kinds of recovery and improvement that we all hope for.
Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Dr. Boesch.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pierno follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.046
STATEMENT OF DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. Boesch. Yes, Chairman Davis and Mr. Schrock, it is
really a pleasure to be here. I thank you for your invitation.
That this opportunity comes at historic Fort Monroe is
particularly meaningful for me. In 1968, I undertook, as an
extremely young scientist I would indicate, my first scientific
research right here in Hampton Roads, just on the other side of
the Spit. And the publication of that research really launched
my career, so this area, Hampton Roads in particular, has a
very strong meaning for me. And I, like Ms. Pierno, hope that I
can see the restoration of the bay on my watch, as a scientist
first and living in this region.
As you know by now, the principal cause of the rapid
degradation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem that was observed
during the 1970's and 1980's after I really started my research
actually, was the multifold increase in loading up the estuary
with nutrients, particularly nitrogen. And you have heard many
different perspectives on how we are making progress in
reducing nutrient loads to the bay. We know that nitrogen
inputs from municipal wastewaters for example, have in fact,
been reduced by 23 percent since 1985, this is no mean feat
given the fact that we have had an increase in population and
wastewater volumes to handle, increasing by 45 percent. So, we
should recognize that we have made significant progress in a
number of areas.
Where we seem to have some confusion is with regard to the
non-point source run off which dominates the inputs of nitrogen
and phosphorous. And this is where we have to get the modeling
and monitoring right to understand exactly what we are doing
and the effect that we are having.
For a large part of the watershed drained by rivers
monitored by the USGS, concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorous discharges have generally been declining, at least
when adjusted, as Mr. Phillips indicated, for river flow. While
the watershed model obviously also estimates a downward trend
in nutrient concentrations, the actual amount of the decrease
differs. And it is important to know what it really is and why
they are different and how we can improve these estimates as we
move along. And to improve our basis of estimates of progress
in the real world.
An important point made in greater detail in my written
testimony and in the testimony of Ms. Pierno, gets lost in the
use of model estimates to track progress. That is, despite our
efforts, the total amount of nutrients actually reaching the
bay over the past 10 years or so is more or less the same as
during the early benchmark of the years of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. This was as many witnesses earlier indicated because
of the fact that we had this period of extremely high climatic
variability with river inflow on the average higher than in the
benchmark years or over the long run.
As an analogy let me see if I can help you understand this.
It is as if you were trying to cut back on your sugar intake
and you succeeded in using say 15 percent less sugar in your
cup of coffee.
Mr. Schrock. Bite your tongue.
Mr. Boesch. But somehow you were forced to drink 15 percent
more coffee so your total sugar intake would not change, even
though you have been successful in reducing your sugar per cup
of coffee. So it is important to understand that, because that
is what the bay actually has been seeing, rather than what we
have been projecting on the basis of average-year models. And
this explains to a great degree why we have not seen more
success from our efforts in the bay in terms of improved signs
of recovery.
As it was discussed in more detail in my written testimony
for two important indicators of the health of the bay, the
extent of serious oxygen depletion or hypoxia during the summer
months and the abundance of submerged grasses, I have not seen
convincing evidence of changes or trends for the bay as a whole
that cannot be clearly explained by variations in fresh water
inflow rather then the results of management actions to reduce
nutrient inputs. Hypoxia shrinks and grasses spread in dry
years or as a result of dry years. When this and other
ephemeral phenomena such as population explosions in mussels as
we have in some tributaries of the upper bay occur, we should
avoid irrational exuberance, and the temptation to claim
success. On the other hand, when hypoxia expands and grasses
contract during very wet years we should resist inconsolable
depression and placing blame. This is the reality of what we
have to deal with.
Bay program models have been designed to answer, ``what
if,'' or more appropriately, ``what will it take'' questions
important in setting program goals. The recent application of
watershed and estuary models to determine the new Chesapeake
Bay 2000 nutrient reduction goals has been the focus of
government agencies, Ms. Pierno and I both agree, are exemplary
in the inclusion of strong scientific expertise and peer
review.
There is scientific consensus that achieving these nutrient
reduction goals will achieve the desired restoration outcome.
The current controversy, therefore, regarding estimates of
progress to date should in no way undermine public confidence
in the use of these models for setting these goals as we move
forward.
However, the public is misled by statements that nutrient
loading has actually been reduced by certain amount based on
watershed model estimates and accomplishments. There are
obviously uncertainties about the efficiencies and levels of
implementation and management practices. Furthermore, there are
lag times as was talked about earlier and inter-annual
variations that are not represented in the models and these
need to be addressed.
The Chesapeake Bay region endowed by the largest and most
accomplished community of estuarine scientists in the world.
This is in no small measure the reason we have gotten this far
in getting the understanding of the nature of the problems and
the challenges that we need to address. From both the
government and university sides, intellectual and material
resources are fully engaged in advancing knowledge and critical
assessment to advance bay restoration goals. And specifically
we need to work with the agencies in improving these models and
the models of the monitoring results.
All of the witnesses before you agree on two things, the
Chesapeake 2000 goals are worthy and we are seriously behind
the schedule in meeting water quality restorations by 2010. Let
me close with an analogy, another analogy, that maybe helps you
understand the nature of the problem. We are at a football
game, and this is based on--an analogy based on nitrogen, our
progress with nitrogen. We are behind 42 to 14, it is the
beginning of the fourth quarter and we are still trying to run
the ball up the middle. We need to not only play strong defense
to keep the other side from scoring, that is for example,
really kind of control and stop sprawl which will make the
challenge even more difficult. But we need to throw long, we
need to go long, in Maryland we recently did that. Governor
Ehrlich and the General Assembly with strong popular support,
public support, passed a restoration fund that basically
ratepayers pay for the sewage treatment improvements. So, we
should be going, once we get the ball in the end zone to 3
milligrams per liter limits, the limits of practical technology
as a result of that.
The other area where the Federal Government can assist us
just to underscore, agriculture. Agricultural policy and what
farmers have to deal with is largely set by Federal policies
with respect to subsidiaries and rules and regulations and the
like. And also, air quality, please pursue rigorously the air
quality objectives under the Clean Air Act amendments and we
will gain a significant reduction to the nitrogen input as a
result.
