[Senate Hearing 113-794]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-794
EXAMINING THE STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING
THE GOALS OF THE NEW VOLUNTARY
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED AGREEMENT
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-185 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 1
WITNESSES
Dipasquale, Nick, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........ 24
Robertson Peyton, Director, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office........... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........ 35
Ward Hon. Molly, Secretary of Natural Resources, State of
Virginia....................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Miller, Hon. Ronald , Representative, Pennsylvania House of
Representatives................................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Lisanti, Hon. Mary Ann, Councilmember, Harford County Council.... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Hershey, Hon. Steve, Senator, Maryland Senate.................... 87
Prepared statement........................................... 90
EXAMINING THE STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE NEW VOLUNTARY
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED AGREEMENT
----------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
U.S. SENATE
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in the
Joint Committee Hearing Room of the Legislative Services
Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, chairman of the
subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Cardin (presiding).
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin: Well, let me welcome you all to the hearing
of the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Environment
and Public Works Committee.
I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter, the
chairman and ranking Republican member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, for authorizing this hearing in
Annapolis of the subcommittee. And I thank Senator Boozman, my
ranking Republic member on the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee,
for the cooperation in allowing this hearing to take place.
Very important subject. And that, of course, is the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This is an issue that we have been
working on together for a long, long time.
And it's great to be here in this particular hearing room.
As I think most of you know, I'm a former Speaker of the State
Legislature, so I have very fond memories of Annapolis and my
time in Annapolis.
But, I think top on that list would be working with then
Governor Harry Hughes in the late 1970's, early 1980's, when we
really started the Chesapeake Bay program. With our friends
from Virginia and Pennsylvania, we initiated efforts, studies
were had. And Senator Mac Mathias, of course, played a critical
role in getting Federal funds for the initial study that led to
the first Chesapeake Bay agreements. And I remember working
very closely with Governor Hughes, and was amazed at the
formula that was used back then for the Chesapeake Bay program,
which basically was: let's get all stakeholders--all
stakeholders together, let's listen to everyone, let science be
our guide, and let's include not just our partners at the
governmental level, which was the Federal, State, and local,
but also the private sector. And, of course, over that period
of time, with the help of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and
other groups, we have made tremendous progress on the
Chesapeake Bay.
So, I start by saying that, but for that work, we would be
in much worse shape today than we are. We've made a lot of
progress. And when we look, the look of the Chesapeake Bay, the
whole atmosphere around the Bay has paid off great dividends
for landowners and those who use the Bay for commerce, and
certainly for tourism and the way of life here in our State.
So, we come to this hearing recognizing that we have made a
lot of progress, but also recognizing there are significant
challenges ahead of us and that we need to look forward and
modernize what needs to be done on the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. That's why I'm particularly pleased that we have the
panel that we have before us today.
So, today the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee is convening
a field hearing to examine the newly signed Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement, signed by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
partners on June 16th of this year. This new agreement
represents the next chapter in the longstanding effort of the
Chesapeake Bay States and the District of Columbia, local
communities across our region, Federal Government, and dozens
of stakeholder organizations that are all working together to
improve the health and resiliency of the Chesapeake Bay.
It started with Senator Mac Mathias, one of my predecessors
in the U.S. Senate, who sponsored the congressionally funded
$27 million, 5-year study to analyze the Bay's rapid loss of
wildlife and aquatic life. The study, which was published in
the early 1980's, identified excess nutrient pollution as the
main source of the Bay's degradation. These initial research
findings led to the formation of the Chesapeake Bay program as
the means to restore the Bay.
A lot has changed since Mac Mathias commissioned that
study. What remains true today is that the Bay's watershed
spans 64,000 square miles across six States and the District of
Columbia, and it's comprised of 150 major rivers and almost
12,000 miles of shoreline. The Chesapeake Bay region continues
to represent one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in
the country, and, sadly, the Bay continues to face enormous
pollution challenges, due in large part to the change that
we've seen in the last 40 years.
The main change that we've seen in the last 40 years is
population growth. More people live in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. We've doubled the population in the last 40 years to
17 million people. The economic value of the Chesapeake Bay has
grown and is linked to the nearly $1 trillion to our economy.
The Bay is still, and will always be, an intangible cultural
symbol for Maryland and the region as a whole. Generations of
families across Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
have grown to identify their lifestyle and build livelihoods
around the bounty of the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the northern
hemisphere. The largest. There was a time not too long ago that
the Bay was the most productive estuary in the world, but
physical changes in the region's landscape resulted from
population growth and economic progress has changed the
hydrological composition of the Bay and its tributaries. A
balance can and must be found. Part and parcel to achieving
this balance of economic and population growth with a
sustainable and healthy Bay is the plan put forward in the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The development of sound policies to restore the Chesapeake
Bay has been a top priority of mine over the course of my
career in the U.S. Congress. I've been fortunate to have great
partners in Congress representing the base States. And I want
to underscore that. We are very blessed, in all of the States
that are in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, to have partners in
both the House and Senate who have made a priority of the
Chesapeake Bay and have initiated a lot of programs and
opportunities along the way to supplement the Chesapeake Bay
program. Whether it's in the water resources bill or whether
it's in the farm bill, we have found ways to buildupon the
tools available to help in the Chesapeake Bay.
President Obama's May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order
recognized the national interest in restoring the Chesapeake
Bay and improving coordination and restoration efforts because
of the wide-ranging involvement of different departments and
agencies of the Federal Government. The coordination of the
seven jurisdictions, hundreds of local communities, seven
Cabinet-level Federal departments, the Chesapeake Bay
Commission and stakeholders of all stripes have necessitated
the development of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to
affirm the conservation goals of everyone involved in this
effort.
I want to stress the importance of the broad involvement of
all stakeholders. The key to this is that all stakeholders need
to be involved. We have to have a transparent process. And we
have to be balanced in the way that we go about dealing with
the problems. There is no one answer to the health of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Nutrient pollution and sediment and agriculture activities
in the rural parts of our region need to be better controlled.
As well as storm runoff from lawns and roads, nutrients and
treated wastewater and the general loss of impervious surfaces
in urban areas also need to be better controlled. In other
words, there's not one single source. We need to have a
coordinated program.
The Bay Agreement outlines a comprehensive approach to
continuing the efforts to restore the Bay. The Agreement is an
outline of goals and outcomes that complement and establish
regulatory requirements and will help all responsible parties
meet their obligations. The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership
was formed in 1983, when the Governors of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the mayor of the District of
Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the
EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. For more than 30
years, these entities have remained committed to the goal of
restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As the science has determined and
the interest in the Bay's stewardship has broadened, this
partnership has expanded to a basinwide effort, where all six
States of the Basin are now parties to the Agreement. Working
together to achieve the various goals of the agreement is what
will help ensure the Chesapeake Bay we'll leave for our
children is healthier tomorrow than it is today.
The Agreement does not--does acknowledge that the
Partnership cannot address every goal in the Agreement
immediately. Certainly, some of these goals will take longer to
realize, but all goals are achievable. The Agreement wisely
suggests that action be taken in a strategic, inclusive, and
cost-effective manner. That's very important. The principles
laid out in the Agreement, I want to acknowledge the
Partnership's commitment to transparency and consensus-
building. The goals of the agreement deal with issues like
natural land preservation, blue crab management, nutrient
pollution reductions, and others. These aren't easy subjects,
but we have to use transparency, and we have to try to develop
consensus. Stakeholders must be involved in achieving these
goals, need to feel the process and the weight of actions are
being prescribed in a fair and open manner.
Restoring the iconic Maryland blue crab is important, for
so many reasons. Unfortunately, this year's crop population is
stunningly low. The Agreement sets the goal of maintaining a
population of 215 million female adult crabs through 2025. Blue
crabs are a vital part of the food chain throughout the Bay's
ecosystem, and they are at the heart of the Mid-Atlantic
multibillion-dollar seafood industry.
Wetland restoration is also critically important for flood
protection and water quality improvements. And I'm glad to see
that the Agreement has several specific aspects in regards to
wetland conservation. Reauthorizing the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act would also help, which recently received a
unanimous support in the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
And programs like the Corp's Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Programs, the farm bill's Regional Conservation
Partnership Programs all help in the effort.
The Agreement is--aims to open up an additional 1,000
stream miles for fish passage. That's also an important thing.
There are many, many other provisions in the Agreement that's
pretty specific. There are some areas that are not as specific,
and I'm going to have a chance, I hope, to question as to why
are we specific here, but not specific there? Again, fairness
and balance is important in order to get the type of universal
support that we need to move this agreement forward.
There are many other important components. And again, we'll
touch on them during the hearing. But, last, I want to express
my appreciation for the final Agreement's inclusion of two
separate sets of goals and outcomes related to toxic
contaminants and climate change. Reducing the presence of--or
improving the secure storage of toxic chemicals that are in use
around the watershed is a growing problem. Now, I know that the
problem in West Virginia, Charleston, was not in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed, but it did highlight the danger that we have in
watersheds due to chemical storage. And I was glad to see that
the Agreement did include the toxic issues.
Adapting to the effect of climate change needs to be a
priority in our region. Rising sea level poses a threat to the
hundreds of Chesapeake Bay communities and millions of people
that live on the shores of the Bay.
So, all these issues are critically important. We must
adapt our water infrastructure to handle the effects of more
intense weather. We know that's a reality. And, quite frankly,
there seems to be more bipartisan agreement in Congress on
adaptation, and that's an area where I hope we can make some
progress.
The Agreement is an important step forward in restoring the
Chesapeake Bay. Billions has been spent and progress has been
made, but a resource as large and fragile that faces
unprecedented pressure is going to continue to take increased
resources and attention to restore and protect for future
generations.
My commitment to the Bay has never been stronger and will
continue to work for the people of my State to protect this
incredibly important resource for Maryland.
We are really pleased to have a distinguished panel with us
who can, I hope, help us better understand the new agreement
and how we can all work together to improve the Bay.
First, there is a statement from Senator Vitter, the
ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. And, without objection, since there's no one else
here to object, that will be made part of our record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of Hon. David Vitter, U.S. Senator
from the State of Louisiana
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling today's
hearing. I would also like to thank our witnesses for
testifying before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife.
Standing alone, the June 16, 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement (Agreement) appears worthy of celebration. The
Agreement establishes several laudable principles that are
intended to serve as a framework for the continued work on the
Chesapeake Bay Program. These principles include collaboration,
transparency, science-based decisionmaking, and a pledge to
work closely with local governments in pursuing Chesapeake Bay
restoration efforts. Given these commitments, it may be
difficult to imagine anyone having reservations about the
Agreement, especially when one also considers that the
Agreement is apparently a voluntary accord between the
Chesapeake region states and the Federal Government.
However, the Agreement before the Subcommittee today cannot
be examined in a vacuum. If we are to understand helpful ideas
or potential hurdles to achieving the goals of the 2014
Agreement, we should be mindful of the history associated with
past Chesapeake Bay agreements. In my opinion, and in light of
the regulatory developments which occurred after the Chesapeake
2000 Agreement, any strategy regarding the 2014 Agreement
deserves caution and careful deliberation.