Thank you, very much for the opportunity.
Mr. Schrock. Mr. Chairman, may I make one quick comment?
One of the nicest things you have in your testimony that you
did not share with people, I am going to. You said in March
1970 I stood with my young wife in front of the Chamberlain
Hotel right down the street. As we watched a total eclipse of
the sun over Willoughby Bay, an experience that overwhelmed us
with awe for the natural world. That is really neat. I agree
with you.
Mr. Boesch. I also said that we will not see another one of
those in our lifetime. Maybe, we will see the bay restoration.
Mr. Schrock. I was trying to be upbeat about this.
Chairman Tom Davis. Are we still in the fourth quarter, or
are we just in the second half?
Mr. Boesch. Pardon.
Chairman Tom Davis. Are we in the fourth quarter, or are
just in the second half?
Mr. Boesch. If we start the beginning of the game in 1987,
when the bay States said we are going to reduce nutrients to
the Chesapeake Bay, and the end of the game is 2010 we are just
about at the end of the third quarter.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Schaffner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boesch follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.053
STATEMENT OF LINDA SCHAFFNER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA
INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE
Ms. Schaffner. Chairman Davis and Mr. Schrock, thank you
for inviting me to speak to you today. I am associate professor
of the School of Marine Science, at the College of William and
Mary and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. I also serve
as the president of the Estuarine Research Federation, which is
an international scientific society that has a membership of
over 2,000 scientists, educators, and managers who are
committed to the acquisition and application of sound
scientific knowledge to sustain the integrity of estuarine and
coastal systems.
I am going to take a slightly different tack in my
testimony and I am not going to focus too much on things that
other people have said a lot about already. I want to bring up
some other things that I think are important as well.
Just 4 months ago, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
released its draft findings and recommendations that we need a
coordinated and comprehensive national ocean and coastal
policy. The Commission found abundant evidence of degraded
water quality depleted fisheries and vanishing wetlands
throughout the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas and they
determined that the problems require urgent attention. So, I
can assure you that we are not alone in our concerns about the
state of our estuary.
As a scientist who has been working in the bay community
for over 20 years, the multiple indicators of bay health lead
me to conclude that the Chesapeake Bay is a significantly
degraded ecosystem and I made a medical analogy, the bay has
cancer, not a common cold. But, the bay is resilient, and I
believe it can be restored. I am not going to touch on modeling
and monitoring, I do agree with the comments that have been
made by Dr. Boesch.
I do want to say that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
calls for ecosystem-based management of ocean and coastal
resources. And this is always been a major goal of the
Chesapeake Bay Program, which really since its inception has
been admired and emulated throughout the United States and
worldwide.
Just last year I was up in Maryland when a group from
Thailand came over to learn how to run a watershed management
program. The program has successfully brought scientists,
managers, industry, and citizens to the table to discuss
complex environmental issues, and develop strategies for
dealing with these issues. I also want to emphasize to you that
academic scientists have significantly contributed to the
success of the bay programming objectives. They provide the
program with unbiased credible and up to date scientific
information and a point that I did not state clearly enough in
my written testimony is that they provide essential peer
review. Much of the focus today has been on the funding, we
need to support nutrient reductions.
I also want to use this opportunity to stress the
importance of strength in funding for science research efforts.
Much of the research conducted by the bay's scientists has been
supported by funding coming from outside the bay program via
other mission oriented agencies, for example, NOAA, and USGS,
other parts of EPA, and the National Science Foundation which
plays a key role in supporting basic research. These agencies
could see budget declines of 5 to 10 percent or more annually
over the coming years. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
expressed concern that the Federal agencies supporting ocean
and estuary research are in fact chronically under-funded.
We in the bay community cannot afford these declines in
research support at a time when we face increasingly complex
scientific questions and management issues. We have been
focusing on nutrients today, but looming on the horizon are
problem issues such as harmful algae blooms, non-native
species, the sediment loading we talked about, and fisheries
collapse. So, you our Members of Congress can help by voting
for increased appropriations for science funding in these
agencies.
There is no question that achieving the ambitious goal of
restoring the Chesapeake Bay to a healthy sustainable ecosystem
will require increased scientific capacity in this Nation.
Recognizing the challenges that we face in managing our ocean
and coastal resources, the Ocean Commission calls for the
creation of a new national ocean policy framework, better
coordination among Federal agencies, a doubling of Federal
research investments in ocean science, and improved
environmental education. All of these recommendations have
relevance in our discussion about how to accelerate the
restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay.
Others have spoken in a more informed way on the specific
policies and levels of funding we need to obtain Chesapeake Bay
2000 goals. But it is clear to me that we need both political
will and strength in financial commitment. There is no time
like the present for action particularly for those of us that
are concerned with the Chesapeake Bay.
Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Hofmann.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schaffner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.058
STATEMENT OF EILEEN HOFMANN, THE PROFESSOR OF OCEAN, EARTH AND
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY
Ms. Hofmann. Chairman Davis, Congressman Schrock, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am a
professor in the Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Department at Old Dominion University.
My comments are in three parts and provide an academic
perspective on modeling and monitoring. The first part
addresses the importance of maintaining modeling and monitoring
programs. The second part describes an ongoing effort to
advance modeling of the Chesapeake Bay system. And the final
part of my comments provides an example of a new direction for
modeling in the Chesapeake Bay system.
Predictions of nutrient loadings and the extent of regions
of low-oxygen water in an estuary such as Chesapeake Bay are
difficult at best. The recent controversy suggests that the
Chesapeake Bay modeling and monitoring program results are
incompatible.
The reliance on models versus monitoring data for assessing
the state of the system has long been debated within the marine
science community. It is now recognized that both are needed.
Combining data via models provides a powerful approach for
understanding marine systems and for making predictions about
future States. To suggest that the Chesapeake Bay Program
abandon or lessen its reliance on models in favor of a data-
only approach is not appropriate and is not in keeping with the
current state of understanding and scientific abilities. So,
what can be done to better integrate the bay program modeling
and monitoring efforts? An effort now ongoing in the Chesapeake
Bay academic and research communities provides an approach for
how this might be done and that brings me to the second part of
my comments.
In the 1990's, the scientific community of the region
participated in a review, through the Chesapeake Bay Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee, of the Chesapeake Bay model.
The committee report noted that the modeling and monitoring
components of the Chesapeake Bay Program were not well
integrated, that the Chesapeake Bay circulation water quality
watershed models did not have the ability to include in
simulations the effects of processes such as variations in
freshwater inflow, which we have heard a lot about today. And I
also think variability in winds which are known to influence
nutrient loading and dissolved oxygen distributions, and that
the reliance on a single model structure had slowed scientific
advances and reduced estimates of confidence.
A positive result of this review was the development of a
grassroots modeling effort within the Chesapeake Bay scientific
community, which has now become the Chesapeake Community
Modeling Project. The goal of the Chesapeake Community Modeling
Project is to improve the ability to model and predict physical
and biogeochemical processes in the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed. The foundation of this effort is the collaborative
open source research oriented modeling framework designed to
focus and coordinate the intellectual resources of the
Chesapeake Bay research institutions and the broader scientific
community. The approach is designed to foster scrutiny of all
aspects of the models and simulations including assessments of
projections derived from single models that would likely
underlie Chesapeake Bay restoration. And this is something that
the research and academic community felt like had been missing
in the Chesapeake Bay modeling program.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a partner in this new effort.
There is much that the research community and the bay program
can provide to one another and the last part of my comments
highlights one example.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is in a unique position of
having, through its monitoring program, a robust data set with
space and time resolution that is adequate for developing and
implementing what are called data assimilative models. These
are models that incorporate observations into models to adjust
the output toward observation. This is an approach used
routinely in numerical weather forecasting and ocean
circulation simulations. This approach helps to adjust the
model and it includes information in it that allows things like
freshwater flow variations to influence model simulations. The
process of development of data assimilative models may
potentially result in revisions to dynamics included in the
circulation water quality and watershed models, thereby making
comparisons with previous models difficult and perhaps calling
into questions previous model-based conclusions. That latter is
appropriate, enabling open discussion for science-based
resolution, the most beneficial practices for bay restoration.
In summary, the development of data assimilative models is
just one example of the change needed in infrastructure,
philosophy, and approach for any modeling program. The need to
provide accurate predications with far reaching policy and
social implications make it imperative that any Chesapeake Bay
modeling program be aware of and take full advantage of current
practices and advances in marine resource modeling. This will
require a long term sustained funding effort.
And in summary I would like to say thank you for the
opportunity to address you today, and I will be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Porter.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hofmann follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.075
STATEMENT OF FRANCES W. PORTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA
SEAFOOD COUNCIL
Ms. Porter. I am Frances Porter, of the Virginia Seafood
Council. The council is a trade association, non-profit and
incorporated, which represents the interest of commercial
fishing in Virginia. Membership includes packers, processors,
shippers, harvesters, and aquaculturists of Virginia seafood,
and it includes work in both the bay and on the ocean.
A member of the commercial fishing industry will speak next
and will tell you that the health of the Chesapeake Bay is
negatively impacting his livelihood. Pollution in the bay is
believed to be a strong contributor to the decline in fish,
crab, and oyster populations. Fish, crabs, and oysters are, of
course, vital parts of the food chain in the bay. Oysters are
vital to the filtration of the bay. If an oyster packer were
here he would give you an impassioned speech on the critical
situation in the oyster industry and document it with the facts
which you have heard from someone else today that we harvested
15,000 bushels of oysters in Virginia in 2003, compared to 1
million bushels 18 years ago in 1985.
As a representative of the commercial fishing industry, I
simply cannot separate economics and ecology. It is important
for members of this committee to understand that the commercial
fishing industry contributes $450 million to the economy of
Virginia annually, that 30 counties and 8 cities are at some
level economically dependent on the seafood industry and that
about 17,000 persons are employed in the industry and industry-
related jobs.
We have certainly all agreed already today that the
development in the watershed is a major problem for the health
of the bay. More cars, people, houses, lawns, and far less
timberland. Are sewage plants sufficiently regulated and
routinely monitored regarding their discharge? Has the rate of
development along the shoreline been slowed? Is there
measurable restoration of the watershed? Are farmers adhering
to the best management practices in cultivating and fertilizing
their crops? Those are questions to be answered by the
scientists, regulators and environmentalists, but they are
important issues for the fishing industry. Through the national
press, local press, trade journals, and magazines I read weekly
about the health of the bay, with conflicting reports about
measurable progress versus reports of slow to no progress,
scientifically, the Virginia Seafood Council is not qualified
to judge the progress of the clean up of the bay. But
practically, we see the steady decline in the living resource.
Living resources are an excellent measure of the health of the
bay.
It is best that I talk about the council's efforts to
restore one living resource, the oyster, to the bay. The oyster
has great economic value to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Far
greater is its ecological value to the bay. And you have
already heard that a healthy oyster resource is reported to
have the capability to filter the entire bay in a day. Imagine
a consistently heathy, constantly growing oyster resource
pumping the nutrients through its gills, purging the bay day
after day after day.
The council has been on a parallel track to restore the
native oyster and introduce the non-native oyster. To renew the
native oyster, we continue to plant shells, move seeds, and
work existing beds. We have developed huge reefs and have
supported moratoriums on harvest. Since 1990, private oyster
growers and the State of Virginia have spent millions on
millions of dollars in restoration efforts. There is some
marginal progress in the native efforts, but for the most part,
restoration is stalled and the oyster industry is dying.
Since 1995, the council has been engaged in a project to
introduce a non-native oyster to the bay. You have heard Dr.
Bahner and Secretary Murphy talk about that. In conjunction
with the Virginian Institute of Marine Science and with the
approval of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, we have
worked meticulously in conformance with State, Federal and
international laws and protocols, to conduct in water testing
of a non-native oyster. We have had tremendous success in
finding an oyster that grows rapidly, resists disease, and
tastes like the Virginia oyster. To date, we have no evidence
that it will introduce any known pathogens to the bay and no
evidence that it will damage the food chain in any way.