The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was similar to the 2014
Agreement before the Committee today. Like the 2014 Agreement,
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement contained voluntary commitments
and goals for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay. Following this agreement, EPA in 2003 developed regional
criteria guidance for water quality standards for the
Chesapeake Bay. These criteria led several Chesapeake Bay
states to adopt new water quality criteria, and between 2004
and 2006 the seven Chesapeake watershed jurisdictions committed
to ``Tributary Strategies'' so that the Chesapeake Bay could
meet water quality goals. Thanks to these cooperative efforts,
which were supported by environmental groups, local
governments, agricultural organizations, and other
stakeholders, the Chesapeake Bay was well on its way to
achieving the goals that had been established in the Chesapeake
2000 Agreement. In fact, as we know from U.S. Geological Survey
research on the time lag between taking conservation measures
and seeing water quality changes, the improvements we are
seeing today are as a result of those voluntary efforts taken
years ago.
But this collaborative progress was interrupted in 2009,
when the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other plaintiffs sued
EPA, claiming that progress was too slow and the voluntary
goals in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement were in fact mandatory
duties under the Clean Water Act. In other words, rather than a
mutual commitment to work together on Chesapeake Bay
restoration issues, the lawsuit painted the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement as containing inflexible standards which bound the
Chesapeake states to a nonnegotiable mandate.
Unfortunately, even though the scientific evidence undercut
the claims of lack of progress, the Obama administration
acquiesced to this counterproductive approach. In a highly
questionable 2010 ``sue and settle'' agreement that ended the
CBF litigation, EPA agreed to establish a Total Maximum Daily
Load (Bay TMDL) for nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment flow
into the Chesapeake Bay. But when EPA finalized the Bay TMDL
later in 2010, the final product was an unprecedented Federal
regulation that could not have been envisioned when the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was signed. EPA's TMDL is a costly
command and control mechanism that deprives State and local
governments of their traditional land use decisionmaking
authority. EPA has purported to dictate not only the total
amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can flow
into the Chesapeake Bay, but, by allocating those loads in
excruciating detail and crediting only the load reduction
actions that are included in its Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model, EPA also dictated the manner in which individual
companies and sectors within the economy must comply with the
total load limitations.
EPA's Bay TMDL has enormous repercussions for private
landowners, small businesses, and local governments throughout
the Chesapeake Bay region. According to the University of
Maryland's School of Public Policy, implementation of the Bay
TMDL could cost as much as $50 billion between 2010 and 2025.
Left unchecked, the TMDL could represent a national precedent
that would force State and local officials across the country
to cede their land use authority to EPA. These concerns led me
to sign on to an amicus brief with several other Members of
Congress urging the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to
invalidate this intrusive regulation.
The lesson of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and Bay TMDL is
that certain groups and organizations are all too willing to
turn a cooperative agreement into a Federal mandate, by
whatever means necessary. As Peyton Robertson, the Director of
the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake
Bay Office who is here as a witness today, once said, the Bay
TMDL ``fundamentally altered the nature'' of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, noting that ``[y]ou can't reasonably argue that it is
a voluntary approach anymore.''
Thus, although the June 16, 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement is nominally voluntary, certain questions must be
asked with the understanding that history tends to repeat
itself. For example, by establishing the Agreement, have the
states inadvertently laid the groundwork for a future lawsuit
against EPA? Would EPA settle such a future lawsuit by forcing
State and local officials to devote more of their limited
resources toward unfunded Federal mandates? To what extent does
this Agreement impede current voluntary efforts toward
Chesapeake Bay restoration?
I am glad there will be a robust discussion of these
issues, and I appreciate Senator Cardin holding this hearing
today. I also would like to thank Maryland State Senator
Stephen Hershey for serving as a minority witness. Senator
Hershey understands firsthand how Federal regulation can affect
the land use decisionmaking authority of State and local
officials. I look forward to the testimony of Senator Hershey
and our other witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
from the State of Maryland
Today the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee is convening a
field hearing to examine the newly signed Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement signed by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Partners on June 16, 2014. This new agreement represents the
next chapter in the longstanding effort of Chesapeake Bay
States, and the District of Columbia, local communities across
our region, the Federal Government, and dozens of stakeholder
organizations that are all working together to improve the
health and resiliency of the Chesapeake Bay.
In the late 1970's, U.S. Senator Charles ``Mac'' Mathias
(R-MD), sponsored a congressionally funded $27 million, 5-year
study to analyze the Bay's rapid loss of wildlife and aquatic
life. The study, which was published in the early 1980's,
identified excess nutrient pollution as the main source of the
Bay's degradation. These initial research findings led to the
formation of the Chesapeake Bay Program as the means to restore
the Bay.
A lot has changed since Sen. Mathias commissioned the study
and yet still a great deal remains the same.
What remains true today is that the Bay's watershed spans
64,000 square miles across six states and the District of
Columbia and is comprised of 150 major rivers and 11,684 miles
of shoreline. The Chesapeake Bay region continues to represent
one of the most biological diverse ecosystems in the country.
And sadly, the Bay continues to face enormous pollution
challenges, due in large part to what's changed in the last 40
years.
While we have made great strides to improve pollution
reduction from point sources of pollution, non-point sources of
pollution remain a major challenge. That stems in large part
from the fact that the population in the region has more than
doubled over the last 40 years and is now home to 17 million
people.
The economic value of Chesapeake Bay has grown and is
linked to nearly $1 trillion for the Mid-Atlantic region.
The Bay is still and will always be an intangible cultural
symbol for Maryland and the region as a whole. Generations of
families across Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Pennsylvania
have grown to identify their lifestyle and built livelihoods
around the bounty the Chesapeake Bay has to offer.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the Northern
Hemisphere. There was a time, not too long ago, that the Bay
was the most productive estuary in the world, but physical
changes to the region's landscape resulting from population
growth and economic progress has changed the hydrological
composition of the Bay and its tributaries. A balance can and
must be found. Part and parcel to achieving this balance of
economic and population growth with a sustainable and healthy
Bay is the plan put forward in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The development of sound policies to restore the Chesapeake
Bay has been a top priority of mine over the course of my
career in Congress. I have been fortunate to have great
partners in Congress representing the Bay states. Together we
have worked to develop effective conservation and ecosystem
restoration programs in the Farm Bill, WRDA, the Clean Water
Act and elsewhere in law supporting a variety of conservation
and ecosystem restoration approaches across multiple sectors.
The Army Corps, USDA, and EPA are not the only Federal
agencies doing important Chesapeake Bay restoration work. NOAA,
USGS, The US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service are also important Federal partners in the broader
effort to restore the Bay.
President Obama's May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order
recognized the national interest in restoring the Chesapeake
Bay and improving coordination of restoration efforts because
of wide ranging involvement of different departments and
agencies of the Federal Government.
The coordination of seven jurisdictions, hundreds of local
communities, seven cabinet level Federal departments, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission and stakeholders of all stripes has
necessitated the development of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement to affirm the conservation goals of everyone involved
in this effort.
I want to stress the importance of broad involvement of all
stakeholders in the effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The
populations living and working in the Bay watershed must
realize that we are all in this together whether we like it or
not.
Nutrient pollution and sediment from agricultural
activities in the rural parts of the region need to be better
controlled, just the same as stormwater runoff from lawns and
roads, nutrients in treated wastewater, and the general loss of
pervious surfaces in urban areas also need to be better
controlled. In other words no one source or single sector bears
all the blame for degraded water quality in the Bay. If we all
do our part we will see progress.
The Bay Agreement outlines a comprehensive approach to
continuing the efforts to restore the Bay. The agreement is an
outline of goals and outcomes that compliments established
regulatory requirements and will help all responsible parties
meet their obligations.
The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership was formed in 1983
when the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the
mayor of DC, the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the
EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. For more than
thirty years these entities have remained committed to the goal
of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As the science has determined,
and the interest in Bay stewardship has broadened, this
partnership has expanded to a basin wide effort where all six
states of the basin are now party to the agreement.
This watershed approach is incredibly important, because as
I mentioned before, there is no single source, no single state,
no single sector that bears sole responsibility for restoring
the Bay. Working together to achieve the various goals of the
agreement is what will help ensure that the Chesapeake Bay we
leave for our children is healthier tomorrow than it is today.
The Agreement does acknowledge that the partnership cannot
address every goal in the Agreement instantly. Certainly some
goals may take longer to realize than others. All the goals are
achievable.
The agreement wisely suggests that action be taken in a
strategic, inclusive and cost effective manner.
Of the principles laid out in the Agreement I want to
acknowledge the partnership's commitment to transparency, and
consensus building. The goals of the agreement deal with very
sensitive issues like natural land preservation, blue crab
management, nutrient pollution reduction and others.
Stakeholders must be involved in achieving these goals need
to feel the process and weight of the actions being prescribed
is fair and open.
Restoring the iconic Maryland Blue Crab is important for so
many reasons. Unfortunately, this year's crab population is
stunningly low. The Agreement sets the goal of maintaining a
population of 215 million female adult crabs through 2025. Blue
Crabs are a vital part of the food chain throughout the Bay's
estuarine ecosystem and they are at the heart of the Mid-
Atlantic's multi-billion dollar seafood industry.
Wetlands restoration is critical to flood protection and
water quality improvement as well as providing important duck
habitat and fish spawning habitat. Reauthorizing the North
American Wetland Conservation Act, that I am a cosponsor of and
was happy to see the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported with unanimous support, will provide
additional financial and technical assistance to help achieve
improved wetlands conservation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Programs like NAWC, the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Program, and the Farm Bill's Regional Conservation
Partnership Program along with numerous State efforts to
restore hundreds of thousands of wetland habitat acres across
the region.
The Agreement aims to open up an additional 1,000 stream
miles to fish passage. The revisions to the Continuing
Authorities Program in WRDA will help fund critical dam removal
projects around the watershed that will improve fish passage.
If the decisions to remove dams and other barriers to fish
passage are strategically made this goal could be far exceeded.
The Agreement sets the goal of restoring 900 miles of
riparian forest per year and expand the urban tree canopy by
2,400 acres by 2025. I think we should strive to exceed this
goal. To put it in perspective, the MS4 area of Washington, DC
is about 12,000 acres, and there is a requirement in its MS4
permit for an average of 4,150 trees to be planted annually in
that area. That means that in DC's MS4 area alone, about 755
acres of tree coverage will be accomplished per year.
Increasing the number of trees in urban areas help improves the
quality of life and character of urban communities and trees'
are so important to reducing stormwater runoff in urban areas.
The agreement sets the goal of protecting an additional two
million acres of lands throughout the watershed. This is
critically important to stem poor land-use planning and sprawl
while also establishing lands that serve as critical water
quality improvement mechanisms.
There are many other important components to the Agreement
that we will touch on during this hearing, but Last I want to
express my appreciation for the final Agreement's inclusion of
two separate sets of goals and outcomes relating to toxic
contaminants and climate change.
Reducing the presence or improving the secure storage of
toxic chemicals that are in use around the watershed is a
growing problem. While the January chemical spill in West
Virginia was not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the incident
shone a spotlight on the risk facilities like the one that
failed in Charleston pose to our great water bodies. In the
Chesapeake Bay watershed there are dozens of chemical storage
facilities, and industrial activities that use toxic chemicals
on a regular basis. I am so glad that improving the security
and reducing the contamination risks from these facilities are
parts of the agreement.
Adapting to the effects of climate change needs to be a
priority for our region. Rising sea levels pose threats to the
hundreds of Chesapeake Bay communities and millions of people
that live on the shores of the Bay.
Aquatic acidification poses a long term threat to all
aquatic species including Blue Crabs, Oysters, Rockfish,
Sturgeon, Menhaden and other hallmark species of the Bay. If
the fish and shellfish go so does a way of life for many
thousands of families.
And we must adapt our water infrastructure to handle the
effects of more intense weather events in the Bay region to
reduce the water quality impacts of these events and to protect
individuals' property.
The agreement is an important step toward to restoring the
Chesapeake Bay. Billions have been spent and progress has been
made, but a resource a large and fragile that faces
unprecedented pressures is going to continue to take increased
resources to restore and protect for future generations.
My commitment to the Bay has never been stronger and will
continue to work for the people of my State to protect this
incredibly important resource.
Senator Cardin: We are pleased--and let me just introduce
you in the order that I would ask that you would make some
opening statements. Your entire statements will be made part of
our record. You may proceed in the manner in which you wish.
And we will leave time for questions in regards to matters from
the Chair.
We have Mr. Nick DiPasquale, the director of the Chesapeake
Bay Program at the Environment and Public--in the EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Nick, thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Peyton Robertson, the director of the NOAA Chesapeake
Bay Office, a frequent visitor to us in Annapolis.
And we appreciate very much having you here.
The Honorable Mary Ward, the Secretary of Natural Resources
of the State of Virginia. And we very much appreciate
Virginia's participation in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The Honorable Ronald Miller, a Representative from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives in
Pennsylvania.
It's wonderful to have you here.
And the current chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, I
know Ann Swanson is also here, the executive director of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
The Honorable Mary Ann Lisanti, councilwoman from Harford
County. I know very well the former chair of the local
government advisory committee, and hopefully will give us the
view from local government.
It's a real pleasure to have our local host here, The
Honorable Steve Hershey, a Maryland Senator in the Maryland
State Senate representing the Upper Shore, his district.
But, thank you for your hospitality in allowing us to use
your facilities today.
We'll start with Nick DiPasquale, the director of the
Chesapeake Bay Program at the Environmental Protection Agency.
STATEMENT OF NICK DiPASQUALE, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. DiPasquale: Good afternoon, Senator. And I appreciate
the opportunity to talk before the subcommittee today.
My name is Nick DiPasquale, and I'm director of the EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program Office here in Annapolis.
The--Section 117 of the Clean Water Act actually created--
was created by Congress in the Chesapeake Bay Program. It is a
comprehensive, cooperative effort by Federal, State, local
governments, nongovernmental organizations, academics, and
other entities that share the mission of restoring and
protecting the Chesapeake Bay and the Watershed.
And I was struck by your comments with regard to Senator
Mathias and the tenets that were set out: being inclusive,
having all partners at the table, using science. Those are the
same principles that guide us today in the restoration effort,
so they live on 30 years later.
The partnership includes original signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreements: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
triState legislative assembly representing Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania, and the EPA on behalf of the Federal
Government. With the signing of the new Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement in June, I'm pleased to say it now includes
the headwater States of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia
as full partners in the Agreement.
In 2011, both the Chesapeake Executive Council and the
Federal Leadership Committee acknowledged the need to integrate
the goals, outcomes, and actions of the Chesapeake Bay Program,
as detailed in Chesapeake 2000, the previous agreement, with
those set forth in the Federal 2010 Chesapeake Bay Executive
Order Strategy, which was the outgrowth of the President's
Executive Order 13508. The partners also recognized a new
agreement was needed to reflect improvements in our scientific
knowledge, changes in laws, regulations, and policies over the
past decade and a half, and the evolutions that have taken
place within the partnership, including the Chesapeake Bay
total maximum daily load and the watershed implementation
plans, the development of those plans.
Beginning in 2012, the partners set the course for a new
watershed agreement that would be developed through an open,
cooperative, and collaborative effort. The partnership goal
implementation teams and workgroups comprised of State,
Federal, and local representatives from all jurisdictions in
the Watershed began developing draft goals and measurable
outcomes for the partnership. Each goal and outcome was
developed using the best data and science available, including
past and current performance.
Simultaneously, internal workgroups and the partnership's
principal staff committee developed a core of--a core set of
principles by which the program will operate and be accountable
for its work and its progress. Justification documents that
explain the importance of each outcome, how it was developed,
how baselines were determined, and who was involved in the
development of the outcome are available on our Website and are
really there to inform the public on how we came to the
outcomes that we developed.
To ensure transparency and receive valuable input from
citizens of the Watershed, the partners held public meetings
and published two draft documents. One was a framework document
that laid out the basic structure for the agreement. And then,
the second public document was a full written text document,
both of which were put out for public review and comment. And
the comments that we received from the public had a direct
impact on the final outcome of the agreement.
The new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement was signed on
June 16th. It's the most comprehensive, inclusive,
collaborative, and goal-oriented agreement the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed has ever had. And witnessing the process myself, it
was heartening to see that people came to the table informed
and ready to have discussions and ready to come to compromise
on issues that were difficult to achieve.
It identifies the Partnership's collective commitments for
restoring and protecting the Watershed through a set of 10
overarching goals and 29 specific outcomes. The goals
articulate the high-level aspects of the partners' vision,
while the outcomes express specific time-bound, measurable
targets that directly contribute to achieving each of those
goals. These goals and outcomes are clearer and better defined
than in previous agreements and allow for greater flexibility
through the adoption of an adaptive management decisionmaking
process, one that's based on the application of scientific
process and continual analysis of monitoring data.
The goals and outcomes address the partners' continuing
efforts to improve water quality as well as to promote
sustainable fisheries, vital habitats, healthy watersheds,
stewardship, land use and conservation, as well as public
access. In addition, the goals also deal with a variety of
other issues, such as environmental literacy, toxic
contaminants, and climate resiliency for the Bay ecosystem as
they buildupon the strength of our diverse citizenry and
support of local governments, a call to action to nearly 18
million people in the Watershed that they call home.
The partners agreed to develop and finalize management
strategies for each of the outcomes within 1 year. The
strategies, to be developed by the goal teams, will articulate
the overarching and specific actions necessary to achieve the
goals and outcomes by 2025. That happens to coincide with the
deadlines that are contained in the Total Maximum Daily Load.
They will also summarize the means for accomplishing each
outcome, as well as the methods for monitoring, assessing,
reporting and coordinating actions among the partners and
stakeholders.
Each management strategy is expected to include key
elements or sections that provide details on outcomes and
baselines, factors influencing the ability to meet the goal,
current efforts and gaps, management approaches, plans for
local engagement, programs for monitoring and assessing
progress, and a plan for managing restoration efforts
adaptively. Each strategy will include a 2-year work-plan
section that succinctly summarizes for each partner and select
stakeholder the specific commitments, actions, and resources to
reach the 2-year target for that particular outcome. Together,
these elements comprise the adaptive management system that the
partnership will use to ensure implementation, measure
progress, make adjustments when and where they are necessary
and appropriate.
The goal teams are expected to submit draft strategies to
the management board in early 2015. To help ensure progress
remains on track, the goal teams are expected to reevaluate
every 2 years and update strategies, as necessary, with
attention to changing environmental and economic conditions.
Partners may identify the policy changes to address these
conditions and minimize obstacles to achieve the outcomes.
The public will be able to hold partners accountable for
their actions due to a high level of transparency that hasn't
been seen in previous agreements. The signatory partners agree
to identify their intent to participate in the development of
each management strategy within 90 days of the Agreement
signing. On September 16th, the partnership will publish a
table that identifies the signatory partners who have committed
to the development of the 29 management strategies. We will
also provide information on how the public and interested
parties can participate in the process.
To ensure broad public input and support, the partners
agree to conduct outreach to stakeholders, to engage them in
the development process, and to make information about the
management strategy development available online and through
public meetings, including stakeholder input periods for the
final adoption of each of the management strategies. This
information, likewise, will be posted on the Websites, and
we're providing a process where folks can sign up to receive
information on each of those outcomes.
In closing, EPA and the Chesapeake Bay program partners
remain committed to working collaboratively with all
stakeholders as we begin to implement the new agreement and
develop the management strategies. The new agreement really
represents a next-generation agreement that builds upon
previous agreements and moves our restoration efforts
aggressively ahead.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
and I welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DiPasquale follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin: Mr. DiPasquale, thank you very much for
your testimony.
We'll now go to Mr. Robertson.
STATEMENT OF PEYTON ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, NOAA CHESAPEAKE BAY
OFFICE
Mr. Robertson: Good afternoon, Chairman Cardin. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today on the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement. My name is Peyton Robertson, and I'm the
director of NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office.
NOAA is the Federal lead for several goals and outcomes of
the new Agreement. NOAA envisions a healthy, sustainable, and
resilient Chesapeake Bay with thriving commercial and
recreational opportunities and habitats to provide a range of
benefits for fish and wildlife. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement
will drive this vision toward reality. Today, I will highlight
several areas where we're already making progress. Continuing
to achieve measurable results under the agreement will only
happen with sustained support from Congress.
First, I'd like to speak about the blue crab population.
The blue crab is an iconic species in Chesapeake Bay. And,
while blue crab populations can be highly variable from year to
year, over the last decade populations in the Bay reached some
of their lowest numbers ever, due in part to over-exploitation
and habitat depletion.
Through the Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA chairs the
Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team. In 2008, the
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, a workgroup of the
Goal Team, recommended female-specific harvest regulations to
begin rebuilding the blue crab population. Provision of this
population target began in 2011 with the NOAA-funded Benchmark
Stock Assessment, resulting in new female-specific reference
points that drive crab management decisions today. This year,
the population of 69 million adult female blue crabs is below
the 70 million threshold set by State fishery managers, and, as
a result, Bay jurisdictions agreed to a 10-percent harvest
reduction and established a July to-July fishing season.
However, fishing pressure is not the only challenge
affecting blue crabs. Over-wintering mortality, predation,
cannibalism, poor water quality, and habitat loss are all
factors that affect crabs. NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Interpretive
Buoy System observed lower water temperatures from February to
March of this year, and this overall persistence of colder
water could partly explain the estimated blue crab over-
wintering mortality.
Next, I'd like to speak about our efforts to support
tributary-scale oyster restoration. The native eastern oyster
has declined dramatically over the past century due to over-
fishing, habitat loss and degradation, and disease. Oyster
populations are currently estimated to be at less than 1
percent of historic highs, baywide, and substantial restoration
efforts are necessary for population recovery and improving the
Bay's fish, habitat, and water quality.
In Maryland, three tributaries and oyster sanctuaries have
been selected for restoration, including Harris Creek, the
Little Choptank, and Tred Avon Rivers. In Harris Creek, 377
acres are currently being restored, making this the largest
single oyster restoration effort ever undertaken. We expect to
finish that first tributary by the end of 2015. In Virginia,
the Lafayette, Elizabeth, and Piankatank Rivers have similarly
been targeted for restoration efforts.
The initial results of these efforts are very promising.