However, our project has been met with intense scrutiny by
numerous Federal agencies including the Army Corps of
Engineers, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service.
An extension of our existing permit was an intense 5 month
negotiating process between Federal agencies, the council and
our advisors at VIMS. The extension now requires new risk
mitigation strategies and numerous additional conditions to the
original permit. This is a clear indication that the agencies
are striving to prevent any further damage to the bay by the
introduction of a non-native oyster. The entire non-native
oyster permitting process is about risks and benefits. The
emphasis belongs on the ecological benefit that a renewed
oyster population will bring to the bay. Let me reiterate that
a healthy oyster population will filter the bay daily and
contribute to clean water.
While we are moving steadily toward water renewed oyster
resource with the Crassostrea ariakensis, we are not moving
rapidly. We are waiting for the completion of the environmental
impact statements that you have heard about. And economically,
we feel that time is running out to restore this industry.
Ecologically, the sooner we have a natural, filter feeder
resource in the bay the better.
I believe the Federal agencies, who have worked with us on
this project also understand the value of the oyster resource.
And I hope they will expedite all the processes in order to
allow the oyster in the bay next year.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Wallace.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Porter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.078
STATEMENT OF MARK WALLACE, EASTERN SHORE WATERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Wallace. Chairman Davis and Congressman Schrock. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Eastern
Shore Watermen's Association. I am Mark Wallace representing
the Eastern Shore Watermen's Association that has an annual
membership of around 80 individuals and represents 757
commercial fishermen who live on the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
In 2002, Virginia's commercial fishermen harvested $100
million in finfish and shellfish. In the last decade, the
fishing industry has seen numerous regulations to reduce over-
harvesting. These regulations have led to much hardship for
individuals who rely upon fishing for their livelihood. While
over-harvesting may negatively affect the industry, we feel
this is a secondary problem aggravated by poor water quality.
The hard clam aquaculture industry is also dependent upon
clean water. In 2000, this industry had a local economic impact
of $40 million in the State of Virginia. Aquaculture offers an
alternate way for commercial fisherman to make a living while
alleviating pressure on native stocks. It is important to
expand the aquaculture industry to other species. For instance
the Ariakensis oyster is being studied to explore its
feasibility as an aquaculture species. The Ariakensis has an
economic potential for fisherman, and the ability to improve
water quality through filtration.
The areas that we feel need the most attention are
stormwater retention from agriculture operations and shoreline
development. Both of these pose a significant threat to the
fishing and aquaculture industries. In the agriculture industry
we would like to see the use of stormwater retention sites,
properly engineer these sites could prevent the direct
accumulation of nutrients and toxins in the water ways.
Development of agricultural land should be handled in a way
that maximizes open space to absorb nutrients from concentrated
areas of development.
Programs should be enacted that encourage individuals to
leave open spaces undisturbed. Focus should also be directed at
waterways that are not already imperiled. A good example of
this is the Mattaponi River on the coastal side of Virginia.
This river supports an aquaculture industry that produces 200
million hard clam seed in 2003. The Mattaponi River is
currently clean enough to support the industry, the cleanliness
is being jeopardized by shoreline development and installation
of a mass drain field. To us it seems it would be much easier
to maintain a clean Mattaponi River than to clean up a polluted
waterway.
I have been involved in operations on this river for 8
years. I have seen the effects runoff can have on production.
To me it makes no sense to destroy an industry because there is
a lack of sound land management.
Finally, let me offer a couple examples of hardships
affecting the fishing industry. I serve as the secretary on the
harbor committee of my town. In 1989, there were 103 stalls
available for lease; of these 103 stalls, commercial fishermen
occupied 59. In 2004, this number is down to 17 individuals who
are active in commercial fishing and aquaculture. The harbor
has shifted from a commercial harbor that was put in place by
local commercial fishermen to a recreational harbor. When the
commercial fishery was very active, it supported a small store
by the harbor. As the number of commercial fishermen declined
the store opened seasonally, and now it is closed year round.
In my town, there is also a crab processor. The scale of
this business has declined substantially in the last decade. In
the early 1990's, this business employed at least 10 full-time
employees. Today there are only four seasonal employees during
the month of May. This illustrates the effects of a declining
harvest from the Chesapeake Bay.
These examples demonstrate the necessity of clean water to
the fishing industry. We cannot say if the Chesapeake Bay
Program has helped our industry. We do know that we are at a
critical state, and that it is imperative that we continue to
work toward a cleaner Chesapeake Bay to maintain a strong
fishing and aquaculture industry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallace follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.079
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. We will start the
questioning with Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. If I understand correctly I think most Federal
agencies not just the Army Corp of Engineers including the
Chesapeake Bay Program and NOAA are not in favor of the
introduction of the non-native oyster, I believe that is the
case. I know you have strong opinions about that, but I think
that is one of the roadblocks we are going to have, because I
do not believe those two organizations want that either.
Chairman Tom Davis. Who are the two?
Mr. Schrock. NOAA and the Chesapeake Bay Program. Am I
correct on that?
Chairman Tom Davis. NOAA spoke in the last panel I thought
that they were still evaluating it.
Mr. Schrock. Can anybody answer that?
Mr. Boesch. I think I could maybe give it a shot. Correct
me if I am wrong.
We tried when this issue was first raised I think the
States, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Federal agencies tried
to take the first responsible step by asking the National
Academy of Sciences for a review. There were eminent scientists
from outside of this region, who sat, looked and listened to
all the evidence and issues and its report basically says this:
we do not feel that there is sufficient basis to go ahead with
introduction now because of the uncertain risks. However,
recognizing that there are severe problems with this industry,
and with the oyster population ecologically, the recommendation
was to undertake a 5-year aquaculture program that was based
upon using a sterile non-reproducing oysters that could not
escape cultivation and that would be coupled with a intense
strategic research program.
So, now we just have for the first time in the NOAA program
appropriations for the research program. So, I would think the
agencies would say that it is inconsistent with the advice
given to us by the National Academy to make that decision now,
rather we should make that decision after all the evidence,
pros and cons and risks can be thoroughly evaluated.