The survival rate of oysters just after being planted has
increased 100 percent. We have--attribute this marked
improvement to better site selection informed by NOAA's C-4
habitat mapping and assessment products. NOAA and the State of
Maryland recently found oyster population densities on restored
sites of 49 oysters per square meter, a level consistent with
success metrics developed by NOAA and our partners. NOAA and
the Army Corps of Engineers invested over $14 million in Fiscal
Year 2014 to restore these tributaries.
A third area I'd like to note is NOAA's support of large-
scale research to assess how different shoreline types, such as
rip rap, bulkheads, or natural shorelines, affect adjacent
coastal ecosystems. An important goal of the agreement is to
better inform decisionmakers and provide them the tools they
need. And NOAA is doing that in the Bay region. Our coastal
zone managers can utilize this new science to more thoughtfully
evaluate shoreline alternatives, including the use of more
comprehensive ecosystem-based approaches. The new agreement
also supports NOAA's priority to provide the intelligence
community's need to ensure preparedness and resilience,
allowing them to withstand adverse impacts from changing
climate conditions.
Now let me highlight our work addressing critical habitats
for Bay species. Dams and other obstructions in the Bay
Watershed block the natural migration of fish to historic
spawning habitats. By removing these physical obstacles and
increasing river connectivity, keystone species like American
shad and river herring are able to return to their native
spawning grounds. Since 1988, NOAA and our partners have opened
2,807 miles of habitat to migratory and resident fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Finally, I'd like to note that NOAA's Bay Watershed
Education and Training, or BWET, program is also instrumental
to realizing the Agreement's goals. NOAA is ensuring that
students graduate with the skills necessary to protect,
restore, and conserve the Bay, and launch them into successful
science-and math-related careers. NOAA's modest investments of
approximately $2-and-a-half million annually for education in
the Chesapeake Watershed have reached almost a half-million
students and created model programs.
NOAA's science, service, and stewardship mission touches
the lives of every American. We're proud of our role of
conserving and protecting natural resources in the Bay through
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Continued support for the
programs to strive in this testimony is critical to achieving
measurable results for the Agreement's goals.
And so, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin: Well, thank you, Mr. Robertson.
We'll now go to The Honorable Molly Ward.
STATEMENT OF HON. MOLLY WARD, SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Ms. Ward: Good afternoon. On behalf of Governor McAuliffe,
thank you for inviting me to be part of this hearing on the
2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. My name is Molly Ward, and I'm
the Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Virginia has been an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay
Program since its establishment in 1983, and for good reason.
Of the almost 12,000 miles of tidal shoreline that surround the
Bay and its tributaries, Virginia is home to 7,000 of those
miles. Upon taking office in January 2014, Governor McAuliffe
appointed a Deputy Secretary specifically for the Chesapeake
Bay, Russ Baxter, and the administration immediately began the
review of the new Agreement. Even before the end of the public
comment period, Governor McAuliffe committed to including new
goals for toxics and climate change.
The Bay is a highway for commerce and a draw for recreation
and tourism that is very important to the Commonwealth's
economy. Just 2 weeks ago, Governor McAuliffe announced the
establishment of the Virginia Oyster Trail that will promote
Virginia's oysters industry along the--along with Virginia
wineries and businesses along the trail. We harvested over a
half-million bushels of oysters in the Commonwealth last year,
up from 23,000 bushels in 2001.
On the point-source side, we have invested over 1.6 billion
in State and local money on nutrient upgrades to sewage
treatment plants in the Bay Watershed. We established an
innovative nutrient trading program that provided for load caps
for each facility and each river basin 4 years before the
establishment of the TMDL.
On the agricultural side, over $200 million in State,
Federal, and agricultural funds have been invested. In 2011,
the General Assembly passed legislation that authorized our new
Resource Management Program, which became effective just this
past July 1st. The State/Federal agencies, the agriculture
community, and conservation groups worked together to develop
the implementing regulations. The program, while voluntary,
contains rigorous conservation standards and oversight while
provide a safe harbor from additional regulatory requirements
during the effective period of each plan.
On August 25th, Governor McAuliffe visited a farm in the
Shenandoah to promote the RMP program. He was joined by a
bipartisan group of members of the General Assembly, leadership
from the major agricultural and agribusiness organizations in
Virginia, soil and water conservation districts, and
environmental organizations, demonstrating the wide, strong
support for this initiative.
We are hopeful our proposals for the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program and the critical conservation area
components of the farm bill will be favorably reviewed and
provide needed resources to help fully realize the potential of
this program. We remain committed to land conservation in
Virginia, and particularly with regards to water quality and
Bay access. Despite budget difficulties, we have maintained a
$100 million land conservation tax credit program, and the
Governor has been personally committed to pursuing the Rivers
of the Chesapeake proposal, together with Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and our Federal and conservation partners. We
pledge the full attention of the administration to the needs of
Bay restoration and to be a full and productive partner in this
new agreement to truly restore and protect this national
treasure.
My submitted testimony further details our conservation
efforts.
And I want to thank you for having us here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ward follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin: Thank you very much, Secretary Ward.
We'll now turn to The Honorable Ronald Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD MILLER, REPRESENTATIVE, PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Rep. Miller: Good afternoon, Chairman Cardin and members of
the subcommittee. I am State Representative Ron Miller, of York
County, Pennsylvania, and I thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today as chairman of the TriState Chesapeake Bay
Commission.
The Commission is primarily comprised of State legislators
from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The Commission has
been a signatory to all of the Chesapeake Bay agreements since
the first one was signed in 1983. In fact, the Commission
hosted that meeting at which that first agreement was signed.
Our Commission, and later the Bay Program, was created because
my predecessors knew it would take participation and
coordination across the larger watershed and between the State
and Federal Governments to clean up the Bay. Without Federal
support and vigilance, the Chesapeake Bay Program would not be
the premier restoration effort that it is today. The
establishment of the Bay Program Office, under Section 117 of
the Clean Water Act, and the appropriations of funds for
operations and implementation are critical. We applaud the
recent and proposed increases in this funding and thank you,
Senator Cardin and other leaders of our congressional
delegation who have consistently supported the Bay Program's
work.
A key strength of the Bay Program is the reliance on
science and data to guide our work. Indeed, more data has been
generated on Chesapeake Bay than any other estuary. Experts
from the State and Federal Government, universities, private
industry, and others share information, ask questions,
coordinate their work, and leverage resources. Each of our Bay
agreements have influenced, and were influenced by, this
scientific work. The 1987 agreement set broad nutrient-
reduction goals. Now, through improved modeling, monitoring,
and a better understanding of how each tributary impacts the
Bay, we have specific nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment goals
for our rivers and State-specific watershed implementation
plans.
The Commission's 2013 annual report highlights a few of the
many legislative victories for the Bay that have been
accomplished in our three member States as a result of Bay
agreement commitments. This latest agreement acknowledges that
we cannot do everything at once, and focuses on key actions
that will achieve the greatest benefits. It also recognizes
that participation across the entire Watershed, at all levels
of government, is necessary to achieve our goals. If we are to
be truly successful with restoration of the Bay, it will only
be through the collective efforts of local towns and
neighborhoods across the Watershed, as well as the whole range
of local organizations that play a role in educating,
advocating, and implementing for positive change.
The role of the Federal Government is no less critical. The
Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund and Clean Water State Revolving
Fund support local efforts across the Watershed. Farm bill
programs help our farmers implement cost-effective best-
management practices. And the Chesapeake Bay Gateway Program
helps connect our citizens with the national treasure of the
Bay and its tributaries. These programs continue to be
enormously helpful, and we thank you again for your support.
Looking forward, we call your attention to the opportunity
to designate the rivers of the Chesapeake as a funded, large
landscape initiative under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. I know that you, Senator Cardin, and Congressman Moran
have been leading the fight for this, and we thank you.
Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key
partner in oyster restoration, wetlands protection, and other
restoration activities. Recently developed--the Corps has
recently developed a comprehensive Bay management plan, and we
thank the Senate for recognizing that the Corps authorities in
the Water Resources Development Act should be amendment to--
amended to align with this plan. NOAA's Bay Watershed Education
and Training Program and EPA's Environmental Education Program
face funding threats, and the Bay Program itself, within EPA
and under NOAA, need reauthorization. We also look forward to
the opportunity to discuss how a reauthorized transportation
bill can promote better storm water management and improve
fishing and boating access.
The Federal Government has also been a key voice in the
call for improved transparency and verification of our work,
and this new Agreement is a response. Through the development
of management strategies, specific implementation actions will
be identified as well as the partners who have committed to
them. This can include local governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and private businesses. It will also include our
agency partners across the Federal Government. But, it is
equally important to assure that agency budgets and
authorizations provide the tools and resources that our Federal
partners need to carry out their commitments under this new
Agreement and Presidential executive order.
In summary, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a premier estuary
restoration effort in the Nation because of its science-based
approach to policymaking and the strong partnership between
State and Federal Governments. The new 2014 Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement seeks to enhance this partnership through
better engagement with local governments and organizations and
improved accountability for our work.
I would like to thank you, Senator, for this opportunity,
and look forward to being able to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rep. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin: Well, thank you, Representative Miller.
We'll now turn to The Honorable Mary Ann Lisanti.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY ANN LISANTI, COUNCILMEMBER, HARFORD
COUNTY COUNCIL
Ms. Lisanti: Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for the
opportunity to lend my voice to this effort and share my
experience with local government for the record.
I offer this testimony today as a legislator, a former city
manager, and a member and past chairman of the Local Government
Advisory Committee to the Executive Council, representing 1800
units of local government in the Chesapeake Bay region.
At this pivotal moment in the Bay's future and during the
most challenging of economic times, we have worked to advise
the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the mayor of
D.C., and the administrator of the EPA on policy matters
related to the Chesapeake Bay, and most recently provide input
to the development of this new--newly signed Bay Agreement.
Developing one message from the diverse communities has
been a daunting task. We have fully engaged in this agreement
and the creation of community-based plans for water quality
improvement. Our local plans will guide future decisions and
help each community meet our 2025 goals that have been
established.
Overall, we are pleased with the New Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement, but, notably, we are grateful for the
acknowledgment of the vital role the local government plays in
achieving the vision of an economically and environmentally
sustainable Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
This Agreement does a good job of acknowledging local
governments' role in watershed protection and restoration; but
for implementation to be successful, this simple acknowledgment
must be translated into effective engagement of local
government. We must now go beyond acknowledgment and focus on
achieving outcomes. We must work together to develop management
strategies that identify the actions, tools, and technical
support needed to empower local governments. Success really
depends on all of us approaching this as true partners.
Although the task of implementation seems complex, our
message has been simple and united: Let us focus on our waters
and our towns with projects we know that will produce desired
outcomes. We, in local government, recognize that Bay
restoration begins by cleaning every stream, creek, and
waterway in the Chesapeake Bay region. Clearly, we, as elected
leaders of counties, cities, townships, and boroughs, are the
ones who engage the public, direct our staff, and make the
decisions necessary to improve stormwater management systems
and sewer treatment plants.
To better engage local government, Federal, State--Federal
and State partners must also better understand what drives
local implementation efforts. For example, in some communities,
watershed protection and restoration may be driven by the
simple need to provide--to protect their drinking water. In
others, it may be the desire to restore a freshwater stream in
order to boost their local economy or provide recreational
opportunities. Linkages must be drawn between the local driver
and the Bay.
As local government officials, we are focused on the
basics--protect our communities' health, safety, and welfare,
which, for some--sometimes is not apparent on how that connects
to the Bay. But, when we talk about things that harm the Bay,
like pollution and runoff and flooding, those--my colleagues
and I in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Western Maryland, West
Virginia, New York, and Delaware now understand what is good
for the Bay is good for their residents, too. As we all know,
it all has to go somewhere, and eventually somebody's got to
clean it up.
The new Agreement sets goals for environmental literacy.
Specific strategies must be developed, not only for students,
but for the public at large, decisionmakers, and elected
officials. Although we ask our citizens to fund this necessary
endeavor, we have done very little to simply explain why. If
you engage and educate Main Street, you will gain their
support, influence growth patterns, and reduce pollution in our
communities, which inevitably will improve the Chesapeake Bay.
An effective watershed-wide environmental education program
will ensure that environmental literacy outcomes will be
achieved. If we are to be successful in this agreement, we must
do a better job of communicating the vision as it relates to
people in their daily lives.
I live in Havre de Grace, Maryland, at the--at--where the
Susquehanna River joins the Chesapeake Bay. It's hard for me to
imagine that others don't have that deep connection that I do.
But, as I have traveled the watershed from the Commonwealth of
Virginia to the farmlands of Pennsylvania to Maryland's Eastern
Shore to the mountains to Washington, DC, I have witnessed that
same deep-rooted commitment to protect those special places
that we are responsible for. Many have pledged to do their
part. Now we need your help.
We are grateful for additional funding to implement the
budget. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and
support. While I would hope the funding will continue in the
future, I believe we can also do a better job using existing
funds to achieve benefits. For example, in--well, I'll give
this example later. In--I believe that there are opportunities
beyond environmental funding to align resources to multiply
benefits of water quality.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here
and provide a local perspective to this global issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lisanti follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Lisanti.
We'll now turn to The Honorable Steve Hershey.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE HERSHEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Hershey: Thank you, Senator Chairman, fellow panel
members and stakeholders. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
with this committee on the recently signed Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement.
I am State Senator Steve Hershey. I represent the upper
Eastern Shore of Maryland. And I certainly support the goal of
restoring the Chesapeake Bay. However, because of Maryland's
experience with previous Chesapeake Bay agreements and the
subsequent EPA 2010 Bay TMDL pollution reduction goals, I have
two major concerns with this new voluntary agreement:
First, the voluntary Chesapeake Bay agreements and the
mandated EPA pollution reduction goals are regularly cited as
motivation for advancing policy initiatives which previously
were considered politically untenable. Both Maryland's
executive and legislative branches now craft policy and defend
such policy as critical to the Bay restoration goals. Some have
rightly questioned the necessity of these policies to achieve
Bay cleanup goals, as policymakers have established new
accountability mechanisms to measure success. While it is
important to wonder how effective these policies may be, policy
proponents unfairly dismiss such skepticisms, oftentimes
accusing their authors of not supporting Bay cleanup efforts.
My second concern focuses on the astronomical cost to
achieve the goals and outcomes outlined in this Agreement. In
2012, Maryland's Department of Legislative Services estimated
that the Bay's total cost for pay--Bay reduction efforts to be
$14.7 billion through 2025. Although this agreement asserts
that progress must be made in a strategic manner, focusing on
efforts that will achieve the most cost-effective results, our
experience in Maryland confirms that these restoration efforts
will have an enormous price tag with limited evidence that they
may yield significant results.
Forty-five years ago, when the Clean Water Act became law,
the Federal Government provided 87.5 percent of the funding to
help local governments pay for the massive investments. Since
then, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreements have been
voluntary and generally independent of Federal assistance.
Today, the EPA mandates exist, but the Federal funding does
not.
Forced to comply with these unfunded mandates, State
policymakers have not just passed the financial obligation down
to the local subdivisions, but they have also directed the
manners in which those subdivisions are to meet the Bay
objectives. While these mandated pollution-reduction goals have
accelerated Maryland policy initiatives, such as centralized
planning, tier water and sewer maps, and the usurping of local
and zoning authority, efforts to achieve pollution-reduction
goals focuses on four main areas, which are agriculture,
septic-system regulation, stormwater management, and sewage
treatment.
Maryland's agricultural regulations have tightened since
2010 in an effort to meet the Bay objectives. Demonstrating the
agricultural communities' commitment to Bay restoration, the
Maryland Farm Bureau reports that State farms have already
reached their 2017 watershed implementation plan. Farmers have
worked to reduce the nutrient loading by implementing best
management practices which--with limited State assistance.
Nonetheless, the Department of Agriculture intends to
promulgate further regulations by implementing a phosphorous
management tool which could have a devastating effect on our
region's farmers. With little concern for cost implications,
Maryland is now asking its farmers, who have done their part,
to do more in the name of Bay restoration.
In order to meet the Bay objectives, Maryland has directed
its attention, enacted law, and promulgated regulations
governing the use of conventional septic systems. It should be
emphasized that Maryland's septic systems discharge contributes
0.8 to 1.6 percent of the total Bay nitrogen load. Nonetheless,
under the yoke of the Federal mandate, Maryland has enacted
laws to restrict septic use in new developments. In rural
areas, like the one I represent, this has stunned development,
lowered land values, and dissuaded businesses from locating to
rural counties.
Maryland has certainly been the most aggressive in
relationship to stormwater management. Maryland's Department of
Legislative Services reports that stormwater management
initiatives will cost local governments $6.27 million over the
next 15 years--I'm sorry--billion dollars. Since this mandate
contains no funding, the Maryland General Assembly passed what
is commonly known as the ``rain tax,'' which forces local
governments to impose a tax on businesses, commercial
industrial properties, and homeowners, based on the amount of
their impervious surfaces. This tax has certainly not improved
Maryland's reputation amongst businesses and industry. The
imposition of the--and uncertainty of each county's
implementation of the rain tax presents an additional
impediment for businesses seeking to locate in Maryland.
The fourth focus to reach the Bay cleanup objective has
been for upgrading Maryland's existing wastewater treatment
plants. Maryland's 67 major plants were the first to be updated
with local funds in grants from the State's Bay Restoration
Fund. This special fund is financed by an assessment known as
the ``flush tax'' on all property owners across the entire
State. Maryland intends for its smaller plants to be updated in
the coming years with enhanced nutrient-removal technology.
While larger wastewater treatment plants this technology have
reduced their nutrient output, smaller plants do not treat the
same volume of waste, and the expensive upgrades create only a
marginal environmental benefit when--one must consider the
volume of waste processed through the treatment plant.
Again, cost-effectiveness is of little concern. For a
smaller municipality, the price tag for an ENR upgrade can be
staggering. I represent the town of Betterton, in Kent County,
which has a population of 339 people. Last year, Betterton
approved an ENR improvement of its existing wastewater
facility. The projected cost is between $5.5 million and $7
million. While Federal and State grants may reduce the total
cost by about 3 million, the town may have to find a way to
finance the remaining $2.5-to $4 million. For a town with such
a small population, one can't help to consider if such an
upgrade is a worthwhile investment.
These major investments in wastewater treatment facilities
and stormwater management projects on top of the regulations on
our farming industry and restrictions on growth in our rural
counties in the name of a healthy Bay come at a heavy cost
without any guarantee that the investments will pay off.
Consistently, Maryland's executive and legislative branch
policymakers along with environmental organizations have chosen
to ignore the single largest point solution--point of pollution
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: the Susquehanna River and the
discharge of nutrient and sediment that flows through the
Conowingo Dam. This disregard is once again apparent as this
agreement fails to mention either the river or the dam.
All of the goals and the outcomes outlined in this
agreement, along with the investments to achieve them, might be
in vain as one major storm event in the Bay Watershed could
wipe out any progress. Failure to address or assign
responsibility to dredge and maintain the accumulated sediment
behind the Conowingo Dam undermines the legitimacy of this new
Agreement.
I would urge other States considering voluntary pacts
similar to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to enter such
agreements with caution. In Maryland's experience, non-
adherence of such agreements have served as a basis for an EPA
unfunded mandate. Similar agreements could provide the opening
needed for EPA to force States to spend billions on
unaffordable and largely ineffective efforts that may never
reach their intended goals. As an outcome of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement or EPA mandates, improvements in the health
of the Chesapeake Bay must be achieved in a prudent and
fiscally conservative and responsible manner. We all want to
save the Bay, but how to do so with limited Federal Government
resources is still a point of discussion.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hershey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin: Senator Hershey, thank you very much for
your testimony.
Many of you mentioned additional Federal resources, which
is something that is dear to all of our hearts on dealing with
the Chesapeake Bay. And I could mention literally every member
of the Congress from the Bay region who have been helpful to us
in the Chesapeake, but let me just acknowledge Senator
Mikulski, my colleague and chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. The two of us have had several discussions on how we
can maximize the Federal resources in regards to the Chesapeake
Bay. And it's incredibly helpful to have Senator Mikulski as
Chair of the Appropriations Committee, and I just really want
to acknowledge that.
Senator Hershey, you raise some very valid points in
regards to how the plans are implemented. So, let me just back
up. And you're correct that the current enforceable program on
the Chesapeake Bay comes under the Clean Water Act. The waters
have been determined to be impaired, and there is certain
science that base certain results and enforced an--and held--
progress by the TMDLs, and we can judge where we are in regards
to improvements. But, the Watershed Improvement Plans, the
WIPs, are developed by the States, so the specifics are really
a State issue, not so much a Federal issue, as to what is
determined to be the priority of the State in reaching what
science says that we can reach. And I understand some of the
concerns you raise, but I think many of these are State issues
more so than Federal, although I would like to get more Federal
funds. I couldn't agree with you more on that point.
So, let me start, if I might, with Mr. DiPasquale. As--you
were saying there's accountability in the Chesapeake Bay
programs. It's a State--have signed on, but it's voluntary. So,
can you sort of reconcile how we have accountability in a
voluntary agreement?
Mr. DiPasquale: Sure. Well, I think, as you know, Section
117 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Agreement, and there
are no enforcement mechanisms or enforcement provisions that
are contained in them. So, it's not like a law or regulation
that would be implemented and then there would be consequences
if a party didn't comply. So, it has been the best-faith effort
of the signatories to the agreement that have given us the
progress we have achieved to date.
There is a modest amount of funding to support the new
agreement, and we're working with the States and the District
of Columbia to help provide support to them. I might also add
that, under the TMDL, about--almost two-thirds of the funding
that comes to the Bay Program ends up going back out to the
States to help them implement their obligations under the TMDL.
So, there is more support on that end.
But, it is a voluntary agreement. The States will
participate and contribute--all the signatories will, to the
extent they can. I think we recognize that there are some goals
and outcomes contained in the Agreement that aren't really
relevant or appropriate for some of the jurisdictions. Blue
crabs, for example, probably are not a big concern in West
Virginia. So, we know that they're not going to be
participating in that part of the agreement.
But, the agreement does define what participation really--
what activities constitute participation. And it's a wide range
of activities: contributing data, providing reports, sharing
successful experiences in each of those jurisdictions.