Mr. Schrock. What are the problems with introducing that
foreign oyster here? Ms. Porter said that it tastes the same as
the Chesapeake Bay oyster. You have to go some to do that but I
believe you. What are the problems that are inherent in that?
Mr. Boesch. Where there have been non-native oysters
introduced for production purposes in other parts of the world,
in some cases they have been successful. In other cases the
oysters have not survived, so is not a given that the oysters
will actually establish populations here. Second, there are
some cases where oysters have caused--introduced oysters have
caused some severe problems. Fouling of vessels, fouling of
virtually everything out there. And then, of course we are
concerned about with the populations of the non-native oysters
might interfere or compete and interfere with the native oyster
restoration. So, there are a number of others, but those are
the kinds of questions just to give you a flavor, that the
Academy listed, should be addressed.
Mr. Schrock. So, the 5-year program began?
Mr. Boesch. I think you would have to say it is just
beginning.
Mr. Schrock. Just beginning. For all of you, in your
opinions, if Congress were to invest new dollars in the
Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts, where do you think that
they could best be spent?
Ms. Pierno. Do you want me to start.
Mr. Schrock. Go ahead.
Mr. Wallace. Go ahead.
Ms. Pierno. Go ahead.
Mr. Wallace. Well, I said it before and I will say it
again. We need to explore other aquaculture options. I mean the
ariakensis is one, it has a lot of potential I mean we know it
works. It has been in the water. There are risk, but at the
same time if we can follow through in a controlled manor or
eventually there are going to be private individuals that are
tired of waiting and they are going to introduce it in an
uncontrolled manner. At that point we stand a greater risk.
The Federal money to followup on other species as well, I
mean not only the ariakensis, but I am sure that there are
other species we could work with. I know this year, NMS spawned
some crabs and released them. So that is one important area, I
think. It alleviates the pressure on the nature stocks. And the
other is on the Eastern Shore, there is the agriculture
industry and there is the fishing industry. And of course, the
real estate end of business, but we need to focus on--
[laughter.]
Mr. Schrock. You are not kidding. They are major player up
there right.
Mr. Wallace. Restoration of land and open spaces in that
area to absorb the nutrients rather than what is happening now,
in particular the past months where we have had so much rain.
Everything that is on the land is in the water right now, and
you see it, things are dying along the shoreline, we had a huge
fish die off last week or about 2 weeks ago. So, to focus the
money in both of those areas would be very important in my
opinion.
Ms. Pierno. I was just going to say, I think one area is
the native oyster, unlike many other areas you have not spent
enough resources to really meet the goal that was the 10-fold
increase. And the reality is at our oyster farm here in
Virginia, we are seeing some real progress, and I think we are
learning an awful lot. And so, with some more resources
dedicated to the new oyster restoration effort, I think that
could be very productive. So, I do not think we want to give up
on that.
I do want to say in the report we talk about agriculture
needing an additional $250 million annually to this region, the
watershed to be able to do the kind of agricultural practices
that are going to be needed to get to those reductions as well
as the upgrades on wastewater treatment plants. So, I think
those two as well as of course urban stormwater are going to
take substantial dollars. And there is an opportunity through
the Federal transportation bill to get some of those dollars,
but they would be the top priorities.
Mr. Schrock. We have to get the transportation bill out.
Ms. Pierno. Yes.
Mr. Boesch. I would just say that on the top of my list is
agriculture. Agriculture is the largest source of both nitrogen
and phosphorous to the bay. It is pretty clear that what really
tipped this bay over in the 1960's as well as in many other
coastal areas around the country, around the world is the
expanded use of fertilizers in agriculture. It doubled and
tripled within a couple of decades. And so, we need to learn to
continue to have agriculture production but also minimize the
downstream consequences.
I actually think it is not going to be as costly as you
might think if we aligned our agriculture policies, our farm
policies with the environmental policies. As you know, this
country spends billions, tens of billions of dollars each year
for agricultural subsidies. Those subsidies are going to be
going away probably because of world trade considerations,
because we have already had rulings against this country in
terms of subsidized agriculture.
And one way that we can continue to keep that subsidization
going--and other countries are moving this way rapidly--is
toward environmental restoration, environmental improvement and
conservation practices. So, if we could use some small part of
that, that present Federal investment to get the outcomes and
benefits, to do the kinds of things that we are already trying
to do. For example, cover crops have proven to be enormously
effective, but it costs the farmer money, they do not harvest
the cover crop. If we can get some of that Federal investments
to accomplish things like that, we can make this happen without
a substantial increase in the total Federal expenditure.
Mr. Schrock. Anyone else want to comment?
Ms. Schaffner. Yes, I would like to comment.
Mr. Schrock. Yes.
Ms. Schaffner. Just quickly, I agree that probably the
nutrient reduction strategies are something that is an easily
identifiable target that we can work on. But I also want to
continue to stress that what we need to maintain in this
country is a process, a really effective process for linking
science and policy development. We know what we have to do in
the Chesapeake Bay, because this process has worked in the
past, so we need to ensure that we maintain our leadership and
ability to do that. So, maintaining a process of linking
science and policy that helps us identify the best solutions is
something that I will put at the top of my list.
Mr. Schrock. Ms. Hofmann.
Ms. Hofmann. I agree with all the comments that have gone
on. I think we need to control agriculture and the Clean Air
Act and all that. But one thing I would like to make a point
here is that, that all works well, but one of the things that
has to happen is to have capacity building in the community
through education. And I am not talking about education in
universities or whatever, education at primary grades, K-12
type of approaches. And to implement a lot of the things that
we have heard about this morning requires an informed public
that understands why you need to do this. And my general
impression from having worked with some education outreach
activities is that is always one of the last things to be
funded. And when it is funded, it is not typically funded at a
level where you can do a whole lot of anything.
And I would encourage you to put that into legislation, to
put money in for educational activities and to target those
toward Chesapeake Bay. I know that the Chesapeake Bay Program
has a large outreach program, there are a lot of groups doing
it at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. But right now, that is not
getting translated very well into the primary grades, which is
where you really need to put the educational efforts.
Mr. Schrock. Catch them in the cradle type thing.
Ms. Hofmann. Exactly.
Mr. Schrock. Mark, what is your No. 1 main challenge that
the watermen face in this industry?