But, we--the accountability really comes in the management
strategies and the biennial reviews. And we will measure our
progress. We will be held accountable by the public. We're
going to make all of that information available, at a click of
a mouse, basically, or in any form that anybody needs to get
it. But, the accountability really is in the management
strategies and the 2-year reviews and progress updates.
Senator Cardin: Well, you know, and I applaud you for being
very specific as to the goals in many different areas. I could
talk about the number of oyster restoration projects in 10
streams. We could talk about some of the specifics in regards
to acreage of wetlands that you intend to protect, the number
of conservation acres in a State, the restoration of sea
grasses and--I mean, there's a lot of specifics in this
Agreement. But, there is less specifics on dealing with
agriculture, specifically. You don't have the cover crops or
things like that spelled out. There's less specifics on storm
runoff. Is there a reason why those two areas are not as
specific as you have it on the fish habitat and on some of the
other areas?
Mr. DiPasquale: That's a great question, Senator. And
really the water quality goals essentially adopt the existing
TMDL and Watershed Implementation Plan, so there's no specific
source sector that's broken out. Those are already contained
within the Watershed Implementation Plans, and those are the
mandatory part of the program. So, it--there was some
discussion early on about not including water quality, and
specifically the TMDL, but the signatories felt that it was
important to have water quality contained within the voluntary
agreement, even though it was a regulated or mandatory program.
Water quality works in conjunction with habitat and
fisheries. And I think the signatories felt it was important to
really deal with the entire restoration effort on an ecosystem
basis, and water quality was included for that reason.
Senator Cardin: That's helpful. And I understand the aspect
of adopting what's in the TMDLs.
Let's go to point source for a moment. Toxic. As I
understand it, at least some of the original drafts did not
have the toxic in there. It seems like it's even less specific
as to how we deal with point source problems.
Mr. DiPasquale: Correct. The original document that was put
out for public review did not contain a toxics goal and
outcome. And there were some signatory members who felt that
the existing programs would--were already doing an adequate job
dealing with those issues. But, there were others who felt
that, certainly, the partnership could provide a coordination
effort that could look for gaps. We have a lot of emerging
contaminants--for example, pharmaceutical products, estrogen
disruptors, those sorts of things--that wastewater treatment
plants don't currently deal with. We're also dealing with a lot
of legacy issues; for example, from PCB contamination and
mercury contamination. And those are pretty widespread in water
bodies throughout the country.
At the end of the day, after receiving public comment--we
received 2400 comments, and many of those were focused on
toxics and climate change. And the signatories agreed that they
needed to be included in the new Agreement.
Senator Cardin: Let me move to State and local for a little
bit. I'm--Mr. Robertson, you're not off the hook. We're--I have
some questions for you on specific issues.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin: But, let me--Senator Hershey, I want you to
know that I did hold a hearing on the Conowingo Dam. So, we--
our subcommittee held a hearing on that, because we are
concerned about the impact it has on water quality. I learned a
new term: dynamic equilibrium. I never knew that term before
that hearing, dealing with sediment issues. And that--and there
is a permitting process, as you know, in regards to the
Conowingo Dam, that is currently being reviewed.
So, the fish passageway that Mr. Robertson talked about is
a major part of our effort on the Bay, so it's not just the
sediment and pollution that is blocked by dams that can be--
cause surges that we're not exactly sure of the total impact on
the water quality, but it's also fish passageways and fish
habitat that's affected by it. And if you've never seen the
fish elevator that's at the Conowingo Dam, it's worth a visit
just to see how the shad make it upstream. And eel have a
little bit more problems. They have to--we have to use a car to
take them up, or something. I don't know how that all works,
but it's----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin:--it is a challenge to deal with the habitat
issues whenever you have a blockage on the--on our rivers.
I am amazed, Ms. Lisanti, that you're dealing--you had to
deal with 1800 units of local government.
Ms. Lisanti: Yes.
Senator Cardin: That's a challenge. I mean, there's a lot
of local governments, and they don't have the same degree of
flexibility that a State may have.
Ms. Ward, I--we give the States flexibility so you have
some way of judging what's important for your State.
But, if I could ask the two of you, How do you deal with
the local governments, versus the State, in trying to put
together your action plans and policies? And, Mr. Miller, you
want to join us in this discussion? I'm just curious as to how
the input from our State and local governments are handled to
get into the Bay Agreement itself.
Rep. Miller: It's a good question, Senator. In
Pennsylvania, as you know, we probably add to the--a huge
amount to those numbers of local governments with our
municipalities, boroughs, incorporated towns, townships. It's
difficult. It really is. But, we are making a very specific
effort at the State to reach down to them and do an educational
process. I will tell you that York County is at the forefront
with stormwater planning, trying to come up with a coherent
plan across the whole county that will work for stormwater
management.
But, you are absolutely correct, it is an educational
process, it's an outreach process that we need to continue to
work on.
Ms. Lisanti: From the Local Government Advisory Committee
perspective, we have representatives from all of the signator
States, and they're a diverse group of elected officials. Some
are from municipalities of less than 300, others are from major
subdivisions, others with strong county governments, some with
very weak State governments. Very different forms of government
in those 1800 units.
So, what we tried to do in providing comments that would be
effective in the agreement was to look for commonalities. It's
very easy to get caught up in all the things that we disagree
on, so we focused on the things that we agree on. And all of
us, as elected officials, agree on one very specific tenet, and
that is that we need clean water, whether it's the Chesapeake
Bay or Lycoming Creek or the Rappahannock or whatever wellhead
that you get your community's water from. Scientifically, we
know that what happens on the land affects water quality. So,
we started there. We started with the basic tenet that we're
looking for clean water.
Second, our approach to the States and to EPA is to educate
them on the capital budget investments that we are doing at a
local level. Many of our public infrastructure investments are
joint-funded with the State of Maryland and--with all the
States, and sometimes with the Federal Government. So, we were
looking for creative ways to leverage those funds so that we
would have a water quality outcome. So, we tried to educate, if
you will, our State and our Federal partners as to what we do
on the homefront so that they can make better policy decisions.
Senator Cardin: I really do believe that the Chesapeake Bay
strategies was bottom up. It came from the locals up to the
Federal, and it was initiated by leadership in our State and
our counties and private sector, and that's how the Bay
agreements came about. It wasn't Washington saying, ``Hey, why
don't we have a Bay agreement?'' It was----
Ms. Lisanti: Right.
Senator Cardin:--basically, the locals saying, ``We know we
have to work together. And, by the way, we need the Federal
Government, and we need your help in putting this together.''
How did the Commission interact with the Bay Agreement? Was
there an open process, here? Are you satisfied that local
government got enough input? That's to you, Representative
Miller.
Rep. Miller: From the Chesapeake Bay Commission----
Senator Cardin: Yes.
Rep. Miller:--perspective?
Senator Cardin: Yes.
Rep. Miller: Senator, you know all politics is local. You
need to work with your colleagues to get something passed. In
Pennsylvania, we need to do the same. So, it becomes an
educational process, working with everybody to try to convince
them that this is the proper thing to do. But, since all
politics is local, the point was very well made that it--we
don't have to focus on the health of the Bay, we have to focus
on the health of individual rivers, watersheds. People get
that. They understand. They want clean water in their creeks,
they want clean water in their rivers, they want to be able to
fish, they want to be able to recreate in those waters. So, we
have to boil this down to a local issue. We have to sell the
importance of this on ``everything is local.'' We address the
needs in our own watersheds, and, by doing so, we will address
the needs of the Chesapeake Bay.
Senator Cardin: Senator Hershey, you and I are going to
agree that our farmers have done a really first-rate job in
trying--they want clean water, they want the Chesapeake Bay--
they understand the importance of it. We've had programs in
Maryland with cover crops and farming practices to try to deal
with the challenges of the Bay. We also want to preserve
farmland in our State. It's far better to have farmland than
developed space, and we want to maintain a strong agricultural
base, particularly on the Eastern Shore, where it's part of the
life.
There seems to be a lot of national interest on what's
happening in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which, at times, can
cause it more difficult for us to have the type of relationship
that we've had in Maryland with our agricultural community in
trying to work together on the agreement. Do you have any
advice for us as to how we can get greater confidence from the
agricultural community that we are really balanced, and want to
be balanced, in the way that we deal with the future of the
Chesapeake Bay?
Senator Hershey: Well, I think you said it. We certainly
want to have more farmland, but we don't want to continue
having the farmlands being the target of the pollution that's
going into the Bay. And far too often, we're seeing that some
of our farmlands are being targeted with where the sediment is
coming from, with having to do--more than just cover crops, but
having to maintain ditches, having to maintain certain
waterways. And we feel, over and over, that the farmers have
done their job in doing this.
As we said earlier, they've already reached their 2017
pollution reduction goals, and I think it's about time that the
farmers are given the opportunity to take a look at, and have
more input into, what these different policies are. As I said
before, a lot of my concerns on these things deal with cost-
effectiveness.
And last summer, we were meeting with the farmers in
Easton. As I mentioned earlier, the State of Maryland is
talking about putting a phosphorous management tool in place.
There were over 500 farming families that were at this
location, up in arms about what these new regulations are going
to do to their businesses. And I don't think that we look at
them enough, and I don't think we get enough of their input on
what the cost-effectiveness is what the cost-benefit is on
these types of policies. We need to include them more.
Senator Cardin: Secretary Ward, I've mentioned, several
times, the flexibility to the States. And I want to get
Virginia's perspective as to whether there is adequate guidance
for you to make your local decisions, consistent with the
overall strategies. And I would appreciate your comment on
that, and then I'm going to get to a specific question on
oysters, in a moment.
Ms. Ward: Well, I have a local government background, as
well, and I agree with what the other speakers have said, in
terms of, you know, that is where the decisions really get
made, and that really is where the rubber meets the road. And
that's our perspective, as well. And we've included the local
planning district commissions, the soil and water conservation
districts, and the people that really have their boots on the
ground as we've gone through this process. We've thought it was
very, very important to have them at the table the whole way
along the route.
Senator Cardin: So, let me talk about oysters for a moment.
Virginia was a pioneer in looking at an Asian oyster, as to
whether that could work. We've been pretty desperate to try to
increase our oyster crop. We've seen some positive signs in the
last several years. I appreciate what Mr. Robertson has said
about that. So, let me get your view, and then I want to turn
it over to Mr. Robertson, as to how he plans to implement this.
It's pretty specific about 10 restoration projects in--I
think it's 10 streams. Are you confident that will be
determined in a fair manner by the discussions you've had in
the development of the Bay Agreement?
Ms. Ward: Is this my question or----
Senator Cardin: Yes.
Ms. Ward:--Peyton's question?
Senator Cardin: No, I'm getting to----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ward: I'm sure he's confident as----
Yes, we are confident. We've had a great partnership, thus
far, and had fair and open discussions. And we expect to
continue to do so. And, you know, Virginia, as I stated in my
comments, has had this very aggressive restoration program, in
terms of oysters and oyster reefs. We've just laid some new
concrete--concrete substrait reefs in Virginia and are taking
it river by river. So, we--I don't--we don't always agree, but
I believe that we do have a clear road ahead, a clear path
ahead.
Senator Cardin: Well, OK.
Let me turn to Mr. Robertson for a moment. I've been out in
the Bay, I've been with watermen. I know the--a little bit of
the politics of oyster restoration, and it's pretty--can be
pretty complicated. It's not easy. You made a very general
statement that you're going to select the best locations from
the point of view, I guess, of productivity. My guess is that
was a little naive, that there will be some politics played on
the 10 sites that you select. Can you give us a little bit more
guidance as to how these selections will be made?
Mr. Robertson: So, from a NOAA perspective, of course,
we're talking about being in State waters. And so, our role as
a Federal agency is really facilitating a process by, you know,
trying to provide sound science and working with the States to
bring that information to bear on their selection.
In the State of Maryland, the State identified a variety of
historic oyster bars, essentially looking at the historic
habitat that had been most productive, looking at what
available habitat was still there. NOAA's support for that
really has been to go out and confirm that the habitat that's
been identified for doing that restoration is the best
available to do the work so that science essentially is
contributing to where we focus the work. We've done a similar
effort in Virginia.
I appreciate your point that, with respect to affected
interests, not all are necessarily appreciative of whatever
designations those--have been made, in the case of Maryland's
so-called sanctuaries, which are off limits to fishing. But,
I'd offer two hopeful outlooks for the future to try to
reconcile those differences:
One, the point made earlier, not only that all politics are
local, but Councilmember Lisanti talking about what's
meaningful to people on a local level. I think we're finding
that using a tributary-based approach, where the river system
is named--and I'd use the Lafayette, in Virginia, as an
example--looking at the way the community has come together
around that river and how interested they are in oyster
restoration really gives us signs that there's a growing
general public interest in these ecological relations, and
they're owned, really, by that community. Again, the
Lafayette's a great example.
The other is that, with the gross of the--growth of the
aquaculture industry, which has--is really taking off in
Virginia and is following suit in Maryland, that there is now a
bit of a bifurcation in the industry, and many are going--the
entrepreneurs are essentially going after aquaculture, because
it's more cost-effective and effectively generates greater
profits. And so, I think, as more watermen use--you know, move
to that approach of growing oysters, whether they be on the
bottom or in cages, we're going to see a shift in pressure off
of the wild fishery, and perhaps some of those conflicts that
have existed with local watermen communities will be defused
over time.
Senator Cardin: So, I think you've answered my question. I
think you have. By saying ``best available,'' you're talking
about within the confines of the State's interest. Is that a
fair statement? So, you would evaluate applications through the
States and then, within that, determine best available?
Mr. Robertson: That's right. I mean, the way the work is
actually done is an interagency workgroup that includes NOAA,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State management
jurisdictions; in the case of Virginia, the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission; in Maryland, Maryland DNR; along with
other partners, to look at exactly what you said, what are the
States' interests in areas that they would like to identify.
And NOAA and the Corps are providing both the science and
looking at the projected resources necessary so that we can
support the effort both with science and implementation
funding.
Senator Cardin: And there has been Federal interest in
helping fund on oyster restoration. It's----
Mr. Robertson: Absolutely.
Senator Cardin:--an area that there is a great deal of
interest in trying to deal with. And, as I said, we've seen
some encouraging signs. You know, I don't want to get too
optimistic, because we're still only at 1 percent, but we have
seen some encouraging signs. And there seems to be more
community support for oyster restoration. So, it's an area that
we need to move forward. And I'm very interested in following
up how the 10 sites are actually selected for this project.
Let me turn to crabs for one moment. You mentioned a fact--
you have an ambitious goal, I must tell you, considering the
recent numbers--you mentioned the problem with the recent crab
population was overexploitation and habitat degradation. I
think they're the two issues that you mentioned. So, how do we
deal with the two problems in order to achieve our goals on
adult female crabs?
Mr. Robertson: So, going back to how that target was
established--so, 215 million adult female crabs is the result
of science continuing to evolve. We used to have a goal that
was 200 million adult crabs. The last blue crab stock
assessment said we really should focus on females. That science
was used to apply by the States to setting that target. The
point of your question is, you know, in terms of natural causes
versus manmade causes or fishing mortality, as we call it,
which is essentially watermen taking crabs out of the water,
that's something that, you know, we can manage that effort.
Those are the so-called knobs that can be turned by managers.
These other natural factors of mortality are ones that we have
essentially theorized about. We have some good science that
supports the suggestion that something like overwintering
mortality or the temperature drop last winter was so severe
as--a number of crabs died, and therefore the available female
population to restock the next year, if you will, wasn't
available. But, frankly, that's part of the road ahead, as
well, to understand better what the range of these factors is.
They've been theorized by everything from crabs eating each
other to red drum coming into the Bay and consuming crabs in
the lower Bay.
So, there'll be a continued need for science to inform that
decisionmaking, but I would also offer that, in terms of the
partnership between the jurisdictions that manage this fishery,
being the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission, and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, and all those fishery managers who were just
together for a meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, down
on Tangier Island last week, there is great cooperation amongst
those jurisdictions. There's also a real sensitivity to the
pain that's caused when they do have to turn the knobs and
ratchet down on the fishery. And there's, I think, a sincere
commitment to move forward and make sure they understand fully
all the range of factors that are affecting blue crabs as they
manage that fishery.
Senator Cardin: I want to get Senator Hershey into this
discussion, if I might. And I want to come back to give you a
chance, also. But, it seems to me this is a very sensitive
issue.
I think there's an understanding that what we take out of
the Bay affects the health of the Bay. I think there is an
understanding. And we've gone through a long process on
rockfish, and it's a--it looks like it was--the results have
been pretty positive on the rockfish population. But, one thing
we learned from that is, to have a healthy industry in our
State, they need some predictability as to what their season is
going to look like. They just can't--we can turn it on pretty
fast and turn it off pretty fast. They can't. So, how do we
make these decisions in a way that's sensitive to those that
are in the industry?
And, Senator Hershey, let me turn to you as to--am I
correct, is this a concern that you hear about in regards to--
--
Senator Hershey: You're absolutely correct. In fact, last
session, we had legislation addressing that same issue, on how
DNR is turning on and turning off, whether it be limits or
whether it be the season, in itself. And what our commercial
watermen are certainly asking for is predictability. They want
to be able to know that they have a certain season, that they
go out and they can earn a living in doing so.
I think what we also find in the differences between maybe
what Mr. Robertson and I deal with on a different basis is, he
certainly deals in the science end, and I certainly deal in the
end of talking every day to the commercial watermen and what
they're doing. And there is a discrepancy there. There is a
disconnect.
So often in Maryland, we seem to believe that policy
sometimes is driving the science, that, in a sense, the policy
is being created on the--on, again, maybe in the interest of
the Chesapeake Bay or in the interest of some type of act, but
we're not seeing whether or not the science came first or the
policy came first. And the commercial watermen are definitely
out there, along with our farmers, are saying that we see, over
and over again, this policy comes first and then all of a
sudden they dig up the science to back that up. And, you know,
again, more and more, we need to get these groups involved.
They are a tremendous industry in the State of Maryland.
Agriculture, No. 1, farming--and, you know, commercial watermen
are doing everything they can. It's becoming tougher and
tougher on these groups, and we really need to include them so
we can find better ways to help them out.
Senator Cardin: Mr. Robertson, what type of assurance can
you give on making decisions in a timely way for those that
make their livelihood off of the harvest of the Bay?
Mr. Robertson: Well, I think, first, a cautionary note that
providing predictability with respect to blue crabs is a big
challenge, because they're a--they're not like striped bass or
rockfish, they don't run on 7-year recruitment cycles, they run
on annual recruitment cycles. And so, these variety of factors
that we think may affected them are very difficult to address
in such a short timeframe.
But, I would say that, with respect to predictability,
there are a variety of good efforts going on, including, in the
State of Maryland, something called the Blue Crab Design Team,
which has been working with industry to try to provide both
greater accountability, in terms of what watermen are out there
catching, and, in return, provide greater predictability by
trying to create some sort of understood allocation or basis
for which the fishery is predicated on. In so doing, from an
economic standpoint, if you're a crabber, you actually have the
better ability to get a more predictable price for your bushel
of crabs when you bring it dockside. Right now, we've been in a
cycle of boom-bust; whereas, abundance increase, fishing
pressure increases, but the price that watermen get at the dock
goes down. And so, that's actually not in the interest of
watermen in the long term. We'd like to see it become both more
accountable and more predictable so that they actually get a
much better and consistent price at the dock, and that's going
to contribute to their livelihood.
Senator Cardin: And I suppose the restoration of 185,000
acres of submerged vegetation will be well-received among those
who make their living off of the crab crop, so that's a--that's
certainly a very positive step.
Mr. Robertson: Certainly, habitat issues out there that
we'd love to see----
Senator Cardin: Yes.
Mr. Robertson:--SAV come back.
Senator Cardin: Representative Miller, I want to talk about
the upstream issue just for one moment. I was--in reading some
material for today's hearing, I read a lot about the brook
trout. I was fascinated by it. It's a beautiful species. It
lives upstream. It lives in cold, clean water, which, to me, is
somewhat like the canary in the mineshaft. If we have brook
trout, then we've got healthy water. So, how do--I've always
been amazed--not amazed, but, I guess, pleased by the
leadership in Pennsylvania in understanding the importance of
the upstream water supply in the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, the Bay
is important to you, but it's not as direct as it is to those
of us who live on the shores. So, could you just give us a
little bit of your views as to how we deal with the upstream
issues which are so critical to the health of the Bay?
Rep. Miller: Absolutely. Of course, trout fishing in
Pennsylvania is very, very important. We have seen--actually
seen more impact on the smallmouth bass in the Susquehanna
River, and we're trying to address those issues. One of the
problems that we have is finding the scientific data to
identify exactly what is causing the issues. It's difficult to
design a program to address anything if you don't know what the
cause is. So, there is a lot of study and effort going into
finding out exactly what is causing those issues.
But, we go back to the same thing that we've discussed
quite often. It's--you need to address it at the local level. I
believe Pennsylvania is doing its fair share. One of the things
we try to do is inform our decisions based on the data. If you
look at it, Pennsylvania provides over 50 percent of the fresh
water to the Chesapeake Bay. Our phosphorous loading is 20
percent of the loading to the Bay. Now, some people might make
the argument that that's because of the dams acting as the
sediment points. But, if you look at a publication put out by
the Chesapeake Bay Commission recently, it shows the trends for
phosphorous and nitrogen in the States. And if you look at
Pennsylvania, the trend for phosphorous at every monitoring
point is down. We're doing a good job of reducing the
phosphorous loading coming off of the Pennsylvania areas in the
watershed. There is one where it is not significant change,
increase or decrease. I cannot say the same for all the spots
in our neighboring States. But, we all have to address our own
issues.
I believe the dam--the issue of the two dams will be
addressed as we go forward. But, what has to be realized, that
probably without those two dams for the past 80 years or so, we
might actually be looking at a Bay that right now is a dead
zone. It really did help to save the Bay to the point it is
now. We will continue to do our share, but we have to address
it on the local watersheds. And you're absolutely right, our
fishermen demand it, we'll take care of addressing the issues
with the brook trout, even though I think they're doing fairly
well. We'll continue to find the answer to address the
smallmouth bass, and I think we'll all be better for it.
Senator Cardin: Well, we very much appreciate the
leadership of you in Pennsylvania in this area. It's been----
Rep. Miller: Thank you.