Mr. Wallace. Regulations, I would have to say. I am
involved in aquaculture as well as the commercial harvest of
native species. I do both, and in aquaculture we are not seeing
the regulations, but in the fishing industry every year, and
when I stated about there being around 80 individuals, that is
based on how many regulations we are facing in a particular
year. The more proposed, the more members we have. But just the
regulation of the industry and I would think it would be a lot
of the fishermen's complaint that a lot of these regulations
that come through really are not based on sound data that comes
in.
But that is the primary, the No. 1 thing that we face that
is affecting our industry, is regulation, and declining
harvest.
Mr. Schrock. Regulation that is enacted that is not based
on sound science?
Mr. Wallace. Yes.
Mr. Schrock. Do you agree with that? If you do not tell me.
Mr. Boesch. Well, I cannot comment on the specifics of the
regulations the gentleman is talking about. But I think we have
in the Chesapeake Bay area evolved a fairly effective
mechanism. Different in the different States, because of the
structure; for example, Virginia has a marine resource
commission. We do not have a commission we have a State agency
in Maryland, where we are getting better and better scientific
information into the decisionmaking. A good case in point is
the blue crab problem. Blue crabs were declined substantially
over the few years. Great alarm, the people who suffer mostly
are the watermen, obviously. And we are all concerned about the
state of the bay, and the role that plays. There is a direct
relationship with the health of the bay and the blue crab
population, and it has to do primarily through this linkage
with the submerged aquatic vegetation. These are nursery areas
for little blue crabs that come in. So, we need to restore
those.
But it is also clear with present populations we have to
deal with the evidence is pretty clear that we had over
harvesting, that we were not going to allow enough females to
survive the process to go down in the bay right off here, and
spawn and reproduce. So, we had to reduce the harvest pressure
in order to allow enough females to survive to rebuild the
stock, and the jury is still out. There are some signs, at
least in the upper bay we have a bumper year for crabs. We
cannot claim credit necessarily until we look at it all. But we
are optimistic that we are going to see some recovery as a
result of the regulations.
To the folks that are regulated, I can understand that it
is an onerous problem and it is something that they--it is a
bottom line economic issue for them. But hopefully over the
long run it will assure the vitality and sustainability of that
resource in the future.
Mr. Schrock. There is a big delicate balancing act there,
you have some magnificent watermen up there who do their trade
and do it very well. It is really tough. In July--oh, I am
sorry.
Ms. Porter. I would like to respond to that.
Mr. Schrock. Sure.
Ms. Porter. With due respect to Mark and the fact that
working watermen feel that they are being regulated out of
business, I think though Virginia Marine Resources Commission
does an excellent job of studying the issues. They rely heavily
on the scientific advice that comes from VIMS. And the
regulators themselves do not want to keep regulating and
regulating. But we are trying hard to preserve and restore the
resource.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just ask on that, if you put a
moratorium or you put some significant limits on here over a
multi year period, would the population come back of the
oysters and crabs. In your opinion, is the water clear enough
that at a given time and not allowing them to be fished or
controlling that will that bring it back by itself or will we
still have environmental problems would prohibited it?
Ms. Schaffner. We definitely have a combinations of factors
that are affecting these populations. One of the things that we
do know about these coastal ecosystem is that they often have
reservoirs of individual places in the bay, for example, where
populations are doing better. Some parts of the lower bay are
more healthy than some parts of the tributaries or the upper
bay. So, there is an enormous capacity for some resilience in
there and if everything lines up, you know, the stars and the
moon and the sun all line up the right like it did with striped
bass, when we put a fishing moratorium on, we got just the
right combination of factors and the population just took off.
If you happen to have a number of really wet years and nutrient
loadings were really high, you might not see those kinds of
recoveries right away.
Mr. Schrock. You would have significant impact on the
watermen and everybody and you would not necessarily get an
impact if the weather was bad.
Ms. Schaffner. Right, I think the systems are variable, so
sometimes it takes a combination of everything lining up--the
environmental conditions and the moratoriums--to work, but
there is a lot of natural resilience in these populations and
nothing has gone extinct in the bay. We do have residual
populations that are there to provide seed material, if you
will. So we still are positive about what we could see if we
took the pressures off.
Mr. Boesch. Could I just amend that, sorry.
Mr. Schrock. Sure.
Mr. Boesch. Just to say that it varies with the resource
species you are interested in. Striped bass, we had a very
small number of spawners left in the population, so a
moratorium was the right thing to do. We had to let those folks
survive. For blue crabs, we catch 150 million blue crabs out of
the bay, every year. There is no shortage of female blue crabs,
enough that the population is going to disappear and crash. We
have to let more of those survive so it is not a moratorium, it
is worrying about how many crabs can we catch, issues such as
sanctuaries for spawning crabs. For oysters, it is a more
challenging issue because we have mined out the basic habitat
that they once lived on so that is not going to rebuild
overnight. But there are things we will do; for example, in
Maryland, we are adapting the management strategy so we do not
move, transplant, diseased oysters from one part of the bay to
the area where the disease is not. So, it varies with the
species.
Ms. Porter. I would like to speak to that about the
oysters, also and I am not a scientist. And I do not want to
misrepresent anything, but you know for 20 years the scientists
have been trying to determine what durmo and MSX really are and
how to remove them from the bay. And I guess they know what
they really are, but they do not know how to get them out of
the bay. So, the oysters are plagued by the two diseases.
Mr. Schrock. Can you figure that out.
Mr. Boesch. One of those diseases, I would submit and the
one that is really devastating Virginia is MSX, is our own
fault, it is an introduced species.
Mr. Schrock. I was in the Navy.
Mr. Wallace. We are not scientists.
Mr. Boesch. MSX, it has a scientific name but very briefly
throughout all of our community, watermen and scientists, we
refer to these two diseases as MSX, which was a code name
developed a long time ago, and durmo, just keep in mind MSX and
durmo are two different diseases. MSX is particularly virulent
in the highest parts of the bay. We have only occasionally, in
dry years, an MSX problem in Maryland; we have the durmo
problem. MSX, the work of VIMS, that group has done excellent
work demonstrated convincingly using molecular ecology,
molecular biology, the genes analysis. That this disease was
introduced by a previous failed attempt to introduce another
alien non-native species. A West Coast Japanese oyster that was
living on the west coast was introduced here, it did not take
off or survive but it introduced MSX, which was devastating to
the native populations which had no evolutionary history or
tolerance to that pathogen.