Senator Cardin:--the Susquehanna is critically important.
And New York's also a critical State for us on our freshwater
supply. So, it is a huge part of the Bay initiative.
Mr. DiPasquale, I was recently on the Eastern Shore with
the Coastal Storage Program at Assateague. I had a chance to
meet with some students as they were spending their summer
learning about the challenges of the--of water quality in the
Bay. And, I'll tell you, it was just encouraging to meet with
these individuals. And my thoughts were, you know, how do we
capture that, how do we make sure that training is not lost and
that we have a better environmental education literacy program?
It's part of the Bay Agreement. My colleague in the House, John
Sarbanes, has taken a leadership on No Child Left Inside, that
we've got to get children much more sensitive. There is no
question that the environmental literacy and access to the Bay
are two areas that are in the Bay Agreement, the new Bay
Agreement, that are aimed at helping future sensitivities to
preserving the Bay. Can you just tell us a little bit more how
that discussion took place and how the agreement is framed in
that regard?
Mr. DiPasquale: I'd like to. So, the executive order that
was issued in 2009 actually contained a number of goal and
outcome areas, environmental literacy and public access. One of
the objectives of the new Agreement was to try to better
integrate the efforts of the--under the TMDL, under the
executive order, and to incorporate those into the new Bay
Agreement. So, now we have a separate environmental literacy
goal and outcomes. A lot of work has already been done in that
area. Maryland certainly has been one of the leaders in
environmental literacy and very much supported by the
administration here. NOAA has actually led the effort in the
work that's been done under the executive order. And public
access is the--is a program that the National Park Service has
been working on to increase the number of public access sites
by 300 sites throughout the watershed. There are some areas in
the watershed where there are 50 or 60 miles of shoreline
without public access. And so, they're looking for
opportunities to site new public access sites.
But, it's important, I think, for citizens, both young and
old, to understand the value of the Chesapeake Bay and the
water--the tributaries, actually, throughout the watershed, and
to try to learn about them and protect them.
Senator Cardin: And, Mr. Robertson, of course, you have the
BWET program. My predecessor, Senator Sarbanes, was critically
important in establishing that program. We're very supportive
of it. Does the Bay Agreement tie into the work that you're
doing?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, I think, directly. I mean, it's really
building off the success of that program, the idea of providing
a meaningful experience for students at least once--the
previous commitment of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, to
provide that experience once during their high school or entire
school career, grade school career. Now, in the new agreement,
being, let's try to make sure they have one of those types of
experiences in both elementary, middle, and high school. So, I
think it's building on the idea that we know those experiences
have an impact on students. It sounds like, perhaps, some of
the ones that you interacted with. And that if we can continue
to expand that, we'll see great results, going forward.
I might also just add that, you know, it's not just taking
them out to a place, it's not just what they learn, it's now
they learn it, and that this sort of integration of literacy--
environmental literacy into school systems and into the
curriculum is really becoming a way of teaching that I think is
understood to have a bigger impact than just teaching the
subject, so to speak.
Senator Cardin: Thank you.
I should point out, as I did a little bit earlier, there
are many different programs that feed into the work of the
Chesapeake Bay--in the Water Act and recently in the farm bill
with the Regional Conservation Partnerships--and we're very
interested to see how that is moving along, since that is brand
new. The Bay was, of course, designated as one of the critical
areas in the country, so they'll be allowed to qualify for two
sets of funds under that program. So, that's--gives us another
source of funds that go into the Bay.
I will be talking with--I already talked to Secretary
Jewell in regards to the designation under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. We think it is absolutely wrong that there
is no waters on the East Coast, other than the Everglades, that
have been designated under that program. So, we are going to
push hard to try to get funding.
The State Revolving Funds, of course, are used to help deal
with this. The President included in his budget $70 million for
the Bay Agreement. The markup in Senator Mikulski's committee
includes that $70 million. So, there are funds that are
available to try to help deal with these problems.
So, let me, finally, ask about one area in the agreement
that seems like it could consume every dollar you have there
and then some, and that's resiliency, dealing with the
realities of the challenging climate that we have.
So, I just really want to know, To what degree to you
expect resiliency to be advanced in regards to this chapter of
the partnership among the States? What can we expect? I--again,
I--the challenges of dealing with the unpredictable has been
very, very difficult for all of us. So, how is that worked into
the agreement?
Mr. DiPasquale: I'll take the first shot at it and then
turn to Peyton. NOAA has a specific role in that effort.
So, you're aware that there is a separate goal and two
outcomes dealing with climate resiliency and adaptation. And I
think there's been a recognition over the last several years
that needed to be front and center in all of our efforts
because of the impact that climate change can have on the work
we're doing to try to restore the Bay. So, if we have higher
temperatures in water, for example, that could actually reduce
dissolved oxygen, which is an important part of the TMDL. It's
all really connected.
A lot of the States have already started moving ahead with
adaptation plans. We've seen Hurricane Sandy have a tremendous
impact, and the Corps has done a--along with NOAA--has done a
terrific job in identifying opportunities to make waters more
resilient to those kinds of impacts. We're going to be hiring a
climate change coordinator, in fact, in the next few months,
and that individual not only is going to be responsible for
assisting us in updating the Bay model to deal with climate
change impacts, but also working across all of the goal
implementation teams to show them areas that potentially could
be impacted by the effects of climate change. And NOAA is at
the front and center of that. In fact, we'll be executing an
interagency agreement with NOAA to bring on that coordinator.
Senator Cardin: Peyton.
Mr. Robertson: So, I think that's one piece of it, is
bringing a focal point to it, right, is an issue that's so
pervasive, is to try to create a point of contact and a means
for which the issue can be addressed across all of these goals.
Climate is understood to be a factor that's going to affect our
ability to achieve every one of these goals. And so, it's a
crosscut that way, and we're going to take a look at it that
way.
My full written testimony includes some specific examples
of the kind of work NOAA's doing. But, in essence, you know, as
has been referred before, we're really a science agency with
service built in, in terms of the ways we can bring that
science to bear for other decisionmakers. And so, that's
effective, because what we're trying to do is both understand
what's happening here with respect to change and setting up a
sentinel site cooperative to look at that, look at monitoring
sites, and actually see what's happening to sea level and
coastal inundation over time, looking at things like frequency
of severe storms and the impacts that has on, not just the
environment, but on coastal communities, and ultimately make
that information and tools available to local communities,
because, as you've heard on this panel, that's where the action
is. So, we really want to make sure the preparedness and the
resilience is housed at that level, and the ability to drive
decisions is there where the action is.
Senator Cardin: I appreciate your response. So, it seems
like what you are suggesting is that it'll be informational so
that we understand what is happening in the risk factors.
Obviously, there are two ways to deal with this. One is to try
to deal with the causes of climate change, which is not in the
Bay Agreement. I understand that. That's a separate debate
that's taking place in this country and globally. The other is
dealing with adaptation, which is an area that we can deal
with. And it is a real challenge, because we've looked at some
of the cost issues on infrastructure, for example, or for beach
renourishment or--you could just go through the different
areas. And they are pretty--it's pretty steep, the cost in
regards to dealing with adaptation. The truth is, we have to
deal with both. And it's--I--it's important that it's part of
the agreement, because there's no question it has a direct
impact on the future and quality of the Chesapeake Bay. So, I'm
pleased to see that is part of the agreement, but I--it's--
you're just starting us down that path. We're going to have a
much more serious discussion on those issues.
I don't know if anyone else wants to make any comments
before we wrap up.
Ms. Lisanti: If I may, Senator. I just want to leave you--
you asked some of the--you asked how do we--what would be
advice for moving forward? And I think that, very often--we
were talking just a few minutes ago about environmental
literacy, and we always focus that on our children, which is
very, very important, because it is their lifestyle that
changes and their connection with nature that will help these
policies move forward in future generations.
But, for the immediate short term, one of the things that I
think is lacking--and we talk about this a lot in our Local
Government Advisory Committee--is boiling all of this down to
very simple steps, very simple outcomes. I--particularly the
Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA does a fantastic job of doing, you
know, major reports on each one of these sectors and their
effect. But, how we communicate that--I think Senator Hershey
said that--as local government--I know, Representative Miller,
you've had the same--you have the issue--we are the people that
meet Main Street. And to explain some of these very highly
technical matters to the average person, or us, as lay people--
you know, as elected officials, we're expected to know a little
bit about everything in--we think we do. We try, as--and some
do it better than others. But, it--these are very difficult
times, these are very difficult concepts. This is very
difficult science. So, to have that global education is so
important.
I think back, as a child, to programs that the Federal
Government did, advertising, like Smokey the Bear. Smokey the
Bear is something that I connected with as a child and guided
my decisionmaking without me even realizing it. I also remember
there was another national--I think it was a National Park
Service advertisement that showed an American Indian on the--on
a riverbank with debris and litter floating by, and they went
to him, and he had a tear in his eye. That was--that impacted
me as a child, that made me think of the world in a different
way. And I think we get so bogged down in all of the details
and, you know, in all of the science, but we forget to
communicate to the average person on the street what this is
about.
You know, that's why we have issues like--you know, in the
State of Maryland, we have a debate on whether we tax the rain,
or not. Taking that issue, as a legislator, and explaining to
the people that I was federally required to impose a tax on,
and explain to them, ``We have a stormwater fee that you are
paying out of your general fund.'' We are now, in our county--
we were different than a lot of the jurisdictions, but we
removed that from our general fund and made an enterprise fund
so the--so it was a direct cost for direct service. We also
allowed people to opt out. In Harford county, you don't have to
pay the fee if you take care of your own stormwater. It was a
very simple step, but it took a lot to be able--for all of us
to be able to explain that.
So, I can't let environmental literacy on a global level go
without emphasis.
Senator Cardin: Thank you.
Well, let me thank you all. This hearing has been, I think,
very helpful in trying to understand the new Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. As President Obama joined a list of Presidents who
have declared the Chesapeake Bay a national treasure, this is
of importance to our entire country, not just the States and
the region in which it is physically located, because of its
richness and its biological diversity. So, this is a national
issue.
But, also, what's being done in the Bay is being looked at
nationally for other great water bodies, which my--the
subcommittee I chair has jurisdiction over. So, whether we're
talking about Naragansett or we're talking about the Great
Lakes or we're talking the San Francisco Bay or Puget Sound or
the Gulf of Mexico, they're looking at what worked in the
Chesapeake Bay and trying to duplicate that so that they can
also have a game plan that will help future generations.
So, this hearing has been helpful, not only in better
understanding of our committee in the U.S. Senate on the
Chesapeake Bay and the evolution of the agreements to where we
are today, a voluntary agreement that is consistent with the
actions under the Clean Water Act to try to bring it in a
consistent way. It is also helpful for us to look at what works
and doesn't work in our country so that we can have the most
cost-effective, efficient, scientific-based plans so that we
can lead the Bay in a better State to our children and
grandchildren. That's our goal.
And we know that this is a long-term effort. When we
started this 35 years ago, we knew it would be--need the
attention for a long time. And it has had that attention, and,
in part, because of the people that are here testifying today.
And we thank all six of you for your being here today, but,
more importantly, for the role that you have played in the
Chesapeake Bay.
And, with that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]