Chairman Tom Davis. So, that gives appreciation for what we
are trying to do now, this generation.
Mr. Boesch. Absolutely.
Mr. Schrock. I have one final question. Ms. Pierno, last
month in July, the EPA announced that sewage treatment plants
in Virginia and six other States and Washington, DC, were going
to be required to reduce discharges of nitrogen and
phosphorous. What is your opinion of that plan? It has really
been brought to our attention in the last few days, because the
town of Onancock on the Eastern Shore is trying to get re-
permitted for their sewage system and apparently they are going
to be denied. And they are saying that they are going to have
to pay $3.5 million for new treatment plants which is three
times longer, three times more then their town budget every
year. It is a real catch 22. What is your opinion of that plan
that they have?
Ms. Pierno. I think the plan that you are speaking of is
the actual plan that goes beyond Virginia, it is for the entire
border.
Mr. Schrock. That is right.
Ms. Pierno. And the reality is unfortunately the plan
allows for further delay. We know; in fact, we received a
letter from the former administrator Tracy Mehen that currently
EPA has the authority and the responsibility to issue permits
that control nitrogen and phosphorous. And so, we have simply
been asking them to do that and certainly we recognize that in
some of these plants--but I will say that most of the cost
estimates that have come in for these upgrades have been as
much as 50 percent higher then what the actual cost has been
ultimately. And this is even seen with an upgrade that was done
in Blue Plains.
So, I think that what we need to understand when we hear
these large numbers is that they are estimates, they are cost
estimates and they are not always accurate. But the reality is
in Maryland, we recognize that there are going to be small
jurisdictions and areas that we are not going to be able to
afford. They just do not have enough ratepayers to be able to
pay for the cost of that upgrade. So, that is when the State
stepped in now, with flush fee, a bill that was passed this
legislation session, to provide those kinds of resources for
the very kind of situation that Onancock is facing. So, we
think it is an entire, you know, responsibility for States to
look at this issue and to help those jurisdictions that need
help. As far as the new--it is really not regulations that the
EPA is putting out, unfortunately, again they are not
requirements. It is another kind of advice, in fact on page in
the small print at the bottom, it specifically says this does
not have any additional requirements or regulatory authorities.
So, the reality is it is more language saying we are going
to gradually bring you along and we recognize that this is
going to take years--and we do not have years. And the fact is,
is that we recognize the it is very possible that there may be
lawsuits and challenges once those permits are issued. So, we
would say do it as soon as possible.
Mr. Schrock. So that $2.50 a month per household fee is
going to solve the problem Onancock has right now. So, they do
not have to bear the brunt of the whole thing.
Ms. Pierno. That is in Maryland.
Mr. Schrock. Oh, I understand that. I only wish that the
$2.50 Maryland fee could be applied to Onancock, VA.
Ms. Pierno. I think it is a little bit more in Virginia. I
think it is more like $4 a month they are looking at.
Mr. Schrock. How much?
Ms. Pierno. $4 a month that would actually pay for the
Onancock upgrade as well as all the major wastewater treatment
plans.
Mr. Schrock. I just do not want Onancock sued to the point
that they are going to--that just does not make no sense.
Ms. Pierno. It is always a last----
Mr. Schrock. Resort.
Ms. Pierno [continuing]. Resort. We really take it very
seriously, but unfortunately, we just do not feel that the EPA
is taking this action as serious as they need to. They continue
to allow expansions, new permits, without having those
reductions in place, we just feel that is unacceptable.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. I just wonder if somebody
could describe for me--the bay, obviously the water is
consistently moving into the bay and out to sea. How long it
takes with stuff coming into the bay, it is point it is non-
point, it is a lot of different things in the atmosphere. I am
just trying to get a macro picture of what it takes and how
long it takes the water to flush out of there once it enters,
does anybody have any idea, or does it differ in different
places? Does it depend on the season, and the temperature.
Anybody have the answer.
Ms. Hofmann. I think I can make an attempt to answer that.
And being a good academic, it would not be a firm answer.
Chairman Tom Davis. Politicians do not give firm answers
either.
Ms. Hofmann. How you estimate residence time in a system
like the Chesapeake Bay is very difficult to do. And what you
estimate residence time for is somewhat dependent on the
property you are looking at. If you look at something like
salinity, of the numbers that I have seen for that, the
flushing time in the bay for salt is on the order of a few
months, like 3 to 4 months perhaps. So, if you put salt at the
entrance of the Chesapeake Bay right out here you would expect
it to go around, come out the bay and be out and done in about
3 months.
All right, that is one example. All right, that is an
average number. All right, in years when there is a drought
that number is going to be a whole lot longer. Years with a lot
of freshwater inflow that number will be a whole lot shorter.
So, it is not just dependent on the environmental conditions,
that it is also dependent on climatic cycles. That is one issue
with the Chesapeake Bay is that it responds to large global
climate cycles. Like the El Nino that we have all heard a lot
about, and that all has to be factored into when you start
worrying about how long water is going to stay in the bay.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask Mr. Wallace, you are here
representing a group of people who have for years made their
living off the water and you see the stock declining, the
demand has not declined at all, and probably the demand for
fish and crabs and oysters has probably never been higher. But
we just do not have the kind of stock. What do moratoriums do
to you and how do you view this long term? You said there was
some success when they deployed it; on the other hand, there is
no guarantee it works sometimes, depending on other factors.
Mr. Wallace. Well, if you take the bay, for example, the
only moratorium that has really brought a stock back is the
rock fish. If we were to put a moratorium on the oysters, in my
opinion and a lot of fishermen, it is not going to help because
while harvesting has been an after-effect, it was not the
initial result of the decline. And it is the same with the
crabs, which is one of the fisheries I am involved with. If we
were to put a moratorium on it, there is still so many other
factors; you have an over-abundance of predators from the rock
fish, croakers and other finfish that are in the water. You
have a lack of grass beds.
So, it is an imbalance that is going there. As we manage
things, we need to look at it as a whole. Moratoriums on a
particular species are not necessarily going to work because
they do not look at the other factors that are affecting the
species.
Chairman Tom Davis. Is there any aquatic life that are
doing very, very well in this environment; while some have
decreased, some have increased, or is it because of the dark
zones that you have, the dead zones, everything is dying?
Ms. Schaffner. Actually, there is a lot of opportunistic
organisms in the bay. They are benefiting from--they are not
things that you want to eat. Sea squirts that foul the bottom
of boats. Jellyfish, these are things that you would not want
to harvest, but there are these populations. A lot of them
actually are suspension feeders that seem to be perhaps
capitalizing on the fact that the native oyster populations are
reduced, for example. We have a lot of production out there and
there are things that can use it. They are not things we want
to harvest.
Chairman Tom Davis. Not things we want to increase though,
right.
Ms. Schaffner. It is not clear whether or not they benefit
the bay. There is a little story about what is going on up in
Maryland where this mussel seems to have come in and might be
in some way playing a role in water clarity, gives you an
example that we do not know what roles some of these organisms
play. Since they are not commercial species, we do not get a
lot of funding to study them.
Chairman Tom Davis. All right.
Ms. Porter. Congressman Davis.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Porter. I do not know how much you know about
regulations in the fishing industry, but sanctuaries are an
important regulatory method that is being used a great deal.
Where you harvest, where you cannot harvest.
Chairman Tom Davis. You keep some areas secure.
Ms. Porter. That is correct. So, that is like a mini-
moratorium I guess.
Mr. Boesch. If I could just add to that comment in response
to your question. There are some species, some stock, things
that we care about like striped bass, the rock fish that are
doing very well. That has been a real success story, and there
are others. For example, the largest volume fishery--mass,
weight, fishery in the Chesapeake Bay is ask my students
menhaden. And the menhaden catches have over the long term been
out there. There are some downward trends now, and there are
some folks who think that is because we fertilized the bay, and
we grow more of this phyto plankton that the menhaden eat. But
to bring it back home to the comments that my colleagues at the
end of the table indicate, all of these things are connected.
So now we have a concern about whether there is sufficient
menhaden in the bay to feed striped bass.
And so, this has led the bay program--in the Chesapeake
2000 agreement, one of the things we have not been able to talk
about is this commitment to manage the fishery resources as an
ecosystem, just as Mr. Wallace indicated. So, that we think
about what are the implications of managing one stock to the
other. We think about what is the consequence of the health of
the environment, sanctuary areas, for those fishery stocks. And
that is a grand challenge but that is one that the bay program
has taking on as one of its strategic goals.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, the foundation in this testimony
noted that the benchmark for a healthy bay score of 100 is
based on what Representative Schrock described like the idea of
John Smith's first visit to the bay in the 17th century. I
think we acknowledge that the return to that State is probably
unachievable.
Ms. Pierno. Right, no, we are looking at a 70 as far as our
mark.
Chairman Tom Davis. Is a 70 achievable?
Ms. Pierno. It is if we do the things that we are committed
to doing and put the resources forward.
Chairman Tom Davis. Where are we today, if not a 70 today,
how would you rate it today?
Ms. Pierno. Well, the state of the bay report says it is a
27, which I think in anybody's book is an F. I mean it is
failing and we are clearly far from reaching that 70 goal, but
I think the efforts underway are clearly not sufficient. We
have made some progress, but we need to do much, much more.
Chairman Tom Davis. What we did is stop the bleeding to
some extent?
Ms. Pierno. Absolutely, and there has been some small steps
in progress but again when you look at the constant increase in
population, development, and loss of very important buffers and
resources, we need to continue to do more in order to just keep
up--more cars on the road, more air pollution, pollution coming
from other sources even outside the watershed.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Murphy, in our previous panel, said
the No. 1 thing that you could do though on the point pollution
that is entering, is we could do a better job with that. It is
expensive, but do you agree with that?
Ms. Pierno. Absolutely, it is relatively cost effective
because you really get the results, you can measure it.
Agriculture, Tom Horton once wrote it is a very leaky system
and it is really difficult to manage and to really get the same
kind of results. You certainly can measure from height. We do
know that cover crops and many of the BMPs are very effective.
But, certainly upgrading our sewage treatment plants and we
have proven technology, we know how to do it. It is just a
matter of spending the resources and moving forward quickly.
Chairman Tom Davis. And also, you have everybody, every
suburban homeowner, that wants to put a deck or something on
their back porch wonders why they are being singled out. What
effect; of course this is an accumulative effect, but when you
are talking the outflow is coming out in the systems that is a
very large measurable one setting item, and you can see the
results.
Ms. Pierno. Absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. And of course the weather.
Ms. Pierno. And in fact in Virginia you would meet 70
percent of your reduction load by upgrading your wastewater
treatment plants to the best technology. So, that is--and of
course you need to continue to work on agriculture.
Chairman Tom Davis. It is expensive, but politically
probably the easiest one to do.
Ms. Pierno. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. Because you are not impacting the
watermen or the farmers or the developers.
Ms. Pierno. That is right.
Chairman Tom Davis. I appreciate that. Is there anyone that
wants to add? This has been very, very helpful for us. Because
you know we have different committees with different
jurisdictions. Our committee has an oversight of almost
everything in the government and all of Federal/State issues,
we have the jurisdictions. These kinds of issues we can deal
with effectively, that is us. We need to deal with the
appropriators, but this has been very, very helpful.
Mr. Boesch. If I could just say one thing since you invited
us to. There is also, you know, our senators that requested a
Government Accountability Office evaluation of this, which I
think is fine, and your committee and the like. I really hope
that we really focus on--I mean we have some issues, some
technical issues with monitoring and modeling. These are not
show stoppers, they are important to get right so that we can
deal with this, as you indicated.
Chairman Tom Davis. There is a large consensus of what we
need to do from everybody here.
Mr. Boesch. What it really should be focusing on is how do
we get there. How do we get to achieve these goals.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Well thank you all very much. This
meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6635.169
<all